Jump to content

User talk:Hipal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 26 April 2010 (Undid revision 358480142 by Ronz (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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





Archive

Archives

Response to message in Drrll User Talk

Please respond to my most recent message on my user talk page. Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Is there an alternative to the BLPN for bringing in the opinions of others? I would take it to BLPN, except that it looks to be simply a way to report someone for action to be taken against them.--Drrll (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy right violations - I will take more care.

Article : Coconut Oil You observed that My contributions to Coconut Oil page violated copyrwright rules and it appears I overlooked while contributing. I will take more care in future while contributing. Thank you.

How to sign my post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayabhari (talk • contribs) 11:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - related to beer in mexico

Hi Ronz, I just wanted to leave you a note, since we seem to run into eachother once in a while. While we do tend to disagree on how wikipedia should work, I wanted to say that it is nothing personal. In general I am against tagging articles, unless there is a clear cut benefit to doing so. So many tags are added that don't encourage edits and mearly retract from the overall effect of the article. Note that this is probably not the case for the beers of mexico article. Regards, CoolMike (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm still trying to figure a good approach for food and drink articles. They attract a great deal of spam and promotional material. For now, I'm settling with some quick cleanup and tagging. In the rare occasion where there's a response, it can get a bit frustrating if editors argue for the status quo. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV requires representing multiple points of view

I think that the article about fluoridation doesn't represent the point of view that fluoride is harmful instead of healthy! By removing my annex you violate this principle! I don't know what means FRINGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdraganov (talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Opposition to water fluoridation presents the specific topic in detail. WP:FRINGE describes how to properly handle these situations. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polimore spam and User:81.213.223.53

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours - report again at AIV if more is necessary. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I doubt there'll be any objections to the blacklisting, so this should end quickly. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Ronz

Thankyou for your message and I am definitely new to all of this and still learning. I will take everything that you have said into consideration, plus read the relevant links and ensure that any information placed up in the future is better substantiated or more relevant.

Thanks for the welcome notes and take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonchalky (talk • contribs) 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. You're correct in that you can't go far wrong if you make sure information is substantiated and relevant. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AHRS linkfarm edit?

Hello, You seemed to delete a valid list of vendors (except for two) from the AHRS entry. Can you explain your position here? All vendors listed seemed valid, and provide a good reference comparison for this kind of technology. Thanks, ~Mr Yan —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrYan3434 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear. It was a list of external links except for the two you. See WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bioinfoman.com

Abt Topo cloning page: I added information about the procedure and corrected previously incorrect information. Why am I not allowed to link to my source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelbykins (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your subsequent spamming of the same domain, I thought it best to remove it. Why not use the sources that the site you linked lists instead? --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hello Ronz, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My plan was to use it mostly with editing tools. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep Hygiene edits

Ronz... I would contend that Sleep hygiene is by its very nature a "how to" topic. Not including the classic tips on the subject, that are handed out by every major authority in sleep medicine is a disservice. The topic had been previously flagged requesting expert opinion and expanded content which I (a registered sleep expert) gladly provided. It is not a conflict of interest as it doesn't promote anything but good sleep hygiene. The rationale listed is well founded and offers an explanation to the layman as to why these tips are recommended. The cited Sleep Training Manual was convenient as it's a published accumulation of research that I have previously put together that cites numerous areas of research that encompass the varying areas of sleep hygiene that would be well beyond the scope of the article itself. One could cite the entire Principles and Practices of Sleep Medicine if it would make you feel better about it. I feel the unwarranted and excessive editing of content is frustrating to the point that people who are experts in these fields really reach a breaking point of not wanting to contribute at all. Which is unfortunate. Cronides2 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Did you read WP:MEDRS and WP:COI, which I mentioned as well? On the article talk page you'll see that the how-to problems have been discussed, and I already gave my opinion there. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BJCP

Could you explain this edit on the talk page, please? — goethean ॐ 20:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the confusing edit-summary. I'll explain on the article talk page. Have you looked at the quality of the sources? --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moyers

Hi, could you point out where anything on the page is primary sourced only. I think most things that are primary sourced are also secondarily sourced. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned with the opinion pieces like citing David Limbaugh's book. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack in the Green

Hi Ronz,

I'm slightly confused, you just left a message asking me to stop posting promotional materials on the Jack in the Green Pages. I'd be grateful if you could have another look at what I posted as you will see that the information is completely relevant to the subject. It refers directly to all of the current existing Jack-in-the-Greens that remain in England and the links attached to each title are direct links to the sites used by those Jacks to enable interested parties to be able to find out where and when the Jacks will be each year. I am not linked directly to any of these groups and so am only giving information about a current folklore tradition that is hopefully once again thriving in England and supporting that information with appropriate links. I read the rules carefully before adding this information and can see no infringement of Wikipedias rules. If you could explain why this is an issue I would be grateful. Otherwise I would politely request that you place the information back. My area of expertise is Green Men and The tradition of The Jack-in-the-Green. I am directly related to one of the Chimney sweeps who paraded the Jack in the Green at St Mary's Cray back in the 1890's and so feel that I am able to provide accurate and relevant information regarding this subject.

