User talk:Hipal/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Re:Talk:Stephen_Barrett

Your point is well-taken and I tried to clarify my point on that talk page. Regards.RalphLender^talk 17:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

List of portable software

Hi!

A quick note to say thanks for the changes to List of portable software - it certainly needs some attention!

Two thoughts though; wouldn't it have been better to leave the external links in for those systems which don't have a Wikipedia entry? I would have said it would reduce value to readers if they just have the name of the application, with no other information to go on (i.e. some means of finding out more; typing the name of the software into something like Google would produce a lot of irrelevant hits due to the use of pretty generic names for some of the packages)

I think the main problem with this page is that there's a lot of software listed on it which isn't actually portable - many of the applications have to be installed on a PC and then copied over to a USB drive - at which point it's claimed that they're "portable" (e.g. not that long ago, someone added "World of Warcraft", on the basis that if you installed it, copied all the files from the installation directory onto a removable drive and applied a software crack to it, it would work "portably"!) Nuwewsco 23:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, the links don't belong per WP:NOT#LINK. This is an encyclopedia, not a reference as to where to get portable software.

I agree that the list shouldn't include non-portable software, but that's only going to be possible if the definition of portable is agreed upon and isn't changed. --Ronz 23:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; though it may be worth removing the popups as well for those ones which don't have a wikipedia article (some have them, some don't - which seems a bit inconsistent!) Nuwewsco 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It needs a lot of cleanup. I'm working on the links first. --Ronz 00:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Barrett - "zealous advocate" again

Actually I (slightly) prefer the current version as edited by I'clast, since this is supposed to say something about Barrett. The rest can be found in the linked King Bio article. I suppose the current version could be called worse from Barrett's POV but I believe it is much closer to the sources. (FWIW, I also believe the entire para needs to go since it's WP:SYN and arguably OR. But I'm not about to delete it...) AvB ÷ talk 17:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than not making explicit that Barrett's on the board, I like it also. I'll give it a try then. --Ronz 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement to me :-) AvB ÷ talk 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that eventually the section should at least be considered for removal because of SYN and NOR, but given how long it's taking just to discuss the certification povpush, I'm not holding my breath. --Ronz 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly... AvB ÷ talk 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick thanks for your assistance. Nposs 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

As we are new to Wikipedia, we violated fundamental rules and are now digging our way out of the hole we created for ourselves. Your posting of pertinent links to Wikipedia policy will help us recover. Thanks for your help. --Save OU Sports 15:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

Glad I could help. --Ronz 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Link controversy

I restored relevant links that you had removed from the Health freedom movement article. I did not spam and the links were well integrated in the article text. The article is far from a “mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files”. I get the impression (from reading on this Talk Page) that you are interpreting the EL policy in an unnecessary strict way that makes the articles less useful for the readers. MaxPont 16:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this problem is minor and easily settled, but I think it would be easiest with some outside help. --Ronz 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring (2)

Please avoid making this kind of edit. It makes for big trouble, much worse than leaving it in. These are not personal attacks of the sort you are encouraged to remove. They do not rise to that level. Fred Bauder 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Give me some alternatives, some better guidelines, or examples of how to handle this type of harrassment. Reports to WQA, AN/I, etc go without response. Perhaps it's time for me to leave Wikipedia altogether if WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:HAR, etc. are just words. --Ronz 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]I agree with Fred Bauder on this. You went far beyond what is acceptable for removing personal attacks. If the personal attacks are so severe that you need to make that many edits then you should be seeking other redress. Editing the comments of others is not appropriate. Making a reasonable complaint about your editing behavior does not constitute a personal attack. -Will Beback · † · 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, no alternatives offered. How about rubbing it in another time? Or maybe you too can move on to being uncivil, since those policies are just words to be ignored? You're wasting my time here if you can't give me any options, discuss what's going on, or respond to any of my concerns.--Ronz 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen where you said you had changed approach. I'm glad to hear it. There are a number of alternatives. The simplest one is to ignore the phrases you don't like. The language you deleted was not personal attacks, and it was hardly uncivil. The next option is to request the editor to stop using the uncivil language. Finally, you can request comments in an RfC or seek sanctions in a community ban or ArbCom action. Keeping a civil and even collegial atmostsphere is necessary for a project like Wikipedia: editing other people's comments tends to antagonize rather than calm them. -Will Beback · † · 17:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I certainly disagree about what constitutes personal attacks and incivility, but I guess we're not going to get anywhere on that issue. I'll keep trying other approaches, being at a complete loss for examples of how to properly handle them. --Ronz 17:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, as a member of Arbcom Fred Bauder is in a position to know what WP:CIVIL entails. I'm hoping for your continued help with some anti-spam issues that we both work on, and so please hang loose a bit on these issues of policy interpretation. If you want to see examples where people have tried to use the 'RPA' template, open up Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:RPA and search each listed page for 'Personal attack removed.' Of course these uses of the template could still get the respective editors in hot water. EdJohnston 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know who Fred is, and respect his opinions. I considered the issue settled after telling him thanks, other that I'd like some useful alternatives besides just saying goodbye to Wikipedia in disgust.

