User talk:Ronz/Archive 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Censure

You force them to continue without censorship argument other than the strict rules and just by responding links. Discuss the handling of which will remain unanswered for the last word always pointing out the need to follow the links that no longer want to say anything. You talk about conflict of interest when there is nothing of that. It speaks link referring to a culture that apparently you over and you are away from this culture and the people who make it.

I understand better who you are Ronz, you pass your time on wikipedia to censor the links around, on different pages. I would further link to wikipedia with you. Thanks to you the various communities who follow me will not you hearing more and more donation. No interest contributed deal with people like you who only search a display of medals on the homepage of wikipedia. Ho great déchéance regulatory oriented worldcompagnies. Ronz you pay for referrals censor links? MTV? another string of tv?

There is something to be angry are people who are unhealthy, their backside cache keyboard. Being forced to prove that good times when there is a dialogue of the deaf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.12.148 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG! Just noticed this. I'm really curious. What is your native language? It's obviously not English, and is thus so garbled that it's hardly understandable. BTW, we assume good faith here, and your comment, garbled as it is, obviously doesn't AGF of Ronz. Brangifer (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this something to do with the new owners of The Onion? Verbal chat 15:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
His native language is French. He's upset that his personal blog has been removed as an external link per WP:ELNO #11. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


Erf It's not nice of you people laugh like that, because we do not speak your language, it already shows your intelligence and respect for others facing language. I am angry for the censors, your ways and turn the story with arguments that mean nothing. Your link does not represent referent culture vjing internationnal, but that of your sponsors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.12.148 (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments make little or no sense. I suggest you find an editor to help you if you're going to continue. --Ronz (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Conversation increasingly unnecessary to face censors you, I use the automatic translator from google, your bad times sweats mediocrity. Make your law as you want, censorship will continue on your site. You made me think that the french government would pass laws Hadopi as you are of the same species, while for the control of the Internet. You can delete all my contributions to this great joke, the dialogue with you become useless and sterile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.12.148 (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you place more faith in the Google translator than it deserves. Perhaps the French Wikipedia is more suitable for you. Crafty (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


Ha good to see how much your system does not work, you are unable to resolve your problem moderator censor putting forward anything other than your formal argument of your payment you hiding behind your links. You interpreter's like you want to avoid arguing about a subject you do not know. The collaborative does not exist on WP in addition to being racist to people who do not speak your language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.12.148 (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Absurd SPI

You are the subject of a SPI. Please respond. Brangifer (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As we both know, Wikipedia is not immune to paranoia. Luckily, we can always have editors blocked when they become too disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Open Access News

I was very surprised to see that link removed as "tidying up", as Open Access News is the place to get news about the open access movement. I've put it back in. Fences&Windows 00:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

undo edit on job interviews

hello. I see that you communicated with me regarding an external link I placed on the Wikipedia page Job Interview. I would appreciate if you could provide me specifics as to why you reverted the edit for advertising reasons. Before I placed the link, I reviewed the other external links on the same page, and there are some that link to commercial sites providing how to information. I believe the link I added provides expert based how to information in video format on the topic about job interviews, and I'm not clear on why the link I provided is considered different than the other external links are non-governmental and therefore commercial. Thank you for your assistance. Qac 3 (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The material appears promotional in nature and the addition of the links appears more to promote the website than to help the article. I also pointed out that it was not a reliable source. I should have also pointed out that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.
You've since added further such links, along with some youtube links, to three other articles. I've removed them all as a continuation of the same problem. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

crankshaft.info

hi ronz am mohit from crankshaft.info,could you please tell me why you removed that link which i added. and what was that message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohitjoshi999 (talkcontribs) 17:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about it. I've left you another message that builds upon the one already on your talk page. The additional information was added to assist editors if this happens again. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ok ronz i got your neutral point statement.But i am neutral here,i just added that site because i liked it.i thought it would be nice to share it on wiki.but its ok you have the power to remove it and keep all other crap neutral links.take care —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohitjoshi999 (talkcontribs) 17:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into the other links you're concerned about. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right. I've tagged the links in Intel 8051 and Crankshaft for cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks Ronz

Appreciate your comment about the BMC Software article. I'm still working on it hopefully it will be much improved in a few days. Then I'll seek advice from other editors about how to get it shipshape. Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

