User talk:Ronz/Archive 8

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


Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
I, Durova, award Ronz the Working Man's Barnstar for contributions to WP:COIN. Keep up the good work! DurovaCharge! 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz 21:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Web chat site

Hi Ronz, sorry but if my external link is spam I think what the other external link seems spam too Webchat at the Open Directory Project (suggest site) , Webchat is a commercial name of real time customer support. If you click to this link, the second link you find casually is Webchat (, in this case I think the external link should be pointed to web chat site. Anyway, this is my first day at Wikipedia and maybe I am wrong.

In other hand of questions what is this?: Template:uw-spam1 --> [1]?? Is possible that you created a templated indicating that our site is a spammer?, Please if you created it, please, delete it, i'm not spammer!! Thank you. Spanto -- RealTimeQuery 03:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. --Ronz 03:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oxford handbook

Hi Ronz!

I checked: The external link to the oxford handbook on innovation corresponds correctly to the isbn number in the references to the entry innovation. So it should not be a link spam. Am I correct?

Thanks for your contributions, regis cabral

That's not the problem. It's a question of the link meeting WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Ronz 17:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
There were two links to the same page, a page that has pricing and purchase information for the book in question at the most prominent place on the page. While the links may have been placed there in good faith, they still should be removed as inappropriate. --Ronz 17:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearspace edits

Hi Ronz, I'm trying to correct the errors you noted on the Clearspace entry and thought I had addressed them properly, but when I returned to the page I saw that you had reverted my changes and replaced the Advert and Reference notices and added an additional linkspam notice.

My corrections to the page were based on the accepted entry for a very similar product, Atlassian Confluence. Could you give me some more detail on what is wrong with the entry and what you'd do to correct it?

Thanks, Marshall —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:42, 10 July 2007

It's a bad article to use as an example. If I were you I'd start by finding reliable sources that demonstrate notability of the software (reviews or the like). That will give you some references and make the article unlikely to be deleted because of notability concerns. --Ronz 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Wow, Ronz, I didn't see this until today. Thank you very much for restoring my user page after it was vandalised. — Athaenara 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --Ronz 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Appropriateness of Wikipedia Postings

Hi Ronz,

You recently sent me a message on my talk page, basically asking me to stop spamming. I posted this article on the ITIL wikipedia page in the external links section.

Did you take it off the ITIL page?

I posted that link there because that article is about ITIL. Already there is a link in the external links section to an ITIL article from the same website ( that has been on that wikipedia page for years.

The article I posted is a purely editor article from the magazine Public CIO. How is posting a new editorial article on a wikipedia page about the subject of the wikipedia page spam? Adding editorial article links (that are appropriate and about the subject the wikipedia page is about) to wikipedia pages adds value. I can understand if I was posting an article that was inappropriate to the subject of the wikipedia page. Do you feel this is the case? If so, please tell me how it is inappropriate.

Thank you for messaging me, otherwise it would be a mystery to me why/how my links were taken down.

mudge 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to link to every site in existence that meets a certain criterion. Sometimes we just need one site representative of a category. Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia of content. External links are detrimental to this goal, they lead the reader away, to content that is controlled by others. Some links can be a service to the reader, but they cannot improve the encyclopedia itself.
Your contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links to and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contribution History as a whole, the majority seem to be related only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto, right? see Links normally to be avoided Hu12 01:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Just to add, I gave Mudgen a further warning based upon another editors identification of the link as being spam. --Ronz 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

removal of links..

hey Ronz

i'm a bit dazed and appear to have removed a set of links to mennelll media and fruit phonics.....given that these are links to a developing and free learning resource, this seems a little bizarre, especially given that they were surrounded by nakedly commercial links.

Can you advise us of the cultural norm here.


