Jump to content

User talk:Hipal/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Improvement of the "Gravikord" article

Dear Ronz,

A few monthes ago, I began to contribute to some articles of the English as well as the French Wikipedia.

I have been working on the Gravikord page. When I first worked on it, I restructurated it and added chapters, links and references. I have to confess that at this moment I removed the tags about the multiple issues of the article.

I do apologize for doing that; I was new on Wikipedia and I sincerely thought that the changes I had made were the correct ones. I understand now that it was not the good way to act and that I could not be a judge. You restored the tags and I understand the reason.

Since this day I continued to work on the gravikord page; I do hope it is written in an adequate way now. Please could you see (when you have time for it) if it is ok and if the tags can be taken away ? If you think there is still work to do I should be interested in knowing how I can improve the article.

Best Regards,

(Joiesoudaine (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for following up!
While the article is much improved, I don't think any of the problems are close to being resolved. The majority of the article doesn't even have references. Let's leave the tags to invite others to help you to improve the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ronz,

Thank you for your answer.

Sure, if anyone can help improving the article, it is a very good thing - and remains the basis of Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, I have to say that I am a little bit surprised by your answer. Though these instruments - the Gravikord and its cousin the Gravi-kora - have only 24 years of life, they have already inspired musicians and composers as different as Foday Musa Suso - an African djeli - and Jacques Burtin - a French composer -, whose works have been produced by Columbia, Polydor or Island Records in the USA (Foday Musa Suso, along with Herbie Hancock or Bill Laswell) or Bayard Musique in France (Jacques Burtin). These are no self productions (I insist on this point) but official ones and can be bought in stores or on the Internet. That is the reason why it seems to me that the notability of this instrument is no more to be proved.

It also seems to me that the article is not anymore written as an advertisement, if it were, since the chapters actually follow a neutral, technical point of view (description, tuning, musical notation...) and are written in that spirit.

Of course, there are few external references, but could it be otherwise for a new instrument ? As you certainly know, the saxophone was created by Adolphe Sax in the Nineteeth Century (in 1841) ; the French composer Hector Berlioz already included a saxophone in one of his compositions (« Chant sacré », « A Sacred Song ») in 1844... but the saxophone was only accepted by the Paris French Conservatory one century after (in 1941) ! For the new instruments (as well as the new concepts), academic or public references may not be immediate or numerous. However, the fact that these instruments are already used by composers or musicians could be the proof they found a way to exist in another mind than their inventor’s.

You may not agree with that and I shall respect your decision but I wished to express my feelings.

Best Regards,

Joiesoudaine (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention back to this with your thoughtful response. Sorry that I didn't explain further.
I left the advertisement notice because of the history of the article and the lack of references. If you'll follow the two links in the notice, I hope it makes more sense. The article has been and continues to be a showcase for the instrument. It needs more and better sources, and at least some of those new sources should be used to determine what information we present and how prominently we present it.
I hope someone will work on establishing the notability of the topic within the article. It will probably require more sources to do so and at least some discussion on the talk page. I'll help anyone that does.
Thanks again for your work on the article, and your patience with me. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz. Best regards, Joiesoudaine (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Superfood

Both statements that dark chocolate (1) is a superfood and (2) is one of the most potent of superfoods, are supported by widely accepted quantitative evidence. These are facts, not conjecture.

I can (1) provide you with evidence/documentation of the fact that dark chocolate is one of the most potent of superfoods, and, if needed, (2) further edit the article with that supporting documentation to add to the case that the article is, in fact, enhanced with that evidence.

Is that sufficient?

If not, then what supporting evidence is necessary, as I am not 'shooting from the hip' here.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Goldentiger (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this.
Yes, sources would be required before we could continue very far. It would be best to start a discussion on the article's talk page, and include some references there. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronz,

Here are my first references, all of which correlate dark chocolate and/or cacao, with anti-oxidant value and properties, and further, to specific and documented benefits.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Thanks

Thanks. I'll copy them to the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


Ronz,

I understand the blacklisted source. Is there now some agreement that must be struck before the first three references can be used?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Goldentiger (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'll note the discussion I started, I'd prefer sources that are both independent and reliable to avoid the similar problems we've had with the article in the past.
The word "superfood" is a almost meaningless marketing term, prohibited in the EU. As such, we've repeatedly had problems with the article becoming a means for marketing. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While I can partially appreciate your EU position as a possible reliable source, there must be deference to the fact that the EU is a net importer of cocoa, therein, displaying their own sense of bias which might tilt otherwise. Therefore, the impact of consumption might actually be impacted by their definitions on products of their choosing. Nevertheless, this term does have significance elsewhere.

So, rather than to continue to get into a tug-of-war on the suitability of dark chocolate, and apart from the subjective nature of the term, the article already mentions the blueberry as a 'potential' superfood.

Therefore, I have amended my edit to include that fruit, along with a more objective and less debatable statement of it's suitability, due to high antioxidant value and high oxygen radical absorbance capacity.

I hope this meets your criteria adequately.

For your criteria for independent and reliable reference, I have included two additional edit references, to support those claims or statements of the value on blueberries.

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9] 1Goldentiger (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice image! I've changed the caption to better coincide with the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hi Ronz, I saw your message on my talk page regarding conflict of interest. I'm not associated with any of these organizations, though I appreciate your desire to remove any potential conflicts of interest. Rbakal (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. "See also WP:COI in case it might apply" is something I add to make editors aware of WP:COI in these cases. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CITE

I responded to your post at WP:CITE, but I wasn't sure if you already signed off. I just wanted you to see User:CharlesGillingham/Wikipedia/Wish list, which (I think) is what you were talking about. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. It'll take me a while to digest all that, but should be interesting doing so. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

yIN-yANG SYMBOL

I looked up the origin of this symbol, couldn't find out anything.But I found a natural source of this shape that I believe should be included in the article,but I have no clue as to how to do an edit. A piece of bamboo when filled with smoke and rolled at just the right speed will create the Yin Yang symbol.I also have no clue if this means anything but,hey what the heck... It might be right. since you must be Wiki savvy, I thought you could somehow blossom this idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharris315 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Without a reference, any introduction of that material would be original research --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see they didn't block you for long for that! --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please help me in adding an External Link on Sustainability Website. The external link to be added is http://masonweb.wm.edu/sustainability/ which consists of more that hundred links to sustainability websites is developed by Prof. Michael Luchs of College of William and Mary.

ChandraGangireddy (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a simple directory would be better, like the Open directory link already there. Someone's added it for you though. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete everything i have just done

Wikipedia is a joke, just delete everything i have contributed to and get it over with, and also delete my user account while your at it, i will not be returning; Nor ever donating Again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westerr (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. If you want to discuss the situation, I can get uninvolved editors to help. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

differences between "advertising" and "examples"

So google docs is on there as well as numerous other services

just wondering where the line is drawn 00:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)~ Delinquentme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.119.149 (talk)

i was also considering adding pictures of full versions of CVs ( curriculum vitaes ) for the image reference in CV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.119.149 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.
If you can cite a reliable source for the information that is independent, then the example is unlikely to be contested.
I'm not sure what others will think of images of cv's. Curriculum vitae, so they'd probably be redundant. --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


JTW Article on Chinese economy...

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this qualifies as "advertising" or "soapboxing", and I'm not sure you've actually read the quote in question... I've only added an article outlining a moderately alternative view of the topic at hand, thus SUMMARIZING a perpective widely shared by many MAINSTREAM Asian and European economists, this right after a sentence exposing the views of conservative/Republican congressional aides.
This approach is perfectly in line with Wikipedia's tradition of objectivity as it renders the paragraph in question more precise in fact and more balanced in spirit.
But I won't argue with you any further: won't revert to the previous version, even though I think your editing in that particular instance is rather unfounded.
Best,
StatPak (talk)
Thanks for following up.
My concern isn't just about the one op-ed, but your focus on the single author. When you feel the need to add only sources by a single author to multiple articles, please discuss such contributions on the article talk page beforehand. Additionally, use neutral tone with so it doesn't appear you're promoting the author. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ronz To my dismay I have discovered that you have deleted all my external links I added. I find this highly surprising, as I presumed that you are a person and not a machine, and would have the dilligence and intelligence to check up on what I am adding. I am adding academic podcasts, which my company records and which are paid for by UK universities. They are all, without exception on academic topics, and stricly academic research. I hope you will check them and re-install them

Best Wishes

René — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renewolf (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi René. Thanks for responding.
Have you seen the notes on your talk page? As I've pointed out, you need to take care to follow WP:COI
It's not just me that's deleted the external links you've added. I was just the first to bring it up on your talk page. I believe I've removed two, at China Miéville and Tony Wright (Cannock Chase MP). For any you think meet WP:EL, I suggest starting discussions on the article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi Ronz, you're invited to continue this discussion Talk:Femininity. USchick (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with your assertion

Hi Ronz,

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I'm spamming Wikipedia. I'm not associated with any of the articles that I've edited - there is no conflict of interest and no promotional material. I've added content that enhances the information on each of the pages.

While I realize that you are working to better the site, I don't think it's effective (or welcoming for that matter) to suggest that you will block me from Wikipedia.