I'm not sure Will is, am quite unimpressed with his interpretation of WP:CIVIL, and don't think he's done much here but made the situation worse. Seems to be someone just chiming in without the time to actually figure out how to be relavant. Not that he's doing anything wrong, just that he's not helpful.

Thanks for pointing me to the RPA template. Interesting, but I'm going to take my own approach on this. As I've said, I've yet to see any good examples on how to deal with these issues. --Ronz 19:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wasting my time

But I'm really tired of the harassment and editwarring that certain editors feel that they can get away with. I've said it before, and I'll say it again now, I don't know how to deal with them and I find it very troubling that few appear to be dealing with it at all.

There was discussion of article probation in the Ilena/Fyslee Arbitration. Has such a thing been done before? I'd like to learn what it means, and what's happened when it's been tried.

Also, if you didnt already notice, I disagree with your observations, but that's really only a trivial part of my reply [8]. --Ronz 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was, and remain, very frustrated when I attempt to edit disputed articles. We did not use article probation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. It was used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education but had to be re-opened and editing restricted. Essentially it is a warning that continued editwarring will result in editing restrictions. Fred Bauder 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read before contributing to this refactoring discussion

I'm trying to find better ways of dealing with Tendentious editing, Disruptive editing, and the all-to-common bullying within Wikipedia. I'm doing this in response to my own involvement into the events surrounding the Ilena and Fyslee arbitration. I feel the arbitration should have never have taken place, and that it did only because numerous editors let the problems get so very out of hand for such a very long that there was no other choice. I'm looking for some preventative measures. First and foremost in my mind is getting editors to be more respectful of each other by being more respectful of the numerous policies and guidelines related to civility. Refactoring is a tool I learned after the ArbCom had already started. It's a very useful tool, but not widely enough accepted to be the solution I had hoped for. I'm still trying, though I'm getting quite disgusted at the situation. --Ronz 21:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk Stephen Barrett

Hi Ronz, being a new editor I hope it's ok to ask you about your comment on Stephen Barrett talk page about talking in circles still. I suggested adding the little bit saying "and he was not board certified" to the end of the sentence. Do you think that just this little bit is still breaking with policy of Wikipedia and the discussions that have been on going on the talk page? I am still learning the rules here and some of them are at times very confusing to me so I am hoping to understand your thoughts on this so I can learn and if I am in error, make the correction appropriate. I thought this was a way to stop the feuding and compromise without any negatives falling into the article like the wanting of some to add that Dr. Barrett didn't pass his test and so forth. Would you please be kind enough to try to explain why you still think my suggestion is talking is circles? I would really appreciate hearing your input on this and I could learn some more hopefully. My learning curve is real slow so I stick pretty much to talk pages with ideas and wait for what the group on the page has to say. I have only edited something into an article two or three times so bold I am not! :) Again, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. Happy Holidays! --Crohnie 21:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned to you before, these aren't the types of articles that I recommend anyone use to learn about editing in wikipedia. You're in the middle of a point of view push that has been going on for years.

That said, I don't think you're talking in circles, only that you're compromising on policy. I'd have to go in circles to respond to what's been said, because most of what has been said is just repetition, and none of it is actually addressing the concerns that I feel are most important.