Regards

Chris Walton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogbadger (talk • contribs) 22:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK thanks for that Ronz, I think I'm beggining to get it (doh!) So if I reproduce the article without links but cite my sources (probably one or two books that exist) then that might be acceptable? My only issue is that the main source i.e the person who has done the footwork and actualy seen that these events still exist is me and therefore the most reliable source is my website www.thecompanyofthegreenman.co.uk which is constantly updated by the people who have this knowledge and send me the information/pictures etc, but I am unable to cite this as a source due to conflict of interest! bit of a catch 22! If I re-edit it would you mind having a look for me to see if it is heading towards acceptability please Ronz?Bogbadger (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Replied on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack in the Green 2

Hi. I take your point about Bogbadger. However, as regards the current Jacks in the Green, the only "reliable" source you are ever likely to get for the background to most revived folk customs is what the participants themselves tell you; these days, that is generally via their website. If you trawl local newspaper reports you are likely to get the same stuff word-for-word (plus the odd obligatory local press typos and slapdash errors). If you are going to tag a remarkably well-referenced web article such as the "The Dirt on the Jack-in-the-Green" one as an unreliable source (it has a full list of published sources, and maintains an admirably sceptical attitude to various "origin theories", despite having been published in a potentially rather flaky publication), then you are obviously extremely difficult to satisfy.

And thanks, by the way, for undoing all the extra bits of editing that I did to the "Current Jack-in-the-Greens" [sic] section and other parts of the article. Would you care to reinstate some of that? Cheers. SiGarb | (Talk) 19:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the subsection you added and removed the rs tag from the ref. I tagged the reference hoping for some feedback. Thanks for providing some.
I've removed the rest per WP:V and the other policies and guidelines I mentioned on your talk. I share your concerns about the types of sources available, hence the removal of the material. I'd hope we can find some proper sources. Maybe in the entries in the Bibliography section which I noted on the talk page? --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Zinn contribution

Hi Ronz You have twice deleted the contribution I made by adding a collection of lins to Howard Zinn, external links. Your reason was, that the list is not in English. Well at least it is bilangual, and the only non-English is the bilangual foreword, (and some subject-headins at the buttom of page 1) - the rest, all the linsk are in English. So I hope you will reconsider the list made by some librarian collegues of mine, since it is o.k. from a librarian point of view, buth in contens and form, from the angle of progressive sources. Howard Zinn (1922-2010) http://www.modkraft.dk/spip.php?article12484

Yours Jørgen Lund Librarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.60.193.24 (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reason was that it was not in English and redundant with the links and other information. Take it up on the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

calavera beer

I know you are very protective of the Beer in Mexico page, but the information about Calavera shouldnt be completely deleted. After all, the info about the Santa Fe Brewing Company above it can be considered to be just as "spammy" and these guys seem to have beers that at not common in Mexico. I did, however, tell the other guy that he needs to cite the passage better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelmadatter (talk • contribs) 01:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note.
I'm not "protective" of it, other than to prevent it from getting worse.
If there's other problematic material, fix it, tag it, or discuss it on the talk page. Don't use it as an excuse for more of the same. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Wiki-expert-edit

Hello Ronz. This user is complaining about an unsourced allegation in the Naveen Jain article. Since you've been following this article more closely in the past year, do you know the answer to his question about the Short Swing law? (asked at the bottom of the page). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The material he just removed may not really be all that essential to the article. The COI issue was one of extreme beautification and removal of Jain's well-sourced history; this one is different. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It fits the pattern of problems that the article has had for years: whitewashing factual information from the article. If Jain hadn't litigated over the situation as he had, I'd have agreed that it would deserve minimal treatment. At this point, I'm surprised no one has tried to expand on it with information from his suit and appeals, which went all the way to the Supreme Court. --Ronz (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rossi

Why do you think these are off-topic? One is the subject's church, which he founded and currently runs (the article of which is about to be deleted); the other is the subject's movie (perhaps a link to the bio subpage is preferable). THF (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the cleanup there!
Regarding the links, external links should be to information about Richard Rossi. If there's a bio or profile subpage in either of those sites, which I couldn't find as I indicated in my edit summary, then linking to those subpages would be appropriate, especially when there is no sites the meet WP:ELOFFICIAL. All I could find was http://aimeesemplemcphersonmovie.com/7101.html, which doesn't include enough information about him. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Entry: Naveen Jain

I have done my best to provide you with the sources and corrected the information based on the facts but you seem to disagree with it. I don't want to edit-war with you but don't understand the reasoning for you undoing it. I have read all the facts on this particular situation and what I am quoting here are the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've not provided the sources, ever. Instead, you edit-war. Your most recent changes were confusing, even nonsensical. They've been changed by another editor. If you continue to edit-war, you'll face longer blocks, and eventually be banned. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Entry: Naveen Jain

You are completely incorrect. See definition of 16 (b) below. It's simply a profit recovery mechanism irrespective of knowledge or intent. This is unlike 10 (b) law which is insider trading law requiring knowledge and intent of trading shares.