Rbakal (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me rather than simply reverting.
You're adding external links and little else, and those links are promotional. I suggest taking a good look at WP:SPAM and WP:EL, then take your arguments to WP:ELN. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits to rolfing page

I recently edited the rolfing entry to include this quote:

"Rolfing has a physiologic impact on the peripheral nervous system and on myofascial structures."

This is direct quote from the abstract of the research from the previous sentence: "A 2004 review of Rolfing found that "there is no evidence-based literature to support Rolfing in any specific disease group".

This sentence is not found in the abstract and I am unable to even verify its existence. Yet it is cherry-picked out of the study as if its the most important statement in that bit of research. I personally find that misleading. In order to provide a more balanced perspective, I quoted from the abstract itself. I'm not sure how this was found to be "dubious", when its a quote from the abstract of the very research cited in the previous sentence.

I am a licensed massage therapist and not trained in rolfing. They are actually my competitors, to be frank. But I don't think that the entry as it existed was fair to rolfing, so I changed it.

I appreciate the hard and probably thankless work you do for wikipedia. Thanks in advance for reading this and getting back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartolo Cologne (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of my edit on Al Seckel's bio entry

You deleted my edit about a recent lawsuit, which was referenced to an article on the Courthouse News Service, with a comment that it "looks like a warmed-over press release about ongoing legal matters." Courthouse News Service, however, doesn't produce its content based on press releases, but rather writes original content based on civil litigation filings in the U.S. See their "about us" page: http://www.courthousenews.com/aboutus.html

I can understand a desire to exercise due care about what goes into the biography of a living person, but I believe what I wrote was NPOV and sufficiently referenced. Lippard (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How's it NPOV in any way? Whatever it's based upon, it's entirely one-sided, right? --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ronz: You just removed the link that I included with the picture on the Irish potato candy site. I am not associated with Couldn't Be Parve or with any commercial Irish potato candy company - I was just looking for an image to add to the page (which I was editing because I like to eat Irish potato candy). That image is licensed on Flickr with a CC BY-NC license, which requires attribution. Larrimore (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.
I guess it doesn't meet Wikipedia's image guidelines. I've removed the image and asked for help from editors more familiar with such situations. The discussion is here. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - as I commented there, I don't think attribution is a problem (the image guidelines say CC BY licenses are ok), but the fact that the license does not allow commercial use IS a problem (the guidelines say that is not ok). So I think you are right that the image shouldn't be used. Which is too bad, since I can't find any other free irish potato candy images. Oh well. Larrimore (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mark Sells problems

In preparation for responses to all the cleanup I've been doing with spamming related to Mark Sells, here's what I see:

Accounts
Links

--Ronz (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just wrote a short article on the "real" Oregon Herald because of this sort of confusion and as I was searching for links to the website, I ran across your work. Note that one R Metcalf appears to have some COI regarding the website as well. I've removed several links to the site from various el sections, but I have left them when used to cite facts in articles as I assume these were added in good faith by unaffiliated editors. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Good work. Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Vibrating structure gyroscope

Regarding changes to I made to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_structure_gyroscope 18:11, 22 March 2011 Rc604 (talk | contribs) (13,310 bytes) (→Quartz MEMs (QMEMs) gyroscope)

Can you give me some feedback as to what can be changed that will make it acceptable as non-advertisement? Rc604 (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronz,

I don't quite understand why we can not include Epson Toyocom as a major MEMs device vendor. I understand that you do not want external links in the body of the document. Could I atleast put the Epson Toyocom back in the document without the external link?

I can provide references to confirm that Epson is a large MEMs player:

http://www.i-micronews.com/news/Gaming-market-reveals-changes-MEMS-gyroscope-competitive-la,5711.html "Competition is gaining in intensity as the gaming gyroscope market is becoming increasingly attractive. Established players (ST, Epson Toyocom, InvenSense) are also pushing hard to introduce 3-axis gyroscopes into this market while new large players such as Kionix and Bosch Sensortec are also expected to enter this market. It is possible that a unique 3-axis gyro could replace the 2-axis gryo + single axis gryo of the Motion Plus controller"

http://www.i-micronews.com/news/Epson-Toyocom-branches-out-motion-sensor-market-highly,5622.html "Compared with other materials, quartz shows a high degree of stability while consuming very low power. In addition to angular rate sensors and accelerometers, Epson Toyocom continues to make better use of the characteristics of quartz material by introducing an absolute pressure sensor, the XP-6000CA."

http://www.i-micronews.com/news/Invensense-IPO-change-competition-motion-sensing-business,5512.html http://memsblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/invensense-ipo-will-change-the-competition-in-the-motion-sensing-business/ "1 or 2 players are dominating the business: STM for accelerometer (50% market shares) followed by Bosch Sensortec; Invensense for gyroscope (almost 40% market shares) followed by Epson Toyocom"

http://memsblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/shifts-occurring-in-the-mems-competitive-landscape/ "Canon—like Epson—managed to remain flat in terms of shipments of inkjet printers and therefore was able to increase its market share in the inkjet printhead segment. Canon was up 3% and Epson 12%, thanks to its booming quartz MEMS gyroscope business."

http://www.i-micronews.com/news/MEMS-quartz-components-contribute-Siwards-revenues-2011,6172.html "With electronics devices continue to shrink in size, MEMS technology is able to reduce the size of quart components. Japan-based quartz component maker Epson Toyocom has already developed its own process, QMEMS, to capture the trend of smaller and slimmer devices"

http://memsblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/isuppli-2009%E2%80%94the-hockey-stick-year-for-mems/ "InvenSense emerged as the No.1 supplier of gyroscopes in revenue in 2009 with an estimated $57 million (source: H2 2009 Mobile and Consumer MEMS tracker, December 2009), just ahead of Epson Toyocom"

http://memsblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/kionix-sale-for-233-0-million-to-rohm-in-a-booming-consumer-electronics-mems-inertial-market/ "The latest Wii game controller already integrates a dual axis gyroscope combined with a separate single axis gyroscope, respectively from InvenSense and Epson Toyocom (J). Used with the original 3-axis accelerometer, this gives an IMU function performed by 3 separate chips today. Yole estimates than more than 10M of such solutions have already been sold."

http://memsblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/3-axis-gyroscope-the-new-killer-product-for-cell-phones/ "The success of “virtual” 3-axis gyroscopes in gaming combined with 3-axis accelerometers, especially in the Nintendo Wii Motion Plus since June 2009. iSuppli calls it “virtual” because Nintendo’s accessory combines a 2-axis gyro from InvenSense with a 1-axis gyro from Epson Toyocom."

Rc604 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, the sources should be reliable and independent. Press releases and self-published sources are not appropriate. Warmed-over press releases aren't much better. This looks like the best of what you listed, based on a quick skim. Do you think there's a better one? --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)



I think that what is deemed reliable and independent is subjective. In the same article you have following external links which are clearly from biased sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_structure_gyroscope#cite_ref-MEMSGyroComp_14-0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_structure_gyroscope#cite_ref-Wii_MoPlus_13-0 Basically, I would like to know how Invensense and Kionix "qualified" as a major vendor. My opinion is that Epson being a larger company and greater market share for MEMs technology should atleast be added to the list.

In the links above, most of the source is from reputable industry market research firm such as Yole, iSuppli. I'll admit one of them had Epson Toyocom cited as a source. If you read the article, it does independent analysis and listed major vendors of MEMs devices and market research. Since semiconductors and more so MEMs technology is very specific, it would be hard to find mainstream press discuss it. The only time they will mention MEMs sensors is when they talk about consumer level popular devices such as Apple or Android products (which our devices are designed in).

There are other sources I can add, but the question is how many links must I produce to satisfy a fellow user? Minimal-Drift Heading Measurement using a MEMS Gyro for Indoor Mobile Robots

I would say it is equally hard to find sources for all of the mfg listed InvenSense, STMicroelectronics, Kionix. Not so much Analog Devices since they are recognized as one of the first to bring the technology to the sensing market. I should add that these companies use Silicon MEMS technology, which differs from Quartz MEMs technology because of the material used. Which is why I originally wanted to branch off a section.

Basically, I want to work with you on how I can modify my content to make it acceptable. Obviously wikipedia in its nature is very subjective in content.