My solution to these problems, one that's usually ignored, is to look at what's been done in other articles. Try to find articles that are similar and see what other editors have done to address the situation. --Ronz 00:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I do really understand what you are saying now. I have kept up with the whole talk page so I do know what you mean about talking in circles, which is what I thought my sentence would at least stop and get better focus going on. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain it to me, it is really appreciated. I have seen your writings on a few different article talk pages and I really like the way you know the different rules for editing here. This has been most helpful to me. Thanks again very much, have a good day.--Crohnie 11:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie, something to consider is the weight of criticism that is in the SB article versus say other notable critics (such as James Randi). What you will find is that there is an overwhelming push to have the vast majority of the article detailing criticism of the subject of a BLP which is in complete contrast to what the policy states while proponents all argue using the guise of "facts". The fact is, most "facts" are not worthy of a encyclopaedia, hence why we have the Notable policy. But as Ronz points out, we are going around and around in circles because certain editors just don't read certain policies. Shot info 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We have shown over and over again that Barrett's lack of board certification is notable (being a featured subject in several lawsuits and widely-read publications). I can't speak for the other, but I certainly have read the policies in question and addressed each one to the point of ad nauseum. If there is still a specific policy which you would like to discuss (as it pertains to the article and material in question), feel free to bring it up at Talk:Stephen Barrett and I will be more than happy to discuss. Thus far, I haven't seen a convincing argument to leave this material out any longer. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your round-in-circles arguments off my talk page. They're insulting enough on the article talk page. Please learn to respect other editors and Wikipedia. --Ronz 23:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, I feel that your comment above is disrespectful in nature and hostile. Calling my arguments "insulting" is uncivil. Please refactor.

As you will note in my comment to this discussion (which you seemed to have no problem withbeing here until I contributed), I am suggesting that we move this back to Talk:Stephen Barrett and off your talk page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please learn to respect other editors and Wikipedia. --Ronz 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz. Now please do likewise and remove your hostile comments about me here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it'll have to wait til we get some mediation. You have no respect for the round-in-circles warning and don't like that I call you on it. Reminds me of how Ilena would attack anyone who pointed out when she did something wrong. --Ronz 00:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are being purposefully hostile and disrespectful toward me right now. I am going to disengage from you in hopes that it will give you time to cool off. In my absense, please consider refactoring your uncivil comments about me here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'm still waiting on mediation for your repeated attacks on me, which you back with assumptions of bad faith on my part. My attempts at clarification and resolution have been met with only further attacks on your part. Again, it reminds me of how Ilena complained about others' behavior that was completely fine but she just didnt' like, all in an attempt to divert attention away from her own blatant misbehavior. --Ronz 01:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to clutter up your talk page Ronz, but Levine is labouring under the miscomprehension that the current non notable fact = criticism from my perspective. I have been discussing the overall content of the article in question with Crohnie with reference to the current "fact"'s notability. Then I point out other BLPs (following on from Ronz's lead) to Crohnie to guide him to how other ... better written ... BLPs exist in WP. I am using the current "fact" in the context of notability, not the context of the overall article suffering undue weight. Please stop making this assertion. Shot info 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Shot info, I am lost by what you mean by this. Please explain explicitly. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop assuming things here and on my talk page ie/ that I regard the "fact" as criticism. Shot info 01:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for that. Your writing to Crohnie indicates that you feel that the "push" to have the fact (that Barrett isn't board certified) is fueled by editors wanting more criticism in the article. I think you can see how I was tripped up. Again, I apologize. So, for the record then, you don't consider the insertion of the fact (Barrett not being board certified) to be a criticism? Right? BTW, let's move this back to Talk:Stephen Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology noted, you didn't have to apologise, you just need to reconsider butting in. My points on the fact's non-notability are already on the Barrett talk page...round and around we go...again... 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not round-and-round. This is actually a new question. Do you consider it to be a criticism if we were to mention that Barrett is not board certified? I request that you answer this question on Talk:Stephen Barrett instead of here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Next you will be asking me if I am a blood relative of Ronz :-) Shot info 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh. No. I can assume by your response to me above that you don't consider it a criticism of Barrett. That's why you came down on me... for assuming that you did. But I don't want to assume anything. I just want to know how you feel about this. Yes you do think it is criticism or no you do not. Personally, I don't think it is criticism. Onward to Talk:Stephen Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Seriously though, I thought we had taken this back to the article talk page.