16 (b) applies to all beneficial owner, director, or officer of the issuer. Any profit realized by him/her from any purchase and sale, or any sale and purchase, of any equity security of such issuer (other than an exempted security) or a security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) involving any such equity security within any period of less than six months, unless such security or security- based swap agreement was acquired in connection with a debt previously contracted, shall inure to and be recoverable by the issuer, irrespective of any intention on the part of such beneficial owner, director, or officer in entering into such transaction of holding the security or security-based swap agreement purchased or of not repurchasing the security or security-based swap agreement sold for a period exceeding six months. Suit to recover such profit may be instituted at law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction by the issuer, or by the owner of any security of the issuer in the name and in behalf of the issuer if the issuer shall fail or refuse to bring such suit within sixty days after request or shall fail diligently to prosecute the same thereafter; but no such suit shall be brought more than two years after the date such profit was realized. This subsection shall not be construed to cover any transaction where such beneficial owner was not such both at the time of the purchase and sale, or the sale and purchase, of the security or security based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act) involved, or any transaction or transactions which the Commission by rules and regulations may exempt as not comprehended within the purpose of this subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stick to the sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Entry: Naveen Jain

I made changes to make it similar to what you had it before. I think we are very close on the content to what's accurate for a reference article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed sourced information, again. You've not explained why. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wiki-expert-edit

Thanks for notifying him. I've done a few 3RR reports and never saw that instruction. --NeilN talk to me 05:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on [1] BTW. --NeilN talk to me 05:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reiki article

Hi, hope all is well. If you have time would you check out this article and the changes that have been made? My first impulse was to take the article back prior to the recent edits of xxglenxx. This editor has removed paragraphs that are cited. It also reads with his specific POV from my perspective. Here's the changes that show in the history. I picked you since you have edited this article at another time with this editor so I thought you might know the editor better. Plus I usually just watch for vandalism because my POV on this is extreme. ;)

On a different note, how's your friend? Should I take this to email? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. We've been crossing paths a bit in various articles, and I've been meaning to drop you a note.
I've not looked at the changes in much detail, but it appears to be mostly cleanup and organization. I've specifically looked for removal of good sources and sourced info, but haven't noticed any. Are you sure he's removed sourced information and not just moved it?
There's still cleanup to do just getting the Notes/References in sync.
The big work involves giving all the sources and their use need a going-over, with an eye to WP:MEDRS and NPOV.
Email me about my friend. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok email has just been sent to you! :) As for the Reika article, it looks like two paragraphs have disapperared but maybe he did move it in the rewrite. I guess I need to look a lot closer, but not today. My time on the computer is about done. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Silverstone

Hey. As I'd rather not battle with the anon IP, I started a thread at Talk:Alicia Silverstone#Recent edits about her site so we can discuss these edits. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well. This problem has been going on for a long time. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oakfromthesmoke

Hi there. I saw your prep for block edit at User talk:Oakfromthesmoke. It looks like this is another sock of User:Eurobeerguide. The relevant sockpuppet investigation is archived here. I'm unsure of how to reopen a sock investigation, or if simply a new one is to be opened. If you have more knowledge in these matters, perhaps you could help out in blocking this sock. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I report him at WP:AIV, given how obvious the problems are. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Young

Ronz -

I am attempting to make the article for Ed Young more acceptable in the Wiki world. There is a section that appears occassionally titled "Controversy" that has misinformation that I delete. I've done what I can to make this entire article neutral, without biased or slanted information. Please let me know what else I can do for this. I look forward to your help in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theandyboyd (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm not sure when I'll have much time to work on it. The tags should give some direction. I'm assuming Young can meet WP:N criteria, though the article doesn't yet have references that show this. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The following was reinserted to the Media Attention section:

In February 2010, an investigative story based on unnamed sources that reported Young is living a much more lavish lifestyle than his church members and the public knew. Allegations include owning and vacationing in an $8 million Falcon 50 airplane, a $1 million salary, a $240,000 per year parsonage allowance, a $1.5 million home, and many companies selling his sermons for profit (which the church watchdog group Trinity Foundation of Dallas believe should belong to the church and be available for free).[1]

While much of the original malicious content was removed in the latest edit, the other side was not reported. Allegations did not include owning a jet. The others - the salary, the house cost, etc. - were based on misinformation by the reporter. He was questioned about this by a local radio station the following week, which was not included, and he failed to meet several tenants of basic journalism throughout that story.

All allegations were refuted by Ed Young the following weekend in front of the church. [2]

Theandyboyd (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If it fails BLP, it doesn't belong. I'm not sure it's proper to remove the reference completely, provided it is used with care. Either way, it needs to be discussed. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reference should probably be in there but cut down extensively. It was a major story that Young was investigated and should be noted but should be dually noted that he refuted all claims at the church. I will make an attempt to neutralize it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsmith016 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sybian.. You have previous history of editing this page

Some editor named WLU has taken it upon himself to correct the Sybian page. He has omitted many details that were important to wiki users. Can you look at the article and help clean it up, He does not like me too well, as I told him his revisions were spiteful...