Rc604 (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience.
I'm trying to walk you through how to do this properly, given what appears to be a WP:COI on your part. If you find sources of the type I'm suggesting, you shouldn't have a problem. One such reference is all you need.
I suggest listing the best potential refs on the article talk page to make it easier for others to respond. I'll help get other editors involved. Best to focus on just one article until you get the hang of this.
A broader list of options is listed at WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--I have cleaned up the work you objected to-customer service

I have no particular agenda and was trying to update some rather archaic viewpoints re. customer service with some emotional context. I see why you thought it was fluffy and I have taken out the external links and changed them to an internal link and a reference and shortened the endless reference to inc magazine's customer service makeover yadda yadda. hope it's o.k. now, if not just lump it. thx. Aanchalparvati (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You rock

Fist bump or big hug, depending on gender and/or sexual orientation. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Enig

Ronz, why not start a talkspace draft and use the sources on the talk page. I'm pretty sure they support a good deal of the content, though perhaps with less detail. Ocaasi c 17:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That would work too. My time is extremely limited, so I'll continue to work bit by bit on it. Providing detailed comments on the potential sources will make it easier for anyone interested in helping. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know you were speaking about Lambanog. What I don't get is why the focus should be on him anymore. He seemed to want to include information regardless of whether or not it could be secondarily sourced. That was not a great approach. You resisted it. Fine, fair enough. But now we have lots of secondary sources, and it seems like you are continuing to play that same role. You can call this kind of comment in appropriate, but I think it's obvious you are not a fan of Enig's theories, as many scientists and concerned citizens also feel. But we're passed the point of establishing minimal notability and I don't see why the rest of the article should be a slow grind against your view of V and BLP. It strikes me as using those policies against their spirit if not just a more subtle reading of them. We can describe Enig's work in full without endorsing or promoting it. We have plenty of primary and secondary sources. Why shouldn't we do that? Ocaasi c 16:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm being cautious, trying to make it very clear to Lambanog that we're not doing the same thing that he does - that we're not simply adding "references" that do not address problems or do not verify information in the article.
Please stop wasting your time trying to decide what my personal opinions on Enig might be. I'm not going to say, I haven't said, and you're way, way off.
I'm doing what I always do when there's a poorly sourced BLP with pov-pushing editors causing problems - I'm trying to get us to rewrite the article from proper sources. Sorry if you don't like that I'm being slow and methodological about it. Harassing me about it won't do anything other than get me to notice that you're harassing me. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Ronz, I'm not harassing anyone. I've repeated my opinion in the context of explaining it. Label someone else or don't label anyone. I wrote on your talk page in response to your comment on mine. The h-word is a tactic as well. There's none of that going on.
We have lots of proper sources already. So, getting us to rewrite the article from them is now something that you can participate in. Slow and methodological is fine, but not under pretenses that the sources are inadequate or that there's a BLP issue. I really think BLP is a red herring--and that might be a difference in policy interpretation--but it's not just ignoring the policy as it seems you're suggesting. Ocaasi c 16:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
"I'm being cautious, trying to make it very clear to Lambanog that we're not doing the same thing that he does." --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I've appeared to be accommodating to any POV pushing here. So maybe you could stop focusing on him so that it doesn't lump more productive efforts into the same boat. You're attacking that approach, but between myself and Yobol there's plenty of careful editing, enough for any POV pushing to not be an issue. Ocaasi c 17:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I'm not lumping anyone else with him, etc. I just think the only real solution is to be cautious and follow policies/guidelines closely and carefully. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the sourced excerpts are the total references from the article. There's nothing else in them about Enig but what's on the talk page. Ocaasi c 01:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. It'll make it easier to focus on just getting the context and citation info. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied to you on my talk page

I replied to you on my talk page --Elderbree TM (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR about Mary G. Enig

Hello Ronz. Please see WP:AN3#User:Ronz reported by User:Lambanog (Result: ). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As you see, this report has not received any action at AN3. Perhaps it will be archived soon. I am unhappy about the stalemate on this article. It seems that you, Lambanog and Colincbn are locked in a war of nerves and nobody will budge. Lambanog has done actual content work here in the past, but he seems to be waiting until the war is resolved. How about a deal in which Lambanog would restart his content work, and in return you would promise to leave the article alone for a period, perhaps two months. You might have to put up with the article being untagged during that time. The RfC on the talk page is so vaguely worded it seems unlikely to resolve anything. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going to continue working on the article. If others want to continue assuming bad faith to justify their actions, I'll just try to wait them out. --Ronz (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I would welcome any actual work on the article. Adding different kinds of tags doesn't seem to be producing any forward movement. If you genuinely want to benefit the article, consider negotiating. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
When I'm done assessing the references and potential references, I'll once again summarize my findings and start another round of discussions on what to do. Given the bad faith assumptions, accusations, and battle-ground mentality, I feel it would be detrimental to rush. In the meantime, I'll join any discussions on the current state of the article and how to improve it. It's a waste of time to try negotiating with editors who are working in or assuming bad faith, judging from the many times I've tried here. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

Thanks for your message. Reading through the previous posts was also helpful. I, too, was dismayed when I read the comment re: COI. I'm not affiliated with the person whose work I wrote about, other than studying it in a scholarly sense, and applying the methodology in my professional practice. I've never met or been in contact with the person. I saw that someone else (a relative "unknown" in the field, with due respect) had "bolstered" the entry with his or her own references and put their own name in the Wiki article. I left the person's name in, because others may know of this "expert", even if I don't) and added in some verifiable references, published by independent sources, to highlight the contributions of the more widely known scholar on the subject. Thanks for starting the conversation. Makes me feel like I'm part of a community of people who care about knowledge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreaton (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The articles you've been working on are all in poor shape. I hope you'll continue working on them as you learn your way around Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

NORAD Tracks Santa

Don't spend any more effort on that editor. The SPI case has already concluded with a positive result, so it's a waste of time. Not sure why the account isn't blocked yet, but it shouldn't take much longer. Hans Adler 16:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. In my experience with long-term meat/sockpuppetry and pov-pushing, I think it's best to document the problems extensively to help prevent well-meaning editors from escalating the problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a reasonable approach, so maybe you weren't wasting your time. Thanks. Hans Adler 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There are diminishing returns. I've moved on. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts, addressing the sock edits one by one. You are very right in that it prevents problems. Next time I have to remember this approach and use it myself :) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, you should have called me earlier. No one picks on Santa, and gets away with it. ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have missed all the excitement (or at least I hope I have). I'll point out that there's still a lot of linkspam (and other nonsense) on the Santa Claus page left by one of BillJohnson0003's previous socks. --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
What a mess. I cleaned up the blatant problems. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for removing all that linkspam. I think I feel brave enough to edit the Santa Claus article this weekend. It still gives undue weight to NORAD Tracks Santa and describes it in "peacock terms". The person who seemed to claim "ownership' of the article during the winter, and insisted that the non-existence of Santa Claus was a matter of POV rather than fact, hasn't edited it for five months. So, there's a chance my changes might stay for a little while. --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I've edited the Santa Claus article. I removed some remaining fiction, peacock terms, trivia about what one person posted on the Internet in 2010 and some clairvoyant comments about Christmas 2011. There was a paragraph about an AT&T service which appeared to be purely promotional spam, so I removed it.
The sockpuppet had added a redundant reference to his own Wikia website. I tried to remove it but a red "cite error" notice appeared. I don't understand why because it was only used once.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Glad you're working on it. Let me know if another sock appears. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will. I have no doubt that another sock will pop up sooner or later. At least that particular user isn't very difficult to spot. I managed to remove the spam link to his Wikia site. It meant removing the reference to Ded Moroz but he's usually considered to be a different character to Santa anyway. --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

N Jain

Hi I am hoping this is just going to be a useful piece of article improvement - I removed the templates because imo there is little need for them and they are not benefiting the content - you have replaced them and so I am in my rights to request your specific issues you replaced them for so we can work together to remove them. please when you have time be specific and reply on the talkpage. No big hurry, but please reply to my points when you have time, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We have multiple recent, ongoing disputes in the article plus multiple long-term disputes. I believe the current state of the talk page reflects this. Until these disputes appear even reasonably settled, I'd rather keep the tags than repeatedly having them removed and re-added. Keeping the article indefinitely partial-protected has helped - the current SPAs are much less disruptive in their continuing these disputes that have been ongoing since the article was created. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Ronz - but I am not interested in any of that. Simply respond between the five bullet points your specific issues and I will work to resolve them - you are welcome to help me resolve them also. Perhaps I am wrong but basically its like this - you add the templates to benefit and improve the article and then we remove them - so lets do that? Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're not interested, then I don't know if you can be much help. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
My only interest is to improve the article and remove the templates. The only help I want from you is to specifically tell me the reasons for your adding each of these five templates so I can work on your issues to improve the article and remove them. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I restored the templates because they were removed before the disputes were resolved. --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you added them - so you are responsible for explaining why you did that and the reasons you thought each one was needed and why they should be added again at this time - no one else re-added them but you. You think they are needed so please explain the reasons for each one being needed, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I explained why I readded them. They were removed while related disputes were still ongoing.
So, are you willing to look at the current disputes or not? --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
There is only you there, only you added the templates - you added - It needs additional references or sources for verification - please specify on the talkpage what content you want citing so that I can either cite it or remove it and then remove that template. Most of the content is cited and there are a couple of citation required specifics, so I don't see a need for that template at all and you added it so please show me what content you want citing. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I assume you can provide a diff to help clarify what you're trying to say. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You don't appear to have any content you want citing, please remove that Refimprove template , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
21:50, 6 June 2011 21:53, 6 June 2011 --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm taking a break from this. I suggest you do the same when you're overlooking recent edits and discussion in this manner. --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Dude, if you take a break there will almost not be anyone left see talk contributions - I am going to work towards tweaking up what are pretty minor issues as far as I can see, no hurry , no worry, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Within the article itself, without regard to the amount of press Jain has received on various aspects of his life, the issues are pretty minor. The new section on board memberships and the like is an exception - the quality of sources and the weight given to the information are questionable.
The biggest problem is the sparse amount of information in the article about his time at InfoSpace in contrast to the huge amount of information available from reliable sources. As you can see links to past discussions I added to the "Positions at InfoSpace" discussion, I've had a difficult time getting editors to agree to adding information even when multiple sources are available. You've found one bit where they didn't make the sources clear. Removing it should be a temporary solution only. The lawsuit by InfoSpace that I restored from a following section makes it clearer, but the sourcing could be clearer and might benefit from additional sources.
Almost forgot the lede - Every bit of info there should be reconsidered per WP:LEDE and WP:NPOV - starting from scratch might even be better. Even more so than the rest of the article, the lede is just a placeholder that was cut back in an effort to get editors to focus on the body of the article first. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I prefer to focus on cleaning up and stabilizing what we have got. These company directors although high powered in regard to their biography there is usually little specific detail that is well cited. Mostly the details that would expand it belong on the company articles. I am signing off for today, thanks for some details, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad we're making progress. Care to consistently format and fully enter all the reference info? That was one cleanup concern that I recalled as I was reinstating the position info and timeline. --Ronz (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a work I enjoy and I will do them all later today. Off2riorob (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

re - easykobo

heloo ronz,

I got an email today on the account that you guys blocked me in Feb. You said i was spamming so i stopped using the account.