Back to the much-needed humor. What about, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?"--Ronz 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Levine you will have to sometime just be satisfied with people not answering your question(s). I "came down hard on you" (your words, not mine) to ask you to stop assuming stuff...which you still continue to do even as you point it out above (you now think that I don't think it's criticism...for your info, I haven't even entertained either notion and I don't see the value in regarding it as one or the other). State your points and leave others to make their own without you trying to second (third, fourth...) guess them. And to answer Ronz' question, no, but the Illuminati...shhhhhhh :-) Shot info 01:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am only wishing to get a better understanding of your position here. Why you are reluctant to state it, I don't know. Well, I don't want to badger you about it, so I guess it will remain unanswered. Seems pretty innocuous though. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be something else entirely [9]. --Ronz 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FFS this is turning out to be a repeat of "Are you Barrett's son". Get a clue, people don't have to answer your endless badgering. I have answered your question, but like normal, the answer isn't what you want to see, round and around we go, where will we stop... Shot info 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, thanks for explaining on my talk page. I responded back to you on my talk page. --Crohnie 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Player Project

(Refactor: Copy of prod notice removed - no need for it here - personal attack removed) So, include delete in Player/Stage_Project, delete now from the page or include a merge. And delete also Microsoft Robotics Studioor merge them in a common article. If you want I can merge Microsoft Robotics Studio and Player Project. --Altermike 06:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't make sense of that. --Ronz 15:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Stress

Dear Rontz, Thank you for your comment. Perhaps I should have stressed the words appropriately. We all know the following example: "None of woman born shall harm Macbeth"; "None of woman born shall harm Macbeth". Now consider this: "I find it very frustrating that no notable critics have so far made my notable criticisms of Barrett". robert2957 12:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

Dear Ronz,

I don't think I understand your comment: "You're not trying to determine importance by asserting it without reference to sources." Do you mean that I am trying to determine importance by asserting it without reference to sources. ? robert2957 20:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I think you're describing the problem extremely well. You realise that we can't determine importance without referring to a source. It's others who are making this mistake, discussing importance without referring to specific sources. --Ronz 04:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, Many thanks for your response. I am sorry that I misunderstood you. I hadn't read the previous discussion to which you refer me and I think I was a little tired when I responded to your comment. I don't question anyone's good faith either. Not that of other Wikipedia editors or Dr. Barrett. robert2957 06:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultras

Hi further to your removal of the links, referring to this - WP:NOT#LINK, was there a consensus reached to remove the links? And have you also removed the links from Barra brava and Torcida which were originally on the Ultras list but removed to those pages in order to clean the list up and make it more manageable?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There's consensus on the policy and how to apply it. I've elaborated further on the article talk page. --Ronz 16:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, anthony[review] 12:27, Sunday November 3 2024 (UTC)

Manufacturing Execution System

Hi, I have reverted your deletions on Manufacturing Execution System as the links that were on the article benefit the user. Ideally of course we would like to have more information about this topic, but at present we dont, so linking to external sites that do host relevant information is "a good thing". Cheers, John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayvdb (talk • contribs)

The list of companies is clearly spam. --Ronz 23:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I dont agree with the {{importance}} tag as it is a reasonable stub, but I'll leave it there in the hope someone improves it. John Vandenberg 00:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think importance tags are a good start for stubs like this. They're not as intimidating as notability tags, yet still direct editors to the priority of demonstrating notability. The article was created over two years ago, so I think some direction for editors is in order. --Ronz 00:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I worry about tags like this, as it only takes one energetic admin to delete the article. {{expand}} is IMO more appropriate where the stub is a decent start but in need of work. John Vandenberg 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation of Stephen Barrett article

Hi Ronz, I haven't responded to the mediation because I never did anything like this and so I have been just keeping an eye on it. I noticed that the same arguments are being made with Levine and that now he thinks that all of the information about Barrett failing the test should be in the article. I really though this would go differently than it has. I thought that consideration and talk of the policies that you and others were helping me to understand would be discussed. I only see you mentioning it after the second response from Levine about the reasons it abides by policy. Is this how these things always look like? To be honest, I am quite disappointed by the way editors responded on this mediation forum compared to the conversations on the talk pages, esp. about notability. No mentions at all about how board certification was not popular back in Barrett's day, and the failure rates of others taking the same tests. With this mediator having these templates and special rules on how he wants formatting has prevented me to be bold enough to give my own feeling on this matter. I guess I want to know is if I can still give input with the first part even though Anthony has started the second section now. And if so, what is the formatting I need to do to voice an opinion? Sorry to be a bother to you but you have been so kind and helpful to me and I really would like to have the link about the boards that I posted, that is if you think he would even look at it. It seems like this is going to be put in from my feel of things and I really think that though some editors say it's not negative to say he failed the test and didn't retake it will read negatively to new readers. What do you think my options are or should I just do what I am and lurk and see how it all shakes out? Thanks for your understand and help on these matters. --Crohnie 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with this type of mediation myself, and non with the Mediation Cabal that went this far.