Karen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1rapunzle (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page, pointing out the specific information that concerns you. As you know, the article has been a magnet for promotional material for a very long time. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Informercial

On infomercial am i able to at least write company names?

product examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.138.12 (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting a discussion. You can write about just about anything relevant to the topic, if you include independent, reliable sources that verify the information. I'd be surprised if such sources couldn't be found for the larger companies. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if such sources couldn't be found for the larger companies. What does that mean?

on my first edit i sourced infomercial websites.

can i list any product from the companies?

i'm not trying to advertise anything, just list the products that the companies have.

can i undo your edit now?

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.138.12 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello again #3, are you a soap opera fan of Y&R? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.138.12 (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you used were just their own websites. The sources need to be independent of the entities you're referring to per WP:SELFPUB, as well as reliable sources themselves.
I'd guess that there is some news coverage of infomercial companies that could be used. --Ronz (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y&R

did you get my message? are you a soap opera fan of Y&R? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.138.12 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Y&R is. --Ronz (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello, hope you are well. I just want to let you know I'll get back to you hopefully next week. I got rushed to ER through 911 Tuesday evening and got home Friday afternoon. I was very sick and still running real slow. If you want, I'll fill you in later when I respond back to you. I just want to let you know I got it and that I'm not ignoring you. :) Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Get well! --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

I have made a request for mediation here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-08/The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Regards, ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the notification. I'll not participate given that editors are simply ignoring policy. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about solidworks

hi Ronz I'm mechanical engineer new here and I'm not spammer i just want to connect all subject related to solidworks cad cam program together just it , i don't know why think that I'm spammer . solidworks all mechanical engineer know it didn't need advertisement, sorry agian i didn't know all rules 217.52.178.38 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on AIV, seeing that you restored your blog link again. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Wikipedia articles of Star Trek, Caprica (TV series), Smallville, and Stargate allowed to have External Links to to fan Wikis and NOT the Wikipedia article of NORAD Tracks Santa ??

Ronz - received this note from you. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Template:Do not delete [2] --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, I have seen that Wikipedia articles of Star Trek, Caprica (TV series), Smallville, and Stargate each have an encyclopedic set of entries and provide access to fan Wikis such as Star Trek Wiki, Caprica and Battlestar Wiki, Smallville Wiki, Stargate Wiki.

What is the issue in having the same with the NORAD Tracks Santa article having a Wiki access of NORAD Tracks Wiki for the devotees of the effort. As Simon Peter Hughes phrased it quite well on the NORAD Tracks Santa Talk Page "I think such a link (to [NORAD Tracks Wiki]) here (at the NORAD Tracks Santa Wikipedia article) could prevent further grief in the future. Simon Peter Hughes (talk)" That I whole heartily agree with !!!

Besides why do these Wikipedia articles of Wikipedia articles of Star Trek, Caprica (TV series), Smallville, and Stargate each have an encyclopedic set of entries and provide access to fan Wikis such as Star Trek Wiki, Caprica and Battlestar Wiki, Smallville Wiki, Stargate Wiki for devotees and not NORAD Tracks Santa ??? Please explain that !!! Otherwise it seems like a "double-standard"

Check the NORAD Tracks Santa Talk page for "Where previous versions of the article could go and a Link to a NORAD Tracks Santa Wiki from the Wikipedia Article" BillJohnson0003 (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed this at Talk:NORAD_Tracks_Santa#Splitting_this_up_into_seven_different_articles_is_not_the_answer. If you don't understand my response, disagree with it, or require further clarification, please do so there. I'll do the same. --Ronz (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with such a link, as a harmless case of interpreting policies elastically. However, Ronz is a hardliner in these affairs and has policy on his side. I am not going to fight a battle that I can't win for something that I am not interested in. I believe he was attracted here by the completely unnecessary fighting that accompanied the clean-up work. Now he is here and watches the article. Tough luck. Hans Adler 10:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Beep Test Page

Hello Ronz, Have added a topic on the discussion page about a link to the complete guide to the beeptest on TopEndSports it really is very useful, why is this being deleted in favour of Rugbycoach.com which is not as comprehensive. Rob Wood (Sports Enthusiast) has worked very hard to pull all the beeptest information together onto the TopEndSports site & is very useful link for wiki users. Best Regards Ian Bickerton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.41.160 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on this. Let's see what response you get with the article discussion you started. --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dental floss

I've had a bit of a hunt around regarding the dental floss claim, and think I understand how it started. I've put a short note on the talk page. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so called vandlism

i was updateing the new korn album as it is on wikipedia here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korn_III:_Remember_Who_You_Are if u wont let me update it then you could do it your self lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.57.0 (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The warning applies to all the prior edits from that ip. If you're editing from a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eukarya

Please do not add "Eukarya" to taxoboxes by reverting edits. Eukarya is not required. Komodoboy16 18:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few edits before I realized it was fine without it. I saw no need to undo the edits though. Please don't label them "vandalism". --Ronz (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

spammed links on user talk pages ..