now why have you come back with all this?

yes i was the owner of that site easykobo.com and i stopped after i read the guidelines.

my website was not spam, but you guys can do whatever you want. leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.86.136.114 (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Brainsteinko and Pocketbook Reader article

Hi Ronz,

I've noticed you have had the same issues with the Pocketbook article and Brainsteinko. Please see Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Person_keeps_reverting_edits.2C_removing_negative_facts_and_represents_company_and_products_overly_positive

BottomDog (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't have time to look into it in any detail atm, but will follow up. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Very much appreciated. BottomDog (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
He again reverted all my changes in one go and also readded the link you have removed. I will not undo at this point. Please advice how to bring this to the proper authority. See [6]BottomDog (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

IIN

Hi Ron,

Apologies - I will refrain from edits pertaining to any organization I have an affiliation with. I have removed all edits pertaining to the company I have done web design work for - and have even reached out to other wikipedia users to apologize for my attempt at creating a wikipedia page for them (they had originally suggested keeping the page - but I suggested not to considering the article did not have enough sources to reach wikipedia standards).

Evildeadxsp (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing out of ignorance

Maybe that was a poor choice of words, and could be taken the wrong way by editors that have difficulties with WP:AGF. Reverting first, making accusations next, disrupting the talk page, then finally apologizing for not looking at the edits/edit-summaries/discussion. It only took me three times telling him that I didn't remove the information for him to finally realize I was right all along. I prefer to assume he did it out of ignorance rather than as something far worse. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

quick cleanup per WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK - redundant

I'm happy to explain why I feel this is an appropriate edit summary, and explain this edit. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Hi. Could you please not continue to post there as the user has removed your posts? This indicates that they do not wish you to post there and I think it behooves you to respect this. Thanks. --John (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a dialog on Talk:Barbecue#External link request where other editors may join in the discussion. You were involved in the archived discussion (I see that you may have retired...but notifying you in case you come back:)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not retired, just thinking about it as I take a break. I'll quickly respond on the article talk. --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

WP Spam in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spam for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "IP editing for you"

Thank you for your interest, I wish the world could have been blessed with two of me, but sadly 'tis I who has been editing via IP. BETA 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, You have removed the links to that applet from a couple of pages where I added it. The applet is definitely of ineterest to those who want to familiarize themselves with the subject: it is quick and easy way to learn the limits of the analytic approach. Also, there are no resources like that listed on those pages. Plase could you give me the reason why the link should not be there. Thanks, Andrei Andreiborshchev (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Ronz.
I indeed have created the applet I added the link to. However I did that solely in educational purposes: I am one of the world's top experts in simulation modeling and I am deeply involved in teaching simulation and related topics. Comparing analytical methods (such as queueing theory) and simulation is discussed in any course on queueing systems / discrete event simulation and I thought it would be good to have a visual resource that you can run in your browser to illustrate the differnce (currently there is none like that known to me, at least wikipedia does not have any).
Please let me know uder what conditions the limk to the applet can be added.
Kind regards,
Andrei Andreiborshchev (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If I were you, I'd choose one article that I felt was the best for a link to such applets, then start a discussion on that article's talk page presenting a case for including the link. You shouldn't add the link itself to the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Confused

All I did was update factual information on AICPA's wikipedia page (i.e. membership numbers, locations, officers and so forth). I did not add anything else. So I do not feel your tags of conflict of interest are valid.

Additionally, the CPA Exam page and fingerprinting: While candidates are fingerprinted, there is obvious language in this section that is biased and not based in fact. There is also a broken reference link. Really, the majority of this section is about Choicepoint and should be had on their page and not the CPA Exam's page.

I do understand the removal of the external links and appreciate your guidance in that area.

Aicpa gjw (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing my concerns.
I'm glad we agree on the external link cleanup.
Yes, the exam and fingerprinting information should be trimmed down. I'll take a closer look. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I just submitted some changes trying to tone it done, but still be factual and maintain the "controversy." Let me know what you think. Thanks! Aicpa gjw (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Let's see if anyone else disagrees.
In general, it's best to be very careful when removing any sources. Make sure to make it clear why you're removing them. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of material from Usability Testing article

I added three pieces of information to the article on Usability Testing. You, I assume, are the person who removed two of them. I would argue that they are not self-serving, they are simply fact and properly documented. I was surprised to see them disappear because the Intuit material, in the same section, remain unchallenged even though it is remarkably self-serving and factually wrong. I don't advocate its removal, because it is an interesting data point. It just needs to be surrounded with more and more facts.

The article, when I first read it, appeared to indicate that iterative testing was first started at Xerox PARC in around 1979 for the Star project. The Intuit reference has them claiming they were the first to do it beginning in 1984.

What I did was, first, to move that date back to 1948-49, with Henry Dreyfuss's work on the ships, Constitution and Independence. I then inserted two projects at Apple in the same era as the PARC work already mentioned that had been done using the iterative testing methodology. These were drawn from a book I wrote in 1992 called "Tog on Interface." This was not a book on the Wonders of Apple, but an educational book for new designers in which I just happened to use the examples I mentioned in the WikiPedia article because they were instructive. In the book, I laid out the six designs required to come up with a successful one, showing and explaining each of our five abject failures before final success. That was definitely not a self-serving.

My purpose in adding these examples to Wikipedia was not to claim invention, as evidenced by my adding the fact that Henry Dreyfuss was already doing the exact same thing in the 1940s. It was just to add additional early examples in the computer industry to those already in place. I hoped that by adding these examples, it might draw other people out since it is my belief that iterative design, formal or informal, had been happening in the computer industry far before the 1978-84 time frame, almost certainly at Xerox PARC, and probably at SRI and MIT.

Ironically, it was I who taught the iterative design methodology to the people at Intuit, and not in 1984, but 1980. If I wanted to be self-serving, I would have pointed that out. That information, however, is irrelevant to this article. What is relevant, however, is that they were not the first company to do iterative testing. I've traced it back to Henry Dreyfuss Associates. I suspect it started long before that.

At any rate, I would appreciate it if you would consider returning the material, edited in whatever manner you wish,

-tog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toghome (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As you indicate, the history is vague and poorly documented. I suspect there is much available in the human factors literature going back for perhaps a century. The solution is to find better sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup after Tog

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

Note

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

New noticeboard! Consensus seems clear. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Inwdorg

Hello!

My name is Attila, and the Inwdorg is not Spamname. It is my site's name. http://Inwd.org: Internetional Wellness Directory...