If you don't want to just jump in, discuss your concerns with Anthony. He seems pretty responsive.

I'm a bit concerned how it's going myself, but I'm waiting for more comments from others at that moment. --Ronz 23:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, do you think if I email him with the link and let him know that I am pretty new to all this that he would understand and/or help me get my thoughts into the group? I am willing to give a try. I really do not think, deep inside me, that the failing of the test esp. should be in the article. If the not board certified is added I don't see this as a negative statement like I do having such a broad explanation like what is be requested again. Thanks,--Crohnie 23:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just post to his talk page? --Ronz 23:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just emailed him, I'll let you know if I hear anything. I thought about his talk page after I hit sent, it's late, bedtime I think. Thanks, --Crohnie 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Levine just posted to the second part of the mediation. He wants two sentences and explains how if fits policy. You know policy better than I so I hope you don't mind me deferring to you to answer to this. I hope some others join in too that were against this whole thing in the first place. Well good night, have happy dreams. --Crohnie 00:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that Anthony did get back to me and I followed his directions to post there. He is going to move and fix my formatting as he deems necessary. He was very nice about the whole thing. :) --Crohnie 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

When is the debating going to stop about the board certification and failing? I thought that it was already decided that enough editors didn't agree it should be in the article. I don't understand what this mediation is to accomplish with everything still being repeated and repeated again. Well I'm off to bed, I hope things settle down tomorrow with this. Have a good night. --Crohnie 22:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea. We just go round and round in circles. The issue has been discussed by Levine 2112 for almost 15 months now and he doesn't appear to be slowing down. --Ronz 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about your comment "facts are not suitable?"

If you wouldn't mind, you said in mediation that facts are not suitable for Wikipedia. Would you post a short explanation of what you mean and the policy that I can read to understand this bit clearer on my talk page for easier access for me? I think I understand what you are saying but I am not sure if my thinking is what you are saying. What I mean is, if I have a fact from a primary source about something, then does that mean it is not acceptable until I find another source outside the original information to use that information? Also, is this rule for all articles or just biographies of living people? Thanks, you have been a blessing to me with interpreting the rules and policies that can be very confusing to utilize in concert with all the policies that are here. --Crohnie 11:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I had written something similar on the Barrett talk page.

I'm referring to WP:V's "verifiability, not truth." We shouldn't be separating information from the sources we have for the information, because as editors, we're not here to do the research, to determine the truth or facts. If we try to deal with just facts alone, separate from their sources, then we have no means way of determining if and how these facts should be treated.

Levine2112 is claiming that because we know certain facts about Barrett's credentials, we can determine if and how to treat those facts within the article while completely and totally ignoring the sources (and context) for those facts. From WP:WEIGHT, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." --Ronz 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I understand now. Sorry for not getting back sooner, my son and I were in a car accident with two other cars last night. No major injuries thank goodness other than soreness and my sons car got towed for major repairs. Thanks again, --Crohnie 21:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the accident. Do take care.

I'd like to hear your explanation of this "facts" issue. I've explained it so many times in so many ways that I think there must be a simpler explanation. --Ronz 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well this is my interpretation of it so far from what I have learned. Facts are only allowed when there is a primary source that is back up with a known secondary source that is reliable to most people. Internet website, not involved in the facts or in spamming, that are reliable and back up the information from the primary source. Even a newspaper or magazine is a secondary source if the information is being reported about the primary source. If there is a primary source giving facts about something and no secondary source is found or available then the information has to wait until a good secondary source is available and found. --Crohnie 12:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree, with some caveats. Information verified only through primary sources must be used with caution, because it's easy to present such information with bias, and hard to determine how to properly present them neutrally. If editors agree on how to use such information, then secondary sources are not required. --Ronz 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, I understand this too. --Crohnie 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Before you designate something as spam perhaps you should read all the external link pages cause you cut my links and then left the crap links on. just because they were badly designed websites. We know the areas we add to and know what is useful and what isnt and is to indepth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.241.54 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Take some responsibility for your actions. Stop spamming or you'll be blocked again. --Ronz 14:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I am sincerely sorry if you found my post offensive. I have edited it to reflect that it is my opinion so as not to be taken personally. Steth 17:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have apologized and made changes as you requested, in good faith, however, I don't think it is appropriate for you to make this request just because you don't like it. Debates can become lively and heated and feelings may be hurt and egos bruised. I don't see how placating you will benefit other editors involved in the mediation. Sorry. Steth 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're unable to be civil and assume good faith. No that I was expecting more from you though considering your normal behavior. I do find it ironic that you've given a great example of the hypocrisy of the wikilawyering at the heart of all this: trying to attack Barrett by taking others' attacks of him out of context. --Ronz 15:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