Ronz, would you mind to use {{LinkSummaryLive}} (with the domain as the first parameter) on the talkpages of spammers that you tag? It gives some extra functionality, and quicker finding of problem-editors. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, would it be useful for you to have access to User:COIBot/Poke ?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea. I've been experimenting with it, but haven't been using it very consistently.
I'll have to look into User:COIBot/Poke. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added you as a trusted user for using User:COIBot/Poke. If you need it, you can. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction Design

Hi Ronz
Don't you think that some mention of SID was well placed in that Article on Interaction Design, really ? Or ~did you undo it because the way to place it was inappropriate ?--Nanomega (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, after a closer look I see that you added SID into the internal links, wich has the same purpose though less explicite. That might do the trick.
Given that the Article is lacking citations, I intend to prepare a short section on "Further Reading" occasionally. Do you have any idea ?
--Nanomega (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reiki Article

Hi Ronz, The Changes I made were to correct the misquotation and misrepresentation of a scientific article that I added to the page. I simply corrected the way the article was referenced to support a claim that was not made in the paper. I have not added any personal analysis, but have upheld the neutral point of view policy by correcting a opinionated statement that is not representative of the source referenced. Please message me back if you have any further points of interest so we can go through in detail the reference and why I made each specific change. Thank you and I'm sorry if my changes have caused you any upset.

-Vajko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajko (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. If you didn't notice my edit summaries, I disagree with the changes to the summaries and conclusions.
Let's discuss on the article talk to make it easier to get others involved. There are multiple related discussions there already. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Failed verification" on Balsamic vinegar

Could you please explain in Talk:Balsamic_vinegar why the reference to the producer consortium failed verification? I understand that their website is not a third-party source, but they should be quite a reliable source of information related to production of traditional balsamic vinegar of Modena. The consortium has to examine and approve each bottle of ABTDM before it can be sold in the market. Thanks for your response, -- Ruupert (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, I could not verify the information in the article from the page linked in the article as a reference. See WP:V and WP:REFSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their site is made with Flash and does not provide means for linking to individual pages, but the information is not terribly difficult to find: from the main page, open the English/DSL site. For information about the used grapes (Lambrusco and Trebbiano), select "How it is obtained" and then "Harvesting of the grapes". For the aging process, go to "How it is obtained" --> "Aging". --Ruupert (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the directions on how to find the verifying information. I'll take a look when I have a chance. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that should probably be deleted

I think I've found an article that qualifies for speedy deletion. It is misleadingly titled Haitian Creole Derivatives but it is actually a first lesson for learners of Haitian Creole. The writer appears to be another person who does not properly understand the purpose of Wikipedia. I am letting you know because my experience has shown that you are well versed in these matters.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I have the time. In the meantime you might want to get others involved through WP:THIRD or other options from WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the adice. I'll do that.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamelan external links

Hello Ronz, I should like to discuss the edit I made today March 27, which you deleted. As I have not done this 'talk' procedure before, please tell me the best way to go about it. Also please let me know if you have an interest in music and in gamelan music in particular. Thanks, Giovanni —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Sciarrino (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up to my note on your talk page.
If you want to get others' opinions on the matter, the article talk page would be the best place for discussion.
As I pointed out on your talk page, I removed the link per WP:NOTLINK, WP:EL and WP:SPAM. This was the third time you've added this link to Gamelan. You've made no other contributions to the article, and no other contributions to Wikipedia in the past three years. --Ronz (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Governance, risk management, and compliance

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Governance, risk management, and compliance. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governance, risk management, and compliance. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamelan external links 2

Hello Ronz, I’m new to interacting on these talk pages, so forgive some questions and naiveté on my part. My signature name is my real name and I'm geographically located near Torino in Northern Italy. What about you? If real identity of interlocutors is not considered relevant in Wikipedia, I shall oblige, although I see some merit in it. Another aspect that I'm curious to know about is rather technical: how come you have reacted so quickly (second deletion) to my (third) addition of the 'Collection of Javanese recordings' in External Links of the 'Gamelan' article. As to the content of the matter, I kindly ask you to consider the following points:

  1. . The site that I included as external link, www.gamelan.to, is not a commercial site. There is no opportunity or proposition for buying the recordings. The reproduced full cd-booklet contents, written by authorities in the field, provide a wealth of information of the highest level. The musical excerpts, much longer than the typical commercial samples, are there to document and inform on the musical genre.
  2. . The production side of these recordings is totally non-profit. I, as a curator and producer, do not recover my costs nor intend to. On the inlay card of each cd it is written: "Any net revenue received by the producer from the sale of this cd will be employed for the preservation of the Javanese musical tradition." Also, it should be remembered that quantities and money figures involved in this niche of recorded music are extremely small.
  3. . If 'my' link to Javanese recordings is to be consider as commercial, then some reference books and other recordings (Smithsonian Folkways, Indonesian Fusion, etc in Music of Indonesia article) should also be considered as commercial. Or, if not, why so.
  4. . Two sites included in the External Links of the Gamelan article – 'Balinese and Javanese gamelan' and 'Hands-on simulation etc' – have or lead to commercial propositions.