Please not report me Spam, because I am not spammer :(

Thank, Attila — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inwdorg (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll be interested in hearing your response after you read the relevant policies/guidelines linked on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ok thank you --Cashflowtrader (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


Richard La Ruina

The link I added is not unverifiable. Stop acting like it is. It's by Ross Jeffries, a notable figure in the same industry as Richard La Ruina. Richard La Ruina has posted a reply to the publication of that email. If you bothered to look through the links you'd see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the situation, and have yet to address any of my concerns. As identified on your talk page, my biggest concern is that the information as sourced violates WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleated post

Hi Ronz, I believe you deleted my revision to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_telephone_directory, earlier today. This is likely because we include a link to the FAQ section of our website. I understand you may not want this link coming from us, however, the current Wiki article is a bit out-of-date and inaccurate. Link aside, I believe the changes I suggested were factual and neutral. You might want to take another look and reconsider the Wiki changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phonehelp (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to do so. Please start a discussion about it on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war report

I have made an edit war report involving you at EWN should you wish to remark or comment there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The No Spam Barnstar
Thanks for removing spam magnets in Professional video over IP Kvng (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WS Tagging

Will you please be more specific on the article's talkpage about why the material and tone are promotional and unenclyclopedic? I absolutely do not understand why I can not use reliably sourced material - some even in quotes in this article without it being called an advert. The changes that were made without discussion were the ones that were not according to sources. I will go over ever change I made and give the exact sourced material if that is what is required. Agadant (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the only solution is for other editors to work on the article, and for others' to let them. That doesn't appear to be happening now. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)o
But the concern is that you tagged the article and said : " - the tone and presentation in the article is repeatedly changed to have a less encyclopedic tone and to less accurately represent the sources." I did accurately represent the sources after changes were made that deleted content, changed context and did not accurately represent the sources. I would not have cared for the trouble it has caused me if I had not thought that the changes were impartial and useful ones. Many other editors have deleted away over half of the article. What exactly do you mean "it is not happening now." If the editor (who has already deleted very much content before) had discussed his proposed changes, he would have had his chance to state his case, but he didn't seem to want that - just more quick deletion of more material that he objected to for some reason. The truth is I am the only one (besides a mediating admin) who wants to 'constructively improve' the article and yet I am not allowed to do so. I posted my changes and sources for your information and made it very easy to see if I sourced properly. What else can I do? Thanks. Agadant (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Take a break from the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense to me. It is not in anyway explaining why you have put the tag on the article. - not at all - I am trying to collababorate and understand how Wiki works as a community and asking for information and not getting it. Your telling me to take a break doesn't help at all. Agadant (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Online Oud Tuner

Dear Ronz

Why did you remove the link of the oud tuner? Don't you think that this link will help thousand of players and people who are interesting the oud music to know more aboyt the different tuning option alive? I think that this is the only online oud tuner on the web and can contribute a lot.

If it is because i didn't put it in the right way i will be glad if you help me to place this link because as i have said before it is extremely important. This is the link: http://www.arabinstruments.com/112730/Online-Oud-Tuner

Please advise Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.71.156 (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The site violates WP:EL, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and WP:NOTHOWTO.
One editor has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for spamming the site. I'd prefer that no one else is. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

millerandzois.com

Hi, Ronz. I support your efforts to clean up Wikipedia from spam, however, in this case with my link "Sample summary judgment motions" it was a bit overkill :-) I have no connections to Miller&Zois LLC, I even live on the other coast. But their sample motions was a great help to me when I worked on my Summary Judgments. If you insist on removing this link, I would probably leave it off, but I just want to let you know that it could be very useful to others. Good luck in your spam battle! Innab (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Please discuss why you feel it's helpful and appropriate per WP:EL on the article talk page before adding it yet again. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:External links-inline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Six Sigma

Hello Ronz, I appreciate your comments and advice regarding my edits. Like I stated before it is not my intent to be promotional with my posts but more to illustrate some of the industry known associations. I completely agree with you in finding secondary/independent sources to support my content. If you don't mind I may ask for your advice regarding this section before I post again, and other posts from time to time. Will this be OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louie81 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. Comment here or on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Amplified Analytics

As you can see, I am a new user and trying to learn my way. Could you help me to understand why my association with the company (Amplified Analytics) prevents me from listing it as vendor on a relevant page. The articles you referred me to, does not list any specific reason that makes it a conflict of interest. What evidence I can provide to remove your objection to restoring the listing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Yankelovich (talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 September 2011

As noted on your talk page, such discussions should take place on the article talk page.
As far as evidence is concerned, multiple, independent, reliable sources demonstrating that Amplified Analytics is notable should be enough. --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

CAPTCHA#Attempts_at_more_accessible_CAPTCHAs

Ronz, I would like to restore the link to the example of a text-based CAPTCHA server that makes text-based CAPTCHA practical. This is important to blind and visually impaired people users. But I'm afraid that you will just delete it again. Can we discuss this? David Spector (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion on the article talk if there's nothing specific to me. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ronz -- is this the same person as the one who was just being abusive on your talk page? Also this one. If so (and the style is rather distinctive) we've collided with him before. The history of that page is particularly interesting. Anyway he's blocked now for two weeks. Antandrus (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks very likely that they're the same person. --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Geodesic Dome page revert

Hi

You removed the link to my page as a reference for Bono's DOME program.

The reason for the existence of my page is that there doesn't seem to be a home for the DOME program, and the source versions of DOME I found on the web were outdated and wouldn't build on a modern system. I therefore maintain a buildable version of DOME to keep it available for anyone who wants to run it. Please see this thread.

The page is just a basic home for an abandoned piece of software, but as DOME is mentioned in the article it seems more useful for it to have a link that points there than to have no link at all.

Adrian. Antiprism (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's great that you're hosting and maintaining the program. However, the link doesn't belong in the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NPA

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks.
Message added 17:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requesting article review

Ronz, an anonymous editor recently edited the Angel investor article to remove all references to Gust (formerly Angelsoft.) Given that the person behind this anonymous account (as well as a number of other accounts used for recent edits to articles in the early stage entrepreneurship field) seems to have a personal animus, would you be willing to review the edits, and take whatever action you see fit? Yorker (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking into it, and am not sure what, if anything, should be done. I'd like to get some new eyes on it. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I tried to look at it from the context of the consensus on that talk page, and decided to restore it. Hopefully, we'll get further discussion on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The impartial, objective editing that you've been recently doing is appreciated. Yorker (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's just tip of the iceberg still - I'm just cleaning it up to the point where it might attract editors more experienced with such articles. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it

I'm fairly objectionable at the best of time so it's my fault rather than yours - when I get the time, I might do a bit more work at that coworking article as it looks to be constructed on rather thin sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeated additions of book

I did add the entries to promote the book in that it's the only book available that describes RPR. However, if that's unreasonable I'll accept the judgement.

Best regards...Credible58 (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I left it in RPR problem diagnosis. I don't see the need elsewhere. If you disagree, best to start a discussion on the relevant article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms of arguments at Talk:Acupuncture

this edit [7] contains a number of uncivil assertions which are not justified by my behavior. I understand that may be your experience with other editors, but I'd ask you to retract them. thanks. --Ludwigs2 02:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, but I didn't mention any individuals' names. Let me see what can be toned down though...--Ronz (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I see nothing incivil about it. If you'd like, I can look for the logical fallacies I mentioned in the arguments you've provided. In order to not contribute to the battleground mindset in the discussions there, I'll do so here.
Of course, it would be better to work on improving the article by focusing on sources and applicable policies/guidelines. I think I already made that clear. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking over the lengthy discussions once more, it would be helpful to start a new section where you could very succinctly summarize your arguments and ask others to do the same. --Ronz (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
My arguments are in the last few paragraphs above your post; no need to go back farther than that. I'll see if I can add an appropriate section break, though. My particular civility objection is your assertions about "Argumentum ad populum, Ad nauseam, Appeal to tradition", which certainly could not apply to me yet (as I've only made a handful of posts to the page recently), and which are uncivil regardless of whom they are directed at. I might even agree that they are true with respect to some editors, mind you, but that doesn't make them acceptable as a general comment on the page. If you'd care to make them specific about a particular editor, they might be more purposive. --Ludwigs2 03:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You're just plain wrong, and continuing to follow a battleground mentality. Fallacious arguments are fallacious. You're demanding that I can't point out why arguments are bad? That's absurd. Please drop it.
Is it time to give examples of the fallacies then, to clearly show they aren't simply "assertions?" --Ronz (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm simply asking that you attribute your assertions to particular editors or discussions, or else remove them. By making baldly undirected claims, you seem to be implying that everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of these logical fallacies. I doubt that is your intention, and that is certainly not supportable as given, so it would be best if you identified the specific behaviors you are disputing so that we can all see the logical flaws you assert are there. otherwise your comments are open to misinterpretation. --Ludwigs2 05:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
What you seem to be asking at this moment in the discussion is that I make my remarks more personal, that I focus on behaviors and personalities, rather than on the arguments, sources, and relevant policies/guidelines. I refuse to take on a battleground mindset. Take it to WQA. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Please keep in mind that the better part of a billion people still rely on acupuncture for their conventional treatment. I don't suggest that it's better than equivalent modern treatments, but if it didn't work at all it would have ceased to exist long before the West came into regular contact with Asia" Definitely ad populum and appeal to tradition fallacies, and seems to summarize much of the previous arguments in the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Moxie Marlenspike

Because I am dense and benifit from explainations of those who know, what is it that presents the issue with the links at Moxie Marlenspike? Thanks! =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Squeaky (talk • contribs)

Thanks for responding.
Talk:Moxie_Marlinspike#External_links --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Schmidt Hunger Strike entry

Hi Ronz,

what seems to be the problem with my post?

regards,

FTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomtochoose (talk • contribs) 01:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides what's discussed on your talk page and on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


Hi Ronz,

Regarding what you say is "discussed on [my] talk page and on the article talk page" I don't see anything in my post that resembles a conflict of interest or "soapboxing, advertising or promotion" nor do I see a "discussion on the article talk page on how to properly rewrite the entire section." How would I go about rewriting it so that it will not be removed from the wiki page? Michael Schmidt is on a hunger strike. He is a Durham, Ontario dairy farmer. His cause is championing the freedom to choose the food we put in our bodies as responsible citizens. He wishes to start a dialogue with the Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to address this issue. His hunger strike has been covered by reputable and established news media sources.