Here. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I saw it. I was waiting to see if he'd add anything more. --Ronz 20:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Considering the contribs, though, I reckoned it was a kind of foregone conclusion after four days. Anyway, I didn't salt, so we shall see. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

RFC for User Conduct of User:Badmonkey

An RFC has been opened for User Conduct of User:Badmonkey. Since you have been involved at some point in trying resolve a dispute with this editor I am bringing this to your attension. Note the instructings in the RFC instruct me to leave a note on the talk page of anyone who has tried to resolve this dispute and I am not WP:CANVASSing. I request you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badmonkey and act or comment as you deem appropriate. Russeasby 00:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I was hoping he would have stopped before it came to this. --Ronz 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation of Stephen Barrett article (more)

From what I can understand the information that brought all of us to mediation was denied so why the on going debates still? I left a message on Anthony's page to pop in and get control if he would but I don't understand, isn't this supposed to end already? Anthony wrote that the suggestion didn't pass so why all the continued agruments and debates? This system either works or it doesn't but it sure is wordy and taking up a lot of time talking in circles about the same ole', same ole'. What's your thoughts about this? Well I have to get ready to go to work. Hopefully this will be done when I get home this aftenoon. I know, wishful thinking! ;) Have a good day, --Crohnie 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry forgot this title was above, feel free to move it to the rest of the conversations. I would but I don't know how to. --Crohnie 13:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the answer is that we continue until the mediator stops it. I've no idea what we'll do now that he has. --Ronz 16:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the mediation, things have changed, a lot. Anthony is going under another name and he deleted over 7,000 post there. He said he is taking it to email.--Crohnie 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever done a mediation via email? If so, how does it work? --Crohnie 17:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of what Anthony had done when I wrote that. I've never done mediation by email. We'll see how it goes. --Ronz 19:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cat baths

Here is just one link [10]There are a lot more doing a Google check with the words cat bath pictures. I hope this is helpful. --Crohnie 18:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

MDS Edit War

RONZ I will not write anymore on the talk page. It seems that while Wikipedia has found some real editors who sincerly want to improve the article, however my faith that something positive will happen is not very good. I have followed yours and two other admins comments around Wikipedia and it seems to me that you guys think or at least seem to think that MDS International is getting the "bad deal" here. However, there is a "Contempt of Court" finding against them in US Federal Court posted in Wikipedia commons. There are lawyer's names as well as a Judge's name on this order. A simple call to this attorney, Laurin Mills, of Nixon/Peabody (a huge legal firm in DC) would clarify the situation for eveybody. Unless we believe that a respected officer of the court is going to mislead Wikipedia.

In addition, MDSI has admitted to pirating software. They claimed the Xingtech software was abandoned. How does that happen? A call to Real AGAIN would confirm or deny this. It would also confirm or deny who is the deceptive one. We have contacted REAL. We will supply REAL with the HyperBoost disc that was purchased by us from MDSI. We have also pointed them to the edits by jeanclauduc.

They have admited to sticking it to an outside investor for 3 million. They continually post old news about that investor being indicted (as a politician) and never post the news that shows that he was not only exonerated (three times), but the charges were acknowledged as political. There are threats to sue everybody and accusations of CIA and DST (french secret service) involvement. Yet when one Googles MVDDS and Kirkpatrick, one sees the person (described by jeanclauduc as the evil mastermind) testifying before the Senate as business partners with, none other than, MDSI. Everybody is supposedly sued in France by MDSI.