I hope, Ronz, you may recognize the validity of the above arguments. By the way, on the occasion of my second addition of the link I received the consent of an administrator who is active in the gamelan field. GS (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Giovanni Sciarrino[reply]

Thanks for continuing to discuss the situation.
As you guessed, it is indeed inappropriate to ask editors for personal information.
As I suggested, take this to the article talk page.
Please review WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maqui berry changes

Thank you, Ronz for changing the article back to its original form, I lost the categories that were there initially and had not replaced them yet. I'm still in the process of writing the article

I am trying to create an informative entry for maqui berry on wikipedia and am in the process of adding relevant and informative links.

this category has been baron for too long. I ask that if you have something to add please add a link or expand upon the thought written but do not just delete everything created.

every link cited is an Informative Article, maybe that should be in Further Reading...

please in future be constructive instead of trying to be a wrist slapper. The entries will be better because of it.

-iwebwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwebwork (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting your account be blocked per WP:U. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Gerson entry

Hello,

I am a Gerson scholar and published scientist. Additionally, I chaired an NIH report chapter that discussed Gerson's contributions. While it is true that a few proponents of Gerson have made extraordinary claims, Gerson did not do so himself. I am on record stating that Gerson's treatment is not a cure for advanced cancer.

But, I don't think that history should be revised. The 2 peer-reviewed articles and 1 medical monograph that I cited more than support my prose. Dr. Urbach was a grand dean of American dermatology, and his recitation of the list of authors (clinical investigators) who approved of Gerson's dietary therapy for skin tuberculosis should be sufficient to support my written statement.

What troubled you about the entry?

Gar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghildenbrand (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on this.
I've started discussions at the talk page on two concerns with your suggested edits, and listed relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamelan external links 3

Hello Ronz, for the moment I give-up. Too time-consuming. This situation made me focus on generalizing the issue and I realize that there are in Wikipedia.org tens (hundreds, thousands?) of instances of articles not only about commercial companies and undertakings but also providing indications apt to inducing purchases. It is not even the case, I think, that I provide examples but I would if requested. Would you kindly comment on this? SincerelyGS (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Giovanni Sciarrino[reply]

Sorry I been delayed in following up on this.
Yes, there's lots of cases of Wikipedia being used for promotional purposes. Many more are removed every day.
I don't understand what value you think the link provides. I'm guessing the site doesn't work well with my browser set-up. All I see is a list of CDs, with information on each CD. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help.

Dear Ronz, I am helping to create a page on wiki for "Master DeRose". I am a fan of his work and I also teach one kind of Yoga, called DeRose Method, which he is the codifier. Unfortunately Wikipedia wants to delete this page, saying that has a few issues not solved. I really don't know what to do, even because all content that I put is based in books written in Portuguese and Spanish by him and his disciples. Any help from you will be really well-come. Regards, Pacifici —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifici2010 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this.
"all content that I put is based in books written in Portuguese and Spanish by him and his disciples" That's the reason it will be deleted. The solution is to either meet our general notability criteria with multiple, independent, reliable sources that cover DeRose in a non-trivial way, or by meeting other WP:BIO criteria.
Another editor, fluent in Portuguese, has offered to help with this. Hopefully, we'll find appropriate sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeRose and Swasthya Yoga

I left a note on the discussion page where you left your request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Portuguese-fluent_editors_needed_for_DeRose_articles --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot of work ?

Hello Ronz

I saw your note regarding this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveandstay

This page was approved by C.Fred and by extension Alexius08 (see the page history) I added a lot of references and neutral comments while I was editing this article.

Your comment is "need a lot of work" could you detail more?

Thank you in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efauvel (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on article talk and did some cleanup as an example. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamelan external links 4

Well, Ronz, I'm ready to give-up, as I said, because the more I look into how articles stand in Wikipedia the more I feel that the obstacles that are put to the External Link I propose are disproportionate and the case appears to me to be one of double standards. On the one hand you have (to stay close to our subject) hundreds of recording and label companies that promote their products (there are even long-standing warnings like "This article is written as an advertisement"). On the other hand you have the site that I propose as External Link which offers two basic things: long music excerpts (and very good ones) that document what Javanese gamelan sounds like, and reprints of the booklet commentaries which are in most cases very informative essays written by authorities in the field (including some names that are reported in Further Reading in the article). So, to answer your question, these are the added values of the link. And I like to mention that when it was first added it was placed in a 'Listening' section now vanished. And now, yes just now, the discussion page of the Gamelan article has a 'warning' (or how you call it) that says: "It is requested that audio files be included in this article to improve its quality". I don't understand when you say that you guess the site doesn't work well with your browser set-up, and all you see is a list of CDs with information on each CD. I can't imagine that you see something different than anybody else. Now, the list of CDs is the way to organize the content, and such lists appear in the Wiki articles of the many self-advertising record companies. The difference is that while the others just show the list, the link I propose offers detailed musical and historical information as well examples of the music itself. To put in focus the substance of what we are talking about, the collection of recordings illustrated by the site in question represents, I estimate, something like 80% of the releases of Javanese gamelan music in the last decade. Best regards.Giovanni SciarrinoGS (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DR describes how to handle disputes. WP:THIRD, or WP:ELN would be good choices. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Food intolerance pages

Hi Ronz,

You have removed external links that fit the definition of what should be linked. I am not sure if it is because they sell relevant books, but these are the websites of the experts on the subject.