Blabberfruit 01:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if the notes I added to your talk page didn't explain the situation clearly. The links appear to be highly promotional in nature, not the type of links that people would expect in encyclopedia articles. Your adding multiple such links, all in one day, and nothing more is considered to be spam. The links already on your talk page go to articles that cover these issues in great depth. I'm happy to answer your questions, but it would probably be best if you read WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK first (all already linked on your talk page).
You'll note that in addition to removing the links you added, I worked on cleaning up other improper links. If you think I missed some, please let me know. --Ronz 05:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you deserve one of these

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For contributions against spam and generally being able to keep the nose to the policy grindstone Shot info 10:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz 20:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shot, you deserve the barnstar. It's been awhile, I hope all is well. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


You and Kapnisma are discriminating against my article. Claiming I am POV and unsourced.

Almost the whole Macedonia (region) article is unsourced, especaily Kapnisma's POV controbversy discussion. He doesn't mention one single source. So if you are going to crack down on this, do it universally and not just me. Otherwise let me balance the article Hxseek 16:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No. The article is poorly sourced. We're going to fix that by stopping editors from adding unsourced material. --Ronz 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"Balance the article" by adding in your unsourced material? Umm... yeah... don't think so.--Christian B 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I accept that and will source any material. But you must enforce the rest of the article . Hardly any sources are mentioned in the article. The history section I thought was accurate on the whole, despite having a few basic errors. However, the 'contreversy b/w greece and macedonia' section is TOTALLY one sided. It's as if it is not an encylopaedic article, but reads more like a Hellenic propaganda pamphlet. You must be fair with crackdowns, or get rid of the entire section then .

As for the Balkans article, I don't know your expertise on the matter- obviously slim to none. But, as per Editing policy, you must source YOUR assertions about the Sarmatian theory, since it is the less likely (more copntreversial) theory than the straihgtforward slav one, as per Wikipedia editing policy. My discredting of the Sarmatian theory (which is based on a few words ! ! )is not even controversial, but virtually universally accepted, and proven by DNA studies. That is why i din;t bother sourcing it . But i will source if you insist. Again, this just shows your one-sidedness. Disappointing . . . Hxseek 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I follow policy, and expect others to do the same. Until everyone is following policy we aren't going to accomplish much if anything. --Ronz 19:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you please check this out for me

[2] I reversed it because it looked like spam to me. Now the editor who put it in originally has reversed and put it back saying I am a vandal. I would appreciate your opinion on this. Go to Gardia and also the footnote #16. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to say it's spam, but it's not a reliable source. --Ronz 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw all the stuff for sale esp. the Zapper and the Rife machines which I do know about, and spam came to mind. To revert without an edit war with this editor, who I also know from the Crohn's newsgroup, how would you express the reason for the revert? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The source doesn't meet WP:RS. It's up to the editor who adds the information to properly source it. --Ronz 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There are couple of ways to approach the problem. A very nonconfrontational way is to discuss it on the talk page first, pointing out that the source is not reliable per WP:RS. A bolder approach would be to move the disputed content to the talk page, referring to WP:RS. --Ronz 00:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, another editor stepped in on this issue since I have been away so I'll see if he removed the contents and if he didn't then I will remove it again and make the note on the talk page. I though it was not a reliable source but I second guessed myself and I should have stayed with my thoughts on it. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


You left a comment on my talk page ... I actually did not remove the sock-puppet warning. I deleted the User page (based on a text request on the page and a WP:CSD#U1 template request) and I'm a bit confused as to how it came back. I intentionally left User talk:Hxseeker to preserve the warnings on that page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit inexperienced with sockpuppet reporting, but as I understand it sockpuppet warnings go on the userpage, so the deletion of that page removed the warning. That was my concern, that the page was deleted to remove the warning. --Ronz 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no I am not a sock-puppet. As i explained I accidentally opened two accounts. Typo error on my behalf

As for the Illyrian article, you have now made the article WORSE. If there were certain sections that you disagreed with, fine, but you also removed general, uncontroversial info i added to the article about illyrians during Roman times and eloborated upon pre-roman times. Now those sections are extremely brief . This is hardly an informative article. But Mr Righteous Ronz can fix it himself now Hxseek 15:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Until you can stop violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, you're going to have an extremely difficult time here as an editor, if you dont get blocked. --Ronz 17:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