I'll try to keep an eye on it, but drop me a note if you need help. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Good idea to put the tags on the BMC Software article, although I'm not sure what "wikifying" means even after checking out the site but I'll try to keep learning about this. Hopefully we'll get more editors interested (but I think most won't be interested.) I was thinking that the BIG problem with any article like "BMC Software" isn't BMC-partisans, or spam, or advertising, or incorrect facts, or undue emphasis on stuff. But the BIG BIG problem is getting anybody to read it. Boringness is a major risk here. I'm a handyman (I used to write software long ago, until object-oriented programming came along), and my bias as a writer is to try to get people to read what I write -- and so working within the confines of NOR, V, and referencing stuff -- I mean, will anybody even look at the BMC article? So, my bias is to try to make my articles FUN TO READ while staying within Wikipedia's many guidelines. Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

University Canada West

he/she is at it again... I don't know who's right and what's up here, but the IP-user is extremely uncivil and very aggressive. I don't think that's how wiki works. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not an admin. Do not threaten me as such. University Canada West appears to not be accredited under the uniform association of Canadian universities (AUCC) and it is for profit, which is unique. Also British Columbia is the only province that allows the term "university" to be labeled to non research, for profit institutions. The "university" is housed in an office building, and costs significantly more than other schools. It smells like a ITT tech or Everst college type school to me. This school seems like a scam. Wiki users need to know this.

Threaten me again, and ill submit you to an actual admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.74 (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're so upset. It's no threat. You were edit-warring, and the notice I gave you is a recommended step in addressing such problems.
Yes, appears to be an exception to the quality of Canadian universities. However, the article needs to be written from sources rather than speculation. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats your response. Real mature and profesional. What a joke, I make a legit claim on your discussion and you write lol. What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.74 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit-conflict) You'll notice that I changed my comments at the same time you replied. I hope you find them satisfactory. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you work for university canada west? Why are you so defensive of this diploma mill clown college? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.74 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up the article based upon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please focus on improving the article rather than on the editors involved. Repeated inquiries and accusations about editors is considered harassment, which can result in a block. --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
See WP:TALK, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement??

Received your message. Not sure where I entered and self promoting text. Please advise.

Rick... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SupplyChainGuy (talkcontribs) 20:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'll discuss on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

SCM

Thanks for the reply. The content was edited because it was inaccurate, slightly misleading, and not reflective of the practitioner's understanding of the subject. I didn't know where/how to explain the edit. I only referenced The Supply Chain Center to corolate with the other two organizations that are mentioned. Supply Chain Guy 13:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SupplyChainGuy (talkcontribs)

Bill Bryson

Ronz,

Thanks for the message at my talk page. I think some of the ELNO points you raise I could argue on technicalities (e.g. #14 is "Lists of links..." not just one link) but it is not that important and I trust your judgment more. Don't worry about lack of edit summary; I hope you realise I didn't revert just because there was no edit summary (tempting though tha sometimes is with editors who simply never put one in despite requests to), but that I genuinely could not see what really was the problem with it. I think that the ELNO list must be interpreted fairly liberally, but I see no reason to argue this just for the hell of it. You did the right thing to revert the revert. SimonTrew (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ronz. You have new messages at MSGJ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BMC Software

Well, wondering about BMC Software what can be done. Are the tags attracting any editors? I'm still not sure what "wikify" means -- someone said once it means placing lots of links to other WP articles; would this help improve BMC Software? I'd like to remove the "wikification needed" tag. Asking your opinion. And did you want to expand the first paragraph (that is, put lead sentence and subsequent paragraph together?) Sometimes I like the idea of a simple lead sentence, but maybe combining lead + paragraph makes sense.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Thanks for the reminder. I'll reply on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dajipur

Hello Ronz, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Dajipur - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguously promotional. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I tagged three or four such articles - all borderline speedy deletion candidates. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

About BMC Software removal of images, and traffic statistics

While I agree most images you removed were not "directly relevant", I thought they added beauty to the page, made an otherwise dull topic more interesting, particularly the moving images, and may have helped attract non-software types to have a look. If you think that removing the images is helpful to getting it to a "good article" status, I'll follow your lead here. One neat new tool is to measure a page's traffic is http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/bmc_software -- it has daily counts. Right now it hovers around 200 views per day (dropping on weekends) -- what I'm saying is that we can try different things with articles and see what happens in terms of traffic. This is the best we've got in the absence of some formal feedback mechanism.Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Hey

Thanks for the previous message! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manteno (talkcontribs) 07:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Time to remove tags on the BMC Software article?

I know their purpose was to attract other editors. They haven't come, or if they did, they didn't think much was wrong with this article. I think the article is pretty good as it is. It has lots of references. It is NPOV with data about competitors. It's solid. I worked hard on it. If YOU have issues with it, please fix them, but if you don't, please consider removing the tags which make it look like its troubled somehow; I think the BMC article is better than most articles about businesses on Wikipedia, don't you agree?Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

What's the rush? --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)