Sincerely,

Freedomtochoose (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC

And your username is Freedomtochoose... --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

would you prefer "John Doe"?

--Freedomtochoose (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC

I would prefer you be straightforward about what you're trying to accomplish. You're clearly using wikipedia to soapbox. --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And so, how would I go about rewriting it so that it will not be removed from the wiki page? I have not found a "discussion on the article talk page on how to properly rewrite the entire section."

--Freedomtochoose (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC

Ah! I just noticed that you must have edited the entry for me. Thank you very much. It looks good.

Sincerely,

--Freedomtochoose (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC

Yes, Schmidt is currently in Hunger strike, but I don't think any mention of him or his strike belongs there. I'm in no rush to remove it. I'd rather wait to see what others think of the overall problems with the article and how to go about fixing them.
I'll continue to work on the article, and try to get others' help. --Ronz (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz. Printing and bookmarking that page now.

Regards,

--Freedomtochoose (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC

that is, printing and bookmarking this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WLU/Generic_sandbox

--Freedomtochoose (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC

Glad to be of help. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WP: Consensus

Actually, I believe you are mistaken about the last consensus. In my view, you made changes from what is closest to the last consensus so you should start the discussion to justify your changes. The last consensus version was this:

"Consensus refers to the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what 'consensus' means for these purposes, but consensus seems to offer the best method to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages."

So if you want to go back to that and discuss Kotniski's changes, that would be fine. Or we can include his changes as I have done and discuss reordering the material, which is where perhaps we don't quite agree. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't indicate any versions, so let's not waste time with strawmen. --Ronz (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Great. So please start the discussion explaining why you want to reorder and I will be glad to respond. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
If you're not interested in justifying your changes, I guess it's time to remove them then. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hunger strikes

Hey Ronz, my only concern is that info gets WP:PRESERVED. I don't recall even making the note; it was probably auto-suggested to me when I split off the (at the time) new Gitmo specific article. Occasionally, unscrupulous editors will WP:Merge two tangentially related articles together and then plead WP:Undue so as to delete information from the project, despite my only concern and, of course, despite WP:PAPER. There are a number of such tricks, and, IIRC, that sort of thing was happening on many fronts back in Jan 2010 towards an editor who was devoted to documenting Gitmo subjects thoroughly. In the long run these people are racing the tide of WP:5P. AFAICT, everything has since worked out AOK. In short: you are likely just cleaning up the detritus of an old edit war. Keep up the good work! -- Kendrick7talk 07:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Hopefully, that drama won't start anew. I'll be careful with it and hope for the best. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Earl Mindell

Ronz,

All the information submitted earlier have factual proof that I personally verified. Dr Mindell has in fact published 54 books, verifiable on Amazon.com... http://www.amazon.com/Earl-Mindell/e/B001ILIGLU. The fact that the article states that he has published "over 45 books" is vague and inaccurate. Dr. Mindell is a currently practicing pharmacist, verifiable by the State of California, for which I provided a valid source... Board of Pharmacy, 1625 North Market Blvd Suite N-219, Sacramento, California 95834, (916)574-7900. I have the original document that proves this and can submit it. It is not just a past hobby or interest of his, it is his current profession. Additionally, the school he attended was in fact a "Private Postsecondary University recognized by the California State Department of Education... source: Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, 1625 North Market Boulevard, Suite S-202, Sacramento, CA, 95834. PO Box 980818, West Sacramento, CA, 95798-0818, (916)574-7720, www.bppva.ca.gov, Sheila M. Hawkins, Education Administrator, Degree Programs. This is verified by personal research. I have the document from Shiela Hawkins who works for the California State Department of Education if I need to submit this document.

I request that you review my claims and repost all my edits, and if you need me to post any documents to Wikipedia let me know.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piggynuts (talk • contribs) 00:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Your claims don't match the sources, and you removed sourced information.
If you want to pursue this, use the article talk page and be as specific as you can possibly be on what you think the sources show. Exact quotes would be very helpful.
Please talk a look at WP:OR as well. What you're doing is original research based upon the sources you find, but not actually verified within those sources. --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OCIDLE

Good catch on the copyvio images, I've tagged them at commons. Sock puppetry? Haven't noticed this, what are you referring to? Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sock- or meat-puppetry. He took up the edit-warring of 198.188.96.4 (talk · contribs) after the ip was blocked. It might be a coincidence, given the delay between the block and OCIDLE starting to edit-war. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

GFID

On the Ricky Rozay GFID page, people keep spamming it and vandalzing it, putting fake tracks & producers. Can you or another admin please protect it? RickyRozay (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into it. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is bad enough for protection. You can request protection yourself at WP:RFPP.
Generally, there should be some discussion on the talk page about the problem when it is not obvious vandalism. I'd start with that - make it clear what the problem is on the talk page, and notify the involved editors on their talk pages, using a template from WP:TUSER if it applies. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

hang in there Ron

I am an orthotist and am trying to get the quantity of information on the the various orthotic subcategories proportional to their place in the field. You are a working hard to tend to this and other entires, I am sure. Rather than delete info, it would be much better of me to expand and reference info. I apologize, I am lazy. I created the original definition of this subject years ago and successfully deleted lots of info placed by podiatrists who wanted to limit the scope of this term to one small area. The proportionality thing is what always gets me....SORRY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.149.132 (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if someone like yourself could introduce more and better references to the article - the article really needs a rewrite base on much better sources. --Ronz (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Art of Living

Recently I have undo deletion of section and projects. If you see any NGO wiki page - you may clearly find out that all activities/projects are listed in details. Please discuss in talk page before deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.17.49 (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have deleted the material again because it is a copyvio and I've posted a note to Talk:Art of Living Foundation#Courses.   Will Beback  talk  10:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that. Not only are editors trying to use the article for promotional purposes, they're coping from promotional material. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder, why many sections of Art of Living is getting deleted! For your information - It is world's biggest NGO and taken up more service projects then any other organization including Red Cross etc. It is not justifiable to have very little information about the organization. List of service projects, work done etc. should not be treated as organization. All information are deleted without having any discussion on talk page even though it has reference to India's bigest newspaper; it is highly discouraging! We are having direct knowledge about the organization but still discouraged! All Seva Project listing are removed! It is our humble request that please have discussion on Talk Page first before deleting because I am sure you are not having direct knowledge of organization! Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Further regarding anonymous blogger lawsuit - Please explain me any reference yet in wikipedia which actually use to promote HATE BLOG! Here in reference - two anonymous blogger have written hate blogs leaking content of Art of Living foundation - Further, Art of Living sued them and they have to remove content copyright to Art of Living foundation. Further they have to halt updating the blog as part of the order. So how is it a Controversy with respect to Art of Living! Anyways - for the timing - I am rephrasing content to make it neutral rather than provoking. You take a call on whether it should be part of wikipedia or not; because anyways there are 100s of cases Art of Living foundation implied on; like one photographer sold copies of pics of the Master and later he was sued by Art of Living; should we include all these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs) 04:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot look at the issue in an unbiased manner, then it would probably be best to leave it alone. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please mention on talk page - what looks like advertisement. Content of the foundation is very limited and it is still start class. It seems that you are not letting any user add the content for this page. Either you add the content or allow others to add the content and DELETE/REVISE only after discussion on Talk page. You reverted content of almost all contributors and they stopped contributing to work on this and other Spiritual work Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but what we're doing, and I think it's clear on the talk page, is trying to stop the article from being used to promote the organization in violation of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Orthotics

Ron Z, I would like to congratulate you on your efforts to keep up Wikipedia entries on Orthotics and Prosthetics. I do not put as much time into it as you do. I apologize for my rush to put into the entry what I consider to be a fair representation of the general content needed to reflect these two subjects. I have found the entries for Prosthetics: Lower Limb History to reflect some one sided interests of specific companies and individuals. These folks whave done great things in prosthetics, but their entries do not reflect the general nature of the field. I know it is now incumbent on me or someone else to offer information that would be useful to this end- the balance end, that is. I will work on it. thanks, Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.149.132 (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it would be best if you took the time to find sources for your changes. Yes, the articles could really use more on general information. --Ronz (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

newbie pages

Thanks a lot for the two resource pages. I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhampgonsalves (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Innovation

Hello Ronz,

How can I contribute to innovation? My theory is noitavonni.

What do I need to accomplish in order to have this new way of thinking about innovation be published on the wikipedia web-site?

It does add to the body of knowledge on innovation.

May I ask for clarifications on this issue?

Dr. Clayton Christensen, D.B.A., discovered disruptive innovation theory and has a wikipedia web-site. How can he?

Please let me know what I need to do.

Thanks,

Lee

Re: Christensen, take a look at WP:PROF.
Your theory seems to be little known. Please stop trying to promote it here. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Marlinspike External Linkies

Please see the Moxie Marlinspike talk page... =//= Johnny Squeaky 04:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I responded there. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing of Wiki article on risk management

Hi Ronz,

You recently deleted some entries that I made on risk management with the comment "some tood, some bad, mostly unsourced, too much in an inappropriate tone".

I'm happy to accept that my entries do need improvement but as a published author with over 25 years international risk management experience I do know what I'm talking about. My entries significantly improved the page on risk management so (while it needed more work), I believe you did the community a dis-service by simply pressing 'undo'.