You left a comment on my talk page ... are you able to see the deletion logs? For instance I indicated in the deletion summary "CSD U1: User requested deletion". I typically don't write summaries more detailed than this, though in cases where user interaction is not involved, I often ensure that the main/first author-user has been informed on their talk page in some fashion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I found out it was you that removed it. Doesn't it seem like the request should have been refused given that the only thing on the page was the sockpuppet warning and that it had just been placed there? No response needed. Just trying to give my perspective. --Ronz 22:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Verna Allee

After I saw your WP:3O request, I studied the situation and rewrote the Verna Allee bio stub per NPOV policy. Comment: this edit by User:Jheuristic, with an edit summary in which he misleadingly described his changes as "Editted out links tha [sic] offended Ronz & housekeeping," was a serious challenge to my ability to assume good faith. — Athaenara 22:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: His conflict of interest is very obvious here.Athaenara 22:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on the coi. It certainly looked like there was one. Thanks for the help. I'll probably should take this to COIN, but I'll wait and see how he responds. --Ronz 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm back

There is still a matter I need to clarify about the Illyrians article

You have been reverting my edits, accusing me of

1) "edit warring" - incorrect. No one has been revertin my edits , and vice versa, except yourself

2) igonoring concensus on discussion page: incorrect;- no such discussions stipulating that Illyrians were not assimilated by slavs. Even if there were, this is clearly incorrect and needs to be revised

3) providing unsourced data: Incorrect . As per WP: V policy, the matter of Illyrians being largely assimilated by slavs is NOT a 'controversial' theory. Nonetheless I provided a source for that (A Stipcevic), who is already included in the reference list. I additionally provided a source for the Morlach theory, which i clarified as being only a theory. Furthermore, i did not dispute any of the material already there, no dor I have any 'interest' in promoting a particular theory, just creating a whole , rounded article

Please feel free to illustrate to be how you see this as POV-pushing, unsourced and uncivil actions ? I am all ears, otherwise please stop attempting to impede me from enhancing articles. Hxseek 07:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're not just baiting me and wasting my time, then immediately report me for your accusations. --Ronz 17:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not baiting you, etc. My question was genuine . Unlike some people, I like to give others a chance to explain themselves before making ridiculous accusation (such as sock-puppetry) . What i don;t agree with your approach is your hastiness to police at the expense of actually taking in what the person is sayin and seeing how it alters the article as a whole. So as i asked earlier, please feel free to explain your actions with the Illyrians article Hxseek 07:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the admins disagree with you and have blocked you for WP:SOCK. Shot info 07:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

? ?? Hxseek 07:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"before making ridiculous accusation (such as sock-puppetry)". The accusation wasn't ridiculous, you were blocked for sock-puppertry. QED really. Shot info 07:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I already to explained that 'sock puppetry' thing. My querie pertains to his repeated reverting of my adding sourced, un-POV info to certain european history articles that contain blatant inaccuracies. Hxseek 11:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ronz - a sock-puppertry account? I don't think so. From my observation of his contributions, Ronz is a user that tries to make each article the best entry it could be by adding factual info, edits or deleting unfounded information. The last I remembered, the goal of Wikipedia wasn't for valuable contributors (of which both of you are, given your edit history & contributions) to nitpick one another but to better each entry and to make sure Wikipedia is a truly comprehensive & bias-free online encyclopedia. You've said what you thought needed to be said. Let's move on to better things--Christian B 16:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
<to ChristianB> Heh, you had better have a closer look at the edits. Hxseek(er) is the editor that was blocked for WP:SOCK, not Ronz. I was just pointing out to Hxseek(er) that it isn't only Ronz that believers he is a sock-puppetteer, but rather him and at least an admin that did the actually blocking. Of course this can be easily seen from the edits above, and here's a hint [3] of my opinion of Ronz :-). Shot info 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems fairly clear its time to cool down, move on and direct edits towards productive channels.--Hu12 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Web Ontology Language