Sue Shepherd is an Advanced Accredited Practising Dietitian and Accredited Nutritionist who has participated in research into Food Intolerance. She is the Senior Lecturer for Monash University Department of Medicine and is a senior researcher within the Department of Gastroenterology at Box Hill Hospital in Melbourne. She is a clinical investigator in eight ethics-approved research studies. She is an invited speaker at national and international medical conferences. She has won many professional awards, including Dietitian Association of Australia’s Award for Achievement for Excellence in Contribution to the Profession. Sue has developed a dietary management approach which has revolutionised the management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (low FODMAP diet) – her pioneering research has contributed world-first information, and for which she was awarded the Gastroenterological Society of Australia’s Young Investigator of the Year Award in 2006. http://shepherdworks.com.au/services/gpspecialist-section contains references to her work.

Sue Dengate is a lay expert, who has a Food Scientist husband and kids with food intolerances. Their Food Intolerance Network successfully campaigned to get the 160b colour removed from McDonalds soft serve in Australia, as part of other ongoing campaigns.

The RPAH has an allergy unit which performed similar research to the Feingold Institute in the 1970's. Their 'Feingold' diet is more up to date in which foods to avoid.

Food Intolerance may not be considered a serious medical issue by some, but dieticians, allergists, and food intolerance networks are the main resources where information and interest by mainstream practitioners are limited. They sell books because people need them to have full health. Their websites have more free information than the Feingold Institute. Australian research is ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to food intolerance.

I will add the links back. Thank you,

Eloerc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloerc (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message.
I'm having difficulty finding what you're referring to. If it is this, then I disagree, though I can see some value in the allergyuk.org link. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's this, then I stand by my comment that the links are off topic. Additionally, the first two are overly promotional. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

Sorry I am new to this. Yes it is those two links you mentioned. My point is that they promote themselves to help people with their health issues. They are not selling snake oil. They provide enough information to trial the diets without the recipe books. They have pdf files which are free. Feingold doesn't, and you have kept the Feingold Institute links. allergyuk.org is a charity, but it does get a commission on 'Allergy UK' approved products, which you can buy at their site. The Food Intolerance Network is similar in that their campaigns are funded by sale of the books. I didn't mention Sue Dengate also completed a groundbreaking study about the behavioural effects of a common bread preservative was published in a medical journal in 2002. She is a psychology graduate and was nominated as Australian of the Year in 2005 and 2006 and was NSW finalist in 2010. This is because of the sheer multitude of families she has helped here. Can you please leave them in? How is it resolved if we can't agree? Thanks,

Eloerc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloerc (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THIRD or WP:ELN are both ways to get others' opinions. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I found your message on my user talk page. Thanks for the information. I don't have a conflict of interest, in fact no diet has fixed up my symptoms *yet* (I have hope). I borrowed the books from the library except for one. I'm not sure I can prove this to you! Let me know if there is some sort of system with that. Thanks,

Eleorc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloerc (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking into this a bit. Thanks for keeping the discussion going. I don't have time to go into all the details.
WP:THIRD could be helpful getting another opinion quickly.
Links to articles directly related to the topic of the Wikipedia page might be appropriate replacements.
You should give a look at WP:MEDRS regarding your other edits. Presenting resent research findings can be complicated, as it must be given in the context of current medical consensus.
I may have time for some quick comments, but nothing beyond that for some time. WP:THIRD and WP:ELN should be able to get others' attention quickly who have more time that I. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

Okay, thanks, I think I'm catching on. Your reasoning, particularly on scientific consensus, is why I did not find Wikipedia helpful when looking into food intolerance issues, and wanted to fix it up. It is usually my go-to for information/ research for a variety of interests. I will see what I can find that fits the guidelines better. (The problem is they're not allergies, some are idiopathic, and there are few practitioners that can test for those that aren't.) Thank you, Eloerc Eloerc (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Professors

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I'm not planning on "ignoring policy" if I arbitrate the situation over at The Professors. WP:BLP is very clear, and I'm going to cite specific parts of it when I make my decision. I encourage you to trust this process so we can put this issue to bed. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I appreciate what you're doing, and I didn't mean anything I wrote to reflect badly on you, or reflect on you in any manner at all. Should I reword my comment to be clearer?
No offense, but hadn't this type of binding arbitration been discussed as an alternative to mediation some years ago? Wasn't it rejected by the community as a poor substitute for regular consensus building? --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. The community did reject a proposal to formalize this type of arbitration, which was smart, because formalizing it would mean that a lot of folks wouldn't even attempt to build consensus; they'd just line up for arbitration whenever there was a dispute, which would cause a system-wide breakdown in Wikipedia's primary decision making model: consensus. However, in this particular case, I think policy is exceedingly clear, and while I could simply pitch in my two cents (and the dispute would likely go on), I'm angling to structure this so that the dispute ends and policy is rightly served. There is a perception among some parties to the dispute that I have some authority because I'm a WP:MEDCAB mediator, and they are willing to submit to a "ruling" as a result. If I can use their perception to end a dispute that may be in contravention of policy, the larger goals of Wikipedia are thereby served. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 22:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my changes to the Reiki page.