While some of the conclusions of the people trying to fix this are understandable, some simply aren't. A good example, on the www.mds.fr website there is a section that was entitled "Patents" and displaying a trademark registration from the US Patent and Trademark office. Someone who does not know this document would well think it is a patent. After it was pointed out that this was no patent, the section becomes "Trademarks and Patents" even though no "patent" for Hypercable, HyperGate is displayed. While this is not much by itself, it illustrates a whole pattern of deception by MDSI.

Another good example, Who might be this Fabrice Ducasse? "So called" product manager from MDS America. it turns out that this is Jean-Claude Ducasse's oldest son and a member of the Board of Directors of MDSI and designer of the HyperGate system who resigned from the company over these business practices.

MVDDS is an American acronym, I helped create this industry. Look it up, show me a system outside the US that is called MVDDS. MVDDS is in the 12.2GHz to 12.& GHz band, the DBS band. But the DBS band in Europe is different. The FCC created this service. It is American. Under the legal agreement, of which MDSI is held in contempt, MDSI is prohibuted from offering systems in the US even though distributors. Their wab site says "Serving the entire world except installations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico" in very small letters and yet has MVDDS plastered all over it. They have several other companies, Worldwave.eu, MMDS Hypercable, etc. Go to their site, send an email telling them you want to build MVDDS systems in the US. See if you are told that MDSI can not sell in the US.

There are MVDDS-like systems overseas, however:

We have built both systems overseas, both in Ireland and the UAE. The Irish system is owned and operated by South Coast Television. They are old "Customers" of MDSI who built an MDS America system. Their number is publicly available, call them and ask why they did not buy from MDSI. You will get the same answer.

Could you postulate how one can envision that jeanclauduc is the victim here? 72.19.4.235 18:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

None of this matters if you can't provide verifiable, reliable sources for it. We have rules of behavior here, and we expect all to follow them. My participation has only been to make sure that the editors involved understand and follow the relevant policies and guidelines. I specifically singled out jeanclauduc for close examination, so I'm definitely not treating him as a victim. --Ronz 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Can you please keep alert, to undo any defamation that might be added? Something that used to be protected is no longer, to help with the AfD. Thanks, EdJohnston 16:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam group

Do you think I would be able to join in stopping spam in articles? I do know what spam is and I would like to help. --Crohnie 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! I wish I had joined early on. WP:EL and WP:SPAM are the only guidelines that regularly come up, and there's lots of helpful editors. --Ronz 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the link? --Crohnie 21:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam --Ronz 21:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Rather than removing my comments from your talk page, wouldn't you prefer to discuss the issue with me to help us collaborate in the future? I get the feeling that we are both going to be editing at Wikipedia for a long time, and I would hope that you would be in favor of finding a way for us to collaborate in the future. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not when you repeatedly assume bad faith and worse [11]. --Ronz 18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't assume bad faith and what is "worse"? What does the diff above show? Please explain in detail. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[12]. --Ronz 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And what does that show? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That you fail to Assume Good Faith. Shot info 03:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take the time to read my comment again. You will see that I specifically say that I am not assuming anything. I was merely postulating. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to choose a better verb [[13]], [[14]]. Shot info 01:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Many definitions. Putting forward a hypothetical possible undetermined rational guess was more along the lines of my intent -- but as I clearly state, my intent was not to assume. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your intent was clearly laid out for all the see. If you didn't wish to "assume" anything, that prehaps you shouldn't have assumed it. Your backpedaling does not undo your failure to assume good faith. Shot info 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper and Barrett Mediation

Yes, you understand me, and I agree with your comment on my page. Fcsuper 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is any further participation needed, let me know. :) Fcsuper 15:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

DR

One thing we haven't tried is getting help from related projects, WP:BLPP and the WP:NPR both seem related enough that they might help. --Ronz 14:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. I didn't know WP:BLPP existed. Just added myself. I'm not sure about the NPR members but I know a lot of the BLPP folks. It's a mixed bag - not everyone there is all that strict about BLP.

There's also WP:3O. Perhaps we need an uninvolved admin. User:Uncle G comes to mind. I met him a couple of days ago when patrolling the BLPNB. He doesn't think highly of me, but in hindsight that's actually to his credit. Anyway, we'll see how far we can go with the MedCab case first. I've written to Anthony that I'm game but will be away from 29 April to 6 May. No response so far. AvB ÷ talk 15:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)