Hi Ronz, You made an edit on the Web Ontology Language page, removing all the links to the software tools that support OWL, and replaced them with a link to one tool only - Protege. This looks extremely partisan, and given your claim to remove advertising spam from Wikipedia, you seem to have changed what was a level playing field to a one horse race (forgive the mixed metaphor). It's fine to remove commercial notes, but you also removed links to other academic tools, as well as commercially-developed but free tools. I have added a small note to the link you added pointing out that other tools are available and many of them are free. As you've probably guessed, I developed one of these tools (a free one). I only listed on Wikipedia because all the other tools were listed. My concern now is that only one tool is referenced, and although it's free, it's not the only free one out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IanDBailey (talkcontribs) 09:29, 8 August 2007

I didn't replace them with anything. You're probably correct though that any other, similar external links should be removed as well. --Ronz 18:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken warning?

Hi Ronz. You recently warned Alesnormales for edit warring on Tooth bleaching. Perhaps the edits have been oversighted, but I see only a few edits on the article for the last couple of months, and none by Alesnormales. Just pointing it out in case you made a mistake. -- SiobhanHansa 23:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice I heavily edited the warning. Alesnormales repeatedly restored spam links there. I wanted to make sure he knows that such behavior violates wikipedia policies. --Ronz 00:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah no. I didn't really read it through, just sort of saw the templated beginning and assumed. I should have paid more attention. Sorry! -- SiobhanHansa 00:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. Your comment made me reread it and change it slightly to be clearer. --Ronz 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

external link

would you mind being a bit more specific...which article? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Inlays and onlays was the only one where the link still existed, which I removed. I saw that you had added then removed the same link in Crown (dentistry). --Ronz 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


I am afraid it appears i do not understand your point. Please feel free to elaborate. Most gratefulHxseek 02:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave that to another party. I'm tired of your inability to understand policy and guidelines as it suits you. --Ronz 02:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk Stephen Barrett

I noticed you commented on the page but would you mind going a little further and responding to the titles I put up? I am trying desperately to stop the warring and not having the article protected again.

On a different note, I'll be gone soon for awhile. We bought our own place and it looks like we will be moving soon, yeah! I can't wait to own my own place again. You take care of yourself and keep up the great work! --CrohnieGalTalk 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process to responding more.
Congratulations on getting your own place! Moving can be so exciting, though often very stressful. Good luck! --Ronz 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, we are hiring movers to pack everything and move it to the new place which will help with some of the stress. The hard part is getting rid if a lot of things that won't fit in the new place! :)--CrohnieGalTalk 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr. C. Alan B. Clemetson

Two people have Wikified the page. Is there any chance of having the tag removed? The Stroll 00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've offered some suggestions for improvement on that talk page. I think the article has a long way to go before such tags should be removed. --Ronz 17:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Value Network EL

Hi Ronz --

Thanks for your advice. I am only going by the specific EL canon and examples.

For example, value chain has this link --

and others not meeting the EL spec.

I can't really reconcile your concern. Can you elaborate?

-j —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheuristic (talkcontribs) 15:47, 14 August 2007

It's your responsibility to show specifically why it is acceptable. Finding other examples that do not meet EL is no excuse for your including links that similarly do not meet EL. Thanks for pointing out others that need to be removed though.
It's not a link to an article with significant and useful additional information for readers. --Ronz 17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed an external link I contributed without reason - please supply one!

You removed an external link I contributed without reason - please supply one!

The link was to


Mads —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:07, 15 August 2007

I'm not aware of doing so. I gave you a spam warning, which includes the reasoning you're looking for, but actually haven't removed any that you contributed. If you contributed one through another account or ip, then please indicate where and when. --Ronz 16:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Demo Links Needed on Wiki Comparison Page

Regarding Comparison of wiki software.

