User talk:Hipal/Archive 29

archiving

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

BJCP

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Many thanks

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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).

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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. [2] --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Eukarya

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)