I explained in the edit section the simple reasons for the correction to that page. There are many mistakes there regarding the meaning of the word Reiki, and the Kanji that make it up. I am a Reiki practitioner and I am from Japan. Please replace my work, or do I have to do it again? The false information on that page should not remain there.

Thank you.


高橋太郎　（しんじんだつらく）

If you remove sourced information, you'll find your edits reverted rather quickly. Instead, as I pointed out on your talk page already, discuss your concerns on the article talk page, and provide sources that verify the changes you'd like to see. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Thread on IP User

Just wanted to let you know that the IP thread you requested I start is located here if you wish to comment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, the IP user was blocked for 2 weeks back Cirt for personal attacks and vandalism. Thanks for your assistance in getting my thread to the right spot. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help! --Ronz (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For helping with User:Joeprofes.

Ward20 (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further editing of NORAD Tracks Santa

You were absolutely right about that section reading like an advertisement. I have done some further editing to it. Of course, there is still the problem that all of the references are to primary sources, mostly promotional news releases. Perhaps the section shouldn't be retained at all. That would pretty much reduce the article to a stub but maybe that's for the best. Regards,Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. I'm assuming we can find at least a few independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

web usability

Hi Ronz -- here i am working on a sunday and needing some quick tips for usability to kick my creativity into high gear. sadly, the wikipedia entry was anemic on this topic, and the most useful stuff i've seen is completely omitted.

since i don't have much time to edit content, the least i could do is add a link to Steve Krug's book, so that hopefully more users will see this little article stub and actually fill it out by enumerating some of Krug's principles.

since i lent out my copy of his book, and these two articles are tiny and unhelpful, i'm forced to surf around elsewhere, or make a run to Barnes and Noble and pick up a new copy (argh... $40).

it appears that you are big on civility, and i haven't made any big wikipedia contributions for a year now, but the usability article was so hopeless and anorexic that i had to add something.

i'm not sure the proper protocol for me to re-instate the link to Krug, and i don't want to be a jerk to you, but i do think it's a disservice to the article and to those who need to use it that it's not linked (by an internal link!!) to a related book (that definitely needs expansion -- and if i had the book and the time, i'd elaborate the principles myself).

many thanks for your consideration. -

Globalfix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalfix (talk • contribs) 19:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll tag both articles, hoping it will attract some attention toward improving them. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Looking over them, I'm not sure either justifies its own article, but I have no problem leaving them as they are. Web usability is simply usability for the web. I don't think Krug's book meets WP:BK. My concerns have been keeping both from becoming soapboxes for people trying to sell products and services. --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to my responses in Talk:Bill Moyers

Please respond to my responses to you in the two separate proposed text sections in Bill Moyers Talk. Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to waste my time repeating myself. Please see the discussions from Jan 2010, which appear to cover the current situation. The subsequent discussions apply as well, especially Talk:Bill_Moyers#WEIGHT_and_COATRACK_violation --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your earlier comments in Talk:Bill Moyers and I saw that you said several times that I was violating WP:BLP, but unless I missed something, you didn't say exactly what in BLP I was violating. I took the proposed text of both items to the WP:BLPN twice and both times no one found the material objectionable enough to comment on it.
I believe that in an article as large as Bill Moyers, with plenty of positive material, pointing out a small amount of unflattering material does not violate undue weight and is the norm for other BLPs. The MLK material is presented neutrally; the Schumann material has a point of view, but that point of view is directly supported by the source (that POV could be removed if it causes NPOV to be violated).
Do you have any suggestions for rewording to fix specific BLP problems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the material belongs. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Schanze

Under Dell Schanze WPSDA, the WPSDA.org website is owned and operated by Dell Schanze Any domain lookup provides this. Please stop removing WPSDA information on the Dell Schanze site as it is accurate, and IS NOT self-published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've not addressed my BLP concerns, nor any other reasoning for why I've removed it. I suggest you discuss it on the talk page. I'll continue to remove it per BLP in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so will I. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article contributions

Hello there, many thanks for your comments on the Cambridge University Press page; they were most useful. The references on the Publishing structure section have been amended, and that section will be pasted as a new proposal on the discussion page for comments. The other section that you mentioned in your comments will not be posted at all at this stage; I will re-write that section completely, and put better third party references in and I will then post that as another proposal on the discussion page at a later date for comments. We will move the Canto section to the discussion page as well, as that section is unreferenced. I do hope that helps to answer your query, but please do let me know on my TalkPage if there's anything else. Thanks again Cmdcam01 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Schanze

A government sponsored link of booking details in NO WAY violates the BLP. Continued removal of it will be deemed vandalism, and will be reported accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you're back, I'm happy to go over BLP with you. The article needs lots of work still. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


April 2010

  1. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

April 2010

  1. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
    I will ask you again to please refrain from removing notable legal articles about Dell Schanze.
  1. Please refrain from deleting content on the Dell Schanze wikipedia page, you have reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, and have continued to edit war. You have continued to remove articles, and Wikipedia requires a consensus, not your own personal judgment. I have requested arbitration.
  1. ^ http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigates/Prominent-Pastor-Linked-to-Luxury-83600192.html
  2. ^ http://www.edyoungblog.com/2010/02/moving-on.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipal&oldid=358482173"