It looks like many of these wikis have online demos. Are you on board with me adding a demo link column? --Jphaffe 20:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Do your homework. I don't see how such a column could meet WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL. Ignoring those for a moment, the maintenance requirements for such a column would be extremely large.
Suggestion: Find a site that has such a list instead and discuss it on the article Talk page. --Ronz 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi Ronz, sorry for intervening in your affairs here, but I notice you've been in a conflict with this new user Hxseek (talk · contribs) / Hxseeker (talk · contribs), and I'm not quite happy with how this has developed. I'd seriously ask you to reconsider your attitude towards this guy. I don't know what he did to you, but I get the impression that from the beginning of his editing he got nothing from you but a continuous stream of rebukes, hostile templated warnings and (sometimes spurious) accusations. The mere list of templates on his user talk pages is impressive indeed; it really borders on harassment. This has been a great big WP:BITE violation, if nothing else. In fact, I think you owe him an apology at least for the way you got him blocked for his alleged sockpuppetry. This was, pardon my French, mean. I can only wonder how you got other admins to perform this block, which I consider completely unwarranted, and let me make it clear that I would certainly have overturned it if I had been more active at the time. (There was no element of concealment; the accounts were obviously identical; no attempt at deception = no abusive sockpuppetry; everybody could have seen that.) -- Anyway, I don't doubt he's made mistakes and I certainly don't agree with everything he writes, but he seems to be a good-faith, decently intelligent contributor perfectly able and willing to engage in constructive dialogue. I think he's deserved something a little bit better from Wikipedia than what he got here. Sorry for being a bit blunt, I really hope we can soon get a somewhat better atmosphere on those articles again. Thanks, Fut.Perf. 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I disagree. I don't like your generalizations backed by nothing either. All I did was try to put some breaks on an out-of-control, hostile, and disruptive editor who was undermining the work of many editors in trying to create consensus in some articles that are extremely controversial. He used sockpuppetry, intentionally or not, to edit war. That alone deserves a block. Sorry that you disagree. If you want to discuss further, please give some details and demonstrate you understand the context. Thanks. --Ronz 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, okay. I can see nothing "out-of-control, hostile, and disruptive", in edits such as these: [4], [5], [6], which were apparently among the first he made to that article. Perfectly reasonable discussion. I can still see nothing "out-of-control, hostile, and disruptive", in edits such as these: [7], [8]., just the typical beginning signs of frustration understandable in a newbie who feels his work unjustly rejected and met with hostility. I can see a lot wrong with your overly curt rebukes of the style in [9], [10]. That's what WP:BITE is all about really. I haven't gone through all of your interactions, but my impression is it's all more of the same and going worse from there. I can see a lot of understandable frustration in edits like [11], which neatly demonstrates where you get by treating newbies this way. And I can see the makings of an intelligent, constructive contributor making a hell of a lot of an effort at meeting blanket reverts and nonsense with constructive discussion in talk page entries like [12] and [13]. You worried about "the work of many editors in trying to create consensus"? Well, I wonder who was really engaging in this work and who was disrupting it.
As for the charge of sockpuppetry, I'll repeat and I hope you'll understand the obvious this time. There was no sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry, by definition, entails an element of deception; if the identity isn't concealed but openly displayed from the start it's never illicit sockpuppetry. At most, it might have been the case that the two accounts taken together might have broken 3RR in a way that could have gone unnoticed - I haven't counted, but I think no such charge was really made against him, and even if that had been the case it would have been a matter of WP:AN3, not a sockpuppet report. You did, however, claim that "the accounts have been used to edit war while avoiding blocks" ([14]) - this is patently false, because neither the accounts nor the IPs had been blocked previously, so there were no blocks to evade. I'm really not sure if I should impute this error on your part to mere confusion or to something else. If you'd been in doubt about his behaviour, the normal, decent, non-BITEy thing would have been to go to the guy and ask him politely: hey, why are you using two accounts, can you please limit yourself to one. In short, I'm amazed he was blocked in the first place and even more amazed his unblock request was turned down. If you don't trust my judgment, I'll gladly go to the admins in question and ask them to consider the case again and see what they say. As this blocking history is likely to be held against the guy in some situations in the future, I really think Wikipedia owes him some sort of rehabilitation.
Anyway, whatever. I have no big interest in getting involved in the content debate myself again here, but I sure will start monitoring behaviour over these articles. And, to make this quite clear, I expect some more constructive behaviour from you in the future, and if admin intervention should be needed for some reason, you may want to do something so that admins won't be seeing you as the disruptive element the next time. Fut.Perf. 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see it. You don't like me being curt. Sorry. Please don't confuse my curtness with something that's actually serious enough to bring up. You don't like the way I handled the sock puppet investigation. Sorry, but I'm new to them and asked for assistance. You don't like the way others handled the sock puppet report. Sorry again, but that's nothing to do with me. As for making accusations of me making "patently false" statements, how would you know when you didnt even count the reverts, which is what I was referring to? Seems to me you're looking for a scapegoat. I'm not it.
If you have something proactive to say about what's going on, anything to say about what's happened in the past couple weeks, I'm all ears. If you're just going to waste my time with more comments like the above, then go elsewhere. You seem to be having trouble demonstrating the very behavior that you're asking of me. --Ronz 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope Start over? Drop it? will be a better way to resolve this dispute. --Ronz 15:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks, no problem with me. I just hope next time somebody feels they need to revert Hx, they'll actually engage him in a meaningful discussion about the actual contents they object to. That's probably what was most sorely missing. Fut.Perf. 16:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I got your message. Well, sorry, but actually I didn't say your actions were disingenious, I said they could come across as such. Which is indeed a fact I would recommend you consider. Telling a user "it appears you are currently engaged in an edit war" and then warning them about how bad that is, is pretty poor style when you yourself are actually engaged in the same edit war, don't you think? Seriously man, these templates are currently not helping things on that article at all. Same goes for your warning to Elysonius, which I've taken the freedom to remove. Fut.Perf. 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. You have your perspective on the use of templates, I have mine. I'm using them appropriately (I'd prefer a alternative to the NPA template, more just on CIVIL and TALK, but we don't have any), yet our perspectives conflict. As for your accusations of edit-warring, since when did making a single edit equal edit-warring? Stop looking for scapegoats. --Ronz 16:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Net Promoter Score research