I've made some more edits to the article (again) so if you have any objections, could you either please contact me with suggestions or make some improvement (rather than just pressing undo). Granted, I'm new to editing Wikipedia so probably will make content, style and technical errors. All suggestions and tips would be gratefully accepted. I think we have the same goal here - to improve wikipedia.

Thanks,

Julian Talbot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliantalbot (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You removed sourced information in your rewrite, introduced information presented in an improper tone, and gave much more weight to information sourced by your own publications. Twice. I realize you have a lot to learn here. Please respect others' work as much as you want your own to be respected. I'm holding off on just reverting you again, in the hope that the information you removed can all be recovered and properly re-incorporated. --Ronz (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the tips re editing Wikipedia

Ronz, Thanks for all the links and tips re editing the Risk article and Wikipedia generally. I'll go through them and learn how to be a better contributor. A colleague also suggested that a) I need work on a strategy for the page and b) that I set up a wiki project to get more risk practitioners involved. I'll start with some ideas on the Risk discussion page (and will remember to add my name). But first... to read up a bit on editing tips. Cheers, Julian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliantalbot (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Tandem language learning

Dear colleague, my name is Jürgen Wolff and I am working in tandem method since 1977. Some months ago, on may 24, I tryed to give an overview about its history, effects and so on (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tandem_language_learning&diff=456573656&oldid=430654466) which was improved formally by some other editors. While writing, I integrated all the former information and the links of the Bochum project. On september 5 you deleted the whole text returning to the previous one.

Also, I noticed that you deleted on october 26 a link to teletandembrasil.org . This is a non-commercial university project which permits poor brasilians access to language exchange, and not a promotional link.

I am conscient that my first text might have had formal defects, as I am not usually writing at wikipedia, but I do not understand the deletions and would be interested to know your reasons, in English or German. I will check this page, my mail is tandem@tandem-f.org, yours sincerely Jürgen Wolff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.152.13 (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. Glad to have someone with your expertise interested in working on the article.
You were editing as 81.33.183.177 (talk · contribs) then? My concerns with the information you added where that there were no sources, it appeared to promote specific organizations, and the external links were inappropriate.
Looking at it further, it would need a rewrite to have the appropriate tone and presentation expected from an encyclopedia article; and the level of detail needs to be reduced in addition to complete removal of promotional material such as the list of Tandem institutions.
The external links were promotional in nature - they were there to draw attention to the institutions and projects rather than to provide further information on the topic that could not otherwise be included in the article (See WP:EL).
I suggest getting yourself an account, then restoring the information properly sourced and abridged to the most important events, concepts, etc. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I will re-view the article taking into account your ideas during winter holidays, Jürgen Wolff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.152.13 (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear colleague, as promised, I have today - reduced the level of details - suppressed the list of organizations - added sources, basically in history (one is in German because it is the most complete I found) - changed words which might be seen as publicity. I have maintained the external links to the 'big players' (Tandem Server Bochum, Tandem Foundation, Tandem International schools). I will look at your comments in the next days. Have a good exit 2011 and entry 2012, Jürgen Wolff - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.133.100 (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I'm going to try to get others' perspectives in the manner. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, let's see, Jürgen Wolff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.133.100 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Festivus

Hello, and asking for help. For the past two years I've "protected" Festivus during December and January, when it gets hundreds of thousands of hits and lots of IP and red-link user vandalism. This year I'm without a home computer for awhile, so I probably won't have one during the upcoming few weeks. Can you look in on Festivus every day, and starting on the 21st or so, like every hour??? On the 23rd it gets nearly 300,000 hits, and I'll try to cover some of that. I've asked for semi- or perm protection on the page starting in mid-December, and for sure by the 21st, so if you can contact an admin to do so this year if I don't? Thanks veryy much, and I'll send a copy of this note to True Pagan Warrior as well, who has edited the page lately and is fairly high on the contributor's list. Thanks, and nice to meet you. Randy 15:24 7-12-'11

I can keep my eye on it and get it protected when necessary, but we'll need to get more help if it needs to be reviewed on an hourly basis. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good! Maybe you and True Pagan Warrior can work together. Until the 22nd or 23rd it doesn't to be checked hourly, but during the past two years there were so many people looking at it on those dates that I kept a half-hour or so watch. I'll do some of that this year as well, but can't do a constant. The things to watch for are people messing with or "improving" the lead, trying to change the main facts there, and advertisers trying to sell their poles and things. It is quite interesting that the page is in the top 100 of wikipedia site hits for the year, and is not really protected very well. Randy 16:42 7-12-'11
If it gets protected, it will be a Festivus miracle! Watchlisted. --GraemeL (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops (maybe)

While trying to scroll a history page, I accidentally clicked the "undo vandalism" link beside your last edit on Prison tattooing. I believe I escaped out of it quickly enough to prevent the action, but I wanted to let you know in case you saw anything. Sorry!

BTW, why did you insert that link into Mgeorge27's user page? Is that a special flag? Thanks. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Looks like you didn't make any changes to Prison tattooing.
I added the link to specifically identify it. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stick around!

I saw the note on your User page and just wanted to exhort you to stay around--there are not enough good spam fighters here. I just recently ran into Hu12 and discovered the Spam Project. I think it needs all the help it can get; I hope you don't retire. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sock?

What are you talking about? I am no sock! ParanakanDoctor (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Another DPeterson sock. I've filed a report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPeterson. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Already blocked.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your edit

Hi Ronz, sorry to hear about your problems.

I have problems understanding this edit (or to say removal of a paragraph) of yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seduction_community&diff=next&oldid=456083697 The paragraph states that some teachers split off due to ethical differences. Now this could probably need some "reliable source", but in the end it seems like a truism.

But also the paragraph states that some of these teachers distance themselves from the "technologies" at hand and "proves" this with, well, a link to a statement of one of these teachers. So the "unreliable" source actually acknowledges this claim. I fail to see how there can be a more "reliable" source. But I guess a newspaper article would be accepted, even if it would only reference this webpage as well. This does not make sense in my opinion.

You may point out that these teacher in particular (or say his business) is not noteworthy, but this can be said of all teachers and "players" in this field, so if we remove all information based on such sources, we could probably throw away half of the article. I totally believe that the removal of this paragraph has not improved but worsened the article because it is a important point to show that there is even quite some criticism inside the field at hand. I have seen that you removed quite some more text with the same reasoning and I believe that you have not done good to the article there as well.

I accept that there must be some guidelines to which sources can be used, but especially in topics which are not so much explored by "traditional" media and science like the topic on hand I totally believe that this should be done with a good judgement. Therefore I ask you to reconsider your edits. -- 62.143.127.38 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for contacting me about this. "Throw away half of the article?" I wouldn't be surprised if that's already been done. Seduction community and related articles have been rife with edits of a primarily promotional nature, often with a WP:COI. Because of these problems, the article isn't much more that a promotional piece with the most blatant advertising removed. As you notice, the sources are still very poor.
I'm trying to keep the blatant advertising at bay. I'll also remove minutia that's poorly sourced, especially when it's promotional or otherwise not encyclopedic.
The most relevant policies are WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. These are two of Wikipedia's five pillars. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally unsolicited advice

Hi Ronz,

I just noticed that you've got a message box at the top of your page. Every so often I get so pissed off about something on wikipedia, or so enraged by absolute stupidity, or so disgusted about some moron sharpening their axe on some page I've worked on, and I think about packing it in. I deal with it by walking away for a bit, reading some of my favourite webcomics (Dr. McNinja anyone?) or pick up a book on an unrelated subject, and never, ever making promises I won't come back ever. Instead, I just leave it. Check in on some articles I'm really interested in once in a while. And wait for the itch to come back. I never make demands on myself, or insist I edit, or don't edit, by a specific date. And eventually, I come back and it's fun again. Helps me. Keeps me sane. Keeps the satisfaction up in the editing. Keeps the focus on better articles.