Dear Ronz --

I am not certain how best to communicate with you. I apologize if this is an inappropriate format.

A colleague from my informed me that research I co-authored has been added to the current Net Promoter Score page. I do not believe it appropriate that I edit this page, but there are several things that should be modified and added. I am writing to you because I noticed that you edited the Net Promoter Score page earlier.

First, and most important to me is that "I" did not do the research (as appears on the page), my co-authors and I did the research. My name should never be listed without my co-authors. The citation for the work discussed is:

Timothy L. Keiningham, Bruce Cooil, Tor Wallin Andreassen, and Lerzan Aksoy (2007), “A Longitudinal Examination of Net Promoter and Firm Revenue Growth,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 71, no. 3 (July), 39-51.

There are two key findings from the research reported in the Journal of Marketing:

1) We did not find Net Promoter to be a good predictor of growth.

2) We found very strong evidence of research bias in the research reported by Reichheld in support of Net Promoter. In particular, we were able to replicate a subset of Reichheld's reported data for his best case scenarios and compare it to a metric he claimed was examined and found to have a 0.00 correlation to growth, the ACSI. Our findings clearly show that when using Reichheld’s own data, Net Promoter wasn’t superior to the ACSI. It is difficult to imagine a scenario other than research bias as the cause of this finding. This is a serious problem. We expect published research to be free of bias in management science, just as we do in all other fields of study.

Because of the importance of the work, the Journal of Marketing is making the paper available at the following URL:

The Journal of Marketing is also featuring the article on its blog (one per issue) at:

Also, we thought you might like to know that Managing Service Quality has just released another paper by the authors that investigates other aspects of the original Net Promoter research, entitled, "The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Customer Retention, Recommendation, and Share-of-Wallet."

This research examines different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics and tests their relationship to customer loyalty behaviors. The goal was to test the robustness of the customer-level analysis conducted by Reichheld and Satmetrix, which served as the foundation of their Net Promoter research. Contrary to Reichheld's assertions, the results indicate that recommend intention alone will not suffice as a single predictor of customers' future loyalty behaviors. Use of multiple indicators instead of a single predictor model performs significantly better in predicting customer recommendations and retention.

Because of the importance of the work, Managing Service Quality is making the paper available for free for download at the following URL:

The citation for the work is: Timothy L. Keiningham, Bruce Cooil, Lerzan Aksoy, Tor Wallin Andreassen, and Jay Weiner (2007), “The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Customer Retention, Recommendation and Share-of-Wallet,” Managing Service Quality, vol. 17, no. 4, 361-384.

These findings, taken in conjunction with the findings of our research reported in the Journal of Marketing regarding the relationship between Net Promoter and growth, call into question the robustness of the entire analysis conducted by Reichheld.

Additionally, we thought you might like to know that an article regarding this research is available from Colloquy magazine at the following URL (subscription is free):

Finally, a paper by Pingitore and colleagues that appeared in Marketing Research examines other aspects of Net Promoter research. I am unable to upload the file to you, so I am providing the basic information contained in the Business Source Premier database:


    The Single-Question Trap


   Pingitore, Gina1
   Morgan, Neil A.2
   Rego, Lopo L.3
   Gigliotti, Adriana4
   Meyers, Jay5


   Marketing Research; Summer2007, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p9-13


   This article examines the strengths and limitations of the net promoter score (NPS) concept from a practitioner's perspective.  
   The data show that the scaling of the intention-to recommend question is not critical and that the NPS is not the only net 
   customer feedback metric that correlates with financial performance. In fact, no net customer feedback measures are 
   significantly better predictors of financial performance than the continuous satisfaction and loyalty scales from which they are

Author Affiliations:

   1Chief research officer, J.D. Power and Associates, Westlake Village, Calif.
   2Associate professor of marketing, Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Bloomington
   3Assistant professor of marketing, University of Iowa Tippie College of Business, Iowa City
   4Senior manager, J.D. Power and Associates, Westlake Village, Calif.
   5Director, J.D. Power and Associates, Westlake Village, Calif.



   Business Source Complete

Thank you very much.


-- Tim Keiningham

Thank you very much for providing this information. It's probably best added to the article talk page, which I'll do. --Ronz 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hist of Balkan

Please pass on the message to Mr J H

His edit are unjustified and not disussed. I have explained his query clearly on the discussion page. If he still has any queries, then he should use the discussion page too Hxseek 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As you saw, I've asked him to discuss them. He's begun to do so now. No need to edit-war over this, just a bit of discussion and patience. --Ronz 00:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Omerbashich's blog

Hello, I just posted a 'Help' statement on my talk page, but the person who responded said I should do it here. So, I'm reproducing our brief correspondence in here, rather than repeating myself. But all the questions I posed in the below text I am hereby asking you to answer as well. PLease don't mind my copy-paste. Thanks.

-- To Ronz:

Your explanation is vague. Many links that are on the Bosnian Pyramids page lead to personal pages, be it a blog or a web page, see Dr. Schoch's page for instance. Can you show (practically) how is it that the text I placed on Dr. Omerbashich's theory is inappropriate, while the link to Dr. Schoch's personal web site is [appropriate]? Next, how can what I posted be considered spam? There is this guy's blog, I found all the information there, he isn't hiding anything (I think), and you are telling me that his scientific views not only aren't good enough as those of another scientist (an American, is that it?) but they are also spam? That doesn't make sense. Piramidosta 19:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Response from another admin:

I think the main concern here is that the source you added is hosted on Like a wiki, blogs can be edited by almost anyone, and so aren't usually considered reliable sources. I'm not exactly sure how your contributions are spam, but you might want to ask Ronz about that on his talk page, where he's sure to notice your question. But if you can find another, more reliable, source that backs up Dr. Omerbashich's theories, then you're more than welcome to add them. Happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My resonse to that other admin:

Thanks for your input, I thought Ronz would respond here too. But I will message him on his talk page. Concerning the above comments you made, I can only say that a blog of a self-identified person is as reliable as a web site of a person who self-identifies himeslf/herself. There are servers that offer web sites [hosting service] for free too, so I don't get your point. Your "spam"-related comment seems like an understatement. Piramidosta 20:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC Piramidosta 21:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC) --

WP:EL says to normally avoid "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Dr. Schoch is a recognized authority and his investigation of the Visočica hill at the invitation of the foundation makes his viewpoint especially valuable. Note that most scientists that have visited the site on behalf of the foundation have not published their reports, and there is a great deal of speculation that these reports have been withheld because they shed unfavorable light on the foundation.
There is a great deal of discussion about external links on that talk page as well.
I don't believe I said anything was spam. I only suggested that you read the guideline. --Ronz 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, sorry I missed it. I agree that information in many blogs is suspicious at best, but that can probably be attributed to the anonymity, would you agree? On the other hand, I think Dr. Omerbashich's blog is well put together (I’m not getting into its contents issues) so I think you should give him credit for obviously doing his best to elucidate this issue for all of us. I think too that Dr. Schoch is a credible eyewitness who came all the way from Boston to offer his expert opinion. But you sure agree that Dr. Omerbashich who is in Sarajevo (look at the map -- it's very close to Visocica too!) has additional valuable angles of looking at the whole story. I did check out the rules, and I can say that there are many and they are well written, so I can see why wikipedia is so respected – in case you didn't notice: Dr. Omerbashich’s blog uses wikipedia links extensively too! Cheers, Piramidosta 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about blogs on Wikipedia

Are blogs allowed? I thought they weren't yet I am finding a bunch of them. Here is an example of two articles, go to the bottom and you will see what I mean. They also have vulgar language to boot. & I would appreciate your input about this as there are others too. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually, no. WP:EL says to usually avoid "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." I've seen a lot of exceptions, mostly as external links, when few reliable sources are available especially with current events and events in non English-speaking countries. They rarely will meet WP:RS criteria unless they're first-hand accounts, and even then you usually want secondary sources to support them. --Ronz 17:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you look at the links I provided? The Hayden's blog slams editors big time. If you haven't read through them, would you please do so? An administrator for some reason protected both sites and left me a link to read: WP:PROTECT#Content disputes. I haven't had time to read it yet as I have been home for about 15 min. or so and I need to eat and get to bed. Yeah I know, it's early but my tummy usually gets me up multiple time during the night and then up no later the 6 am. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was in a rush and didn't look at the links. --Ronz 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Teresa Nielsen Hayden is a mess. Patrick Nielsen Hayden isn't nearly so bad. What's your concerns with the latter? --Ronz 03:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, forget about Patrick Nielsen Hayden site. I don't remember what my questions were about it but a quick look at the site, I don't see any blogs there. The Teresa one though is bad in my opinion. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


by the irony [15]. Shot info 05:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, my irony detector has a logarithmic scale. I guess that block didn't phase him a bit. Anytime you want to start an RFC/U, I'm in. --Ronz 19:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually I am of the belief that at this moment in time WP:DENY is the best way to handle this particular editor. Very few of his edits to date are constructive, so I'm not wasting any more time on him (other than to rv. his personal attacks...toned down since his latest block I note). Shot info 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep. It's a lot less work than an RFC/U, and more effective in the short-term. --Ronz 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Barker

Dear Ronz; I came across the Tom Barker page by accident. It seems to me clearly to be a personal resume presumably created by the person himself. I now see that someone has removed your Notability tag, claiming he is 'clearly notable'. I think the page is an abuse of wikipedia, and hope you can do something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:06, August 29, 2007 (UTC)