I don't know the specifics of your situation, but I really, really hope you come back. Even for a bit, even with reduced editing. You're a rock solid editor, you know how to think, research and write. You're tops in my book and I really want to keep running into you. 'O course, sometimes it ain't worth it. But know that, FWIW I'll always be happy to see your name on my watchlist. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Means a lot coming from you.
I'm still around. I've left the notices up because Wikipedia seems completely unable to address such problems, and because the harassment continues. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm always surprised when someone says that - I have a mental image of myself as OrangeMarlin's slightly less profane younger brother :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

ektitli.org

Hi, I saw that you left this on a user's talk page, but I don't know what it should do: [8]. It is a broken link, as far as I can see. (Sorry to see that you are being abused, I've stepped away from watching a number of pages because of pig-headed ignoramuses, but there can be compensating pleasant interactions sometimes.) Nadiatalent (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a low-profile way of indicating there's been some spamming of the link. I looked into the site and other editors that added it, but didn't find anything too problematic. I don't think it should be used as a reference, and it's a poor external link. --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


Hi.. just noticed that you left a message on my talk. The link led to a spam link that u made of the website i am associated with. Just wanted to inform you that I am new to wikipedia and didn't really understand what you meant. Could you please elaborate. Moreover, if u have marked the website under SPAM, kindly remove it as the editing done yesterdays were unintentional and have already been reverted. Thanks.Pbanwari (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Accounts
1.23.90.205 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Fangchu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Pbanwari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
113.193.139.24 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Poojabanwari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

--Hu12 (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Intern.publicity

Good job. I agree with your reversal of their edits. Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  21:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and re: the big block of text at the top of your talk page - I'd also be glad if you'd stick around and enjoy the project. Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

that is what i did not understand

I did not understand what was the link. You just dropped me a link. I did not understand what it meant.. And Thanks if you did not do it. Pbanwari (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. --Ronz (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Veena Malik

U have written on my talk page that do not have add poor references to some pages. Do u think that the reference of Hindustan Times and Times of India is poor?--Jozoisis (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Please review WP:BLP, WP:NOT, and the discussion on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Max Gerson

Regarding the Max Gerson page, the previous writer has a clear bias against the subject and has cited research of the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute in an attempt to present the subject in an unflattering light. I have cited The Gerson Therapy book in an attempt to edit and provide a more balanced look, but that's not good enough? Why can someone cite a reference that has a clear historical bias against the subject?

Amusedspaceman (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Greg

Response on your talk. Thanks for explaining what you meant by the ACS reference. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Granateple's edits

Hi, by all means move review articles that are listed only as "further reading" to the talk pages, but I think that your level 3 warning was a bit harsh. What I've seen of the situation (Pomegranate, Wolfberry, and Cranberry) seems to fall into WP:DNB territory. He does have a point that these are well-researched authoritative reviews and could belong somewhere. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to have more editors looking at his editing.
I gave him the warning in preparation to requesting he be blocked if he continues. He's here to promote the allegations of health benefits of fruits and fruit juices. He's been here for two months. He's decided to ignore other editors, the relevant policies and guidelines, and instead continue his improper editing. --Ronz (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, perhaps it is just enthusiasm for a particular subject, rather than self-serving promotion. Unfortunately, I don't have much time at present to work over these edits thoroughly to see if some specific statements from those articles could usefully be incorporated. Maybe in the next few weeks ... I think that there might also be a clash involved here between the "all herbal medicine is bunk" school of thought and the "herbal treatments do have some useful effects that have not been sufficiently studied" message that is coming through in some serious literature these days. Nadiatalent (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe he's done anything beyond the selection of his username, that demonstrates anything self-serving on his part. More importantly, I've not assumed that he does.
It would be great if he'd work on the articles. We need the help. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ronz -- you said:

Looks like you're cleaning up some of the same problems that I recently encountered. Best to provide some explanation somewhere. I'd started a discussion here that includes a link to the only other discussion I've found on the matter. If you are aware of other discussions, please let me know. Thanks!

Also, I think it would be best if the material was moved to the talk page of each article. I've held off doing so in order not to split the discussion, but it was probably a bad decision on my part given the extent of the editing of this sort. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to this discussion, and the offending author has slowed her/his pace to external reading sections. Transferring these additions to Talk may be fine, but I am ok with culling.

You asked: Re: Mushroom - Do you consider this a reliable source: [9] I do not consider this a reliable source, despite its apparent attraction for solving an environmental problem. The author does not publish in peer-reviewed scientific literature and retains utopian views, such as believing that "mushrooms can help save the world".[10] --Zefr (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for reverting spam and possible copyvios. Pinetalk 09:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

go2bosnia.com

Hello Ronz,

as I can see all of my edits are changed by you. I added some more external links for describing each item in Bosnia and Herzegovina because my country has very little information on English language part of Wikipedia. I don't understand what have I done wrong. I understand that Wikipedia has nofollow links, but my intention wasn't to make my page rank higher. My intention, as I intended with website www.go2bosnia.com, is to give some more information about my country to the foreigners that speak English language. Please, can you bring back the links? Thanks for your time.

Muamergon (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Muamergon

As pointed out on your talk page, the links fail WP:EL. You and at least two other editors have been recently adding them to multiple articles. The links are intended to promote tourism.
If you'd like to provide information, find independent, reliable sources to verify information in the articles and to expand the articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Website indeed intend to promote Bosnia and Herzegovina in touristic way, but this is only one aspect of this promotion. Website describes and shows real beauty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, oportunities for outdoor sports and other things. Go2Bosnia also shows cultural and historic aspect of Bosnia and Herzegovina that is based upon the facts. You can find there many photo albums and video materials from the different places. You can not find that on Wikipedia - so the best way is to show that by linking. I can guarantee you that Go2Bosnia is not a company or tourist agency. We are a team of people that love their country and intend to give a better view to the foreigners.

So, I am asking you again if you could bring back the links that are deleted.

Thanks in advance :)

Muamergon (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Muamergon

Wikipedia is not a place to showcase your work.
I'm not likely to change my mind. You can get others' opinions at WP:ELN. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

Wish you all the best :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muamergon (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for being especially clear and civil. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to contribute and help people see my country with some more light on each topic by giving them a better perspective through videos and photos. Deleting these link doesn't harm me and I have no right to act with anger. Thank you again for being polite and I wish you a nice day :) Muamergon (talk) 07:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Muamergon

Talk page Hiya

Ronz, I know I'm getting snippy over at the animal-assisted therapy page. Basically I have other fish to fry, (see Talk:Stallion, which is turning into a nightmare thanks to an anon IP with an agenda) and I apologize for being testy. It's nothing at all personal, I really prefer not to see articles that could be very good ones just torn down for their flaws unless someone is willing to fix them. Some of those EL's you've tossed can actually link to good reference content, but tossing them means that it becomes more difficult to find them again later when people have the time to work on the article. It is very helpful to not have to do look things up twice. Looks like overall you are a good editor, and I don't mean to be "bitey," I can just only deal with one article in crisis at a time... Montanabw(talk) 03:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll re-review the links, and move to the talk page anything I find that might be useful as references. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Given your uncivil comment on that article talk, I have better things to do. I moved them to talk for someone else to mine. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
We ALL have better things to do. Here, I just attempted to apologize by explaining my actions and thought process, and I feel you have just basically slapped me for trying. You may not have meant that, but it was your impact. I hope you understand that I considered your actions at that article to be rude and condescending to me, I felt preached at (I've been here for almost 6 years, I'm not a noob), and your solutions were not solutions; I have zero interest in taking anything to the "drama boards" where the most tendentious individuals on WP argue over nothing for months on end. I felt irritated and took an irritable tone in my replies, and thus we got a negative feedback loop going where we both sounded pretty snippy to each other. Though I suppose we both can do our best to do better at AGF, sometimes people are tense and having "one of those days" (weeks, months, lives...) and a little time out and deep breaths are sometimes in order. Also, incivility is on a spectrum. I see your user page has a box about how you have been bullied and harassed. So have I, it's an awful feeling. However, I suppose that one thing to remember is that the written word doesn't always convey the right emotional nuance and we ALL sometimes might say things that are construed with a different impact than was intended. Montanabw(talk) 06:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way.
Best to clean up after yourself when you lose your cool. --Ronz (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
AGF, my friend. I didn't lose my cool, I was just a bit snippy. And I'm not wasting any more time on this. Montanabw(talk) 07:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Festivus aftermath

Great work on protecting Festivus. And it's too bad that the edit count history went out from the 23rd to the 25th - the times when the page gets hundreds of thousands of hits. That's going to mess up the edit counts for all the December holiday articles. Randy 20:09 27-12-'11

Thanks. We had numerous eyes on the article keeping the problems from getting out of hand. I'm surprised that we got by without protection. --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, it may need it now. I'm seemingly involved in my first edit war, with an IP who wants to make the holiday into its opposite. Please intervene, or at least join in the "fun". Thanks. And the loss of recorded hits on Festivus and the two days after Festivus will change the placement of the page on the year's most popular listing. Gnomes in the machine. Randy 18:02 30-12-'11
The editor has taken the issue to the talk page and onto the next level with9in a the next half hour, please join in if you'd like. Thanks. Randy Kryn 18:39 30-12-'11
  1. ^ "A List of the Best Antioxidants". Oracvalues.com -The Internet Antioxidant Database. Retrieved 03/02/2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ Sabato, Jill. "Dark Chocolate is a Superfood". Articlebase. Retrieved 03/02/2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ Sabato, Jill. "Dark Chocolate is a Superfood". Articlebase. Retrieved 03/02/2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ "What Makes Dark Chocolate a SuperFood?". Retrieved 03/02/2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  5. ^ "Healthy Dark Chocolate - SuperFood Or SuperScam?". Antioxidants and Health. Retrieved 03/02/2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  6. ^ "US Highbush Blueberry Council". Antioxidant Capacity and Health Benefits of Fruits and Vegetables.
  7. ^ "Antioxidants 4 Life". Blueberries - One of Nature's Antioxidant Superfruits.
  8. ^ "Wikipedia". Oxygen radial absorbance capacity.
  9. ^ "Tufts Researchers Report Blueberries May Reduce Memory Loss and Reverse Loss of Coordination". eNews - Tufts University.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipal/Archive_37&oldid=1141172288"