User talk:Hipal/Archive 10

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

article marked for deletion

hi ron, my article Boon Software has been marked for deletion by yourself. Can you advice me on why it was deleted when it is somewhat similar to Nike Communications? Anyway, as mentioned on the page's talk page, i am also asking for help in how i can improve my article. appreciate that you show me the way as this is only my first article and i intend to write more on other companies from Singapore.Dleewh 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the second version of the article you created. This is now the third version. Provide some independent, reliable sources that meet WP:CORP. --Ronz 15:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks ron. i have made some modifications to the article can you help me take a look and see how it looks now? appreciate your time. can i also check, if everything is ok, who would be the person that will be removing the tags? Dleewh 01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a comment on the talk page and on the new deletion discussion page. It needs better references still. --Ronz 03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Ronz. Your help is much appreciated. Have further modified the page to include the references you have mentioned. Please review again when possible. Dleewh 04:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

hi. sorry to bother you again. But my article has been deleted and i am still making changes. Is there any way to check who deleted it and is there a way to retrieve it? thanks Dleewh 09:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no way to retrieve it. I suggest you create a subpage to work on the article, and get editors to review and help you with it. --Ronz 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ron. Have created a subpage as per your suggestion. Do you know where i can get editors from wiki to help me review? Dleewh 00:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've found how. --Ronz 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ron.. you have been a great help.. it looks like the deletion review endorsed the deletion :( Dleewh 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. Sorry it hasn't gone so well. --Ronz 02:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wicked Tinkers

I don't see what the trouble is. I can let Warren know that he can't just copy stuff from his website (I don't agree with that policy btw), and we can have the articles reduced down. I don't have the time anymore to edit this stuff, but I think there should be some mention of the Tinkers on wiki considering their widespread popularity in the celtic music world and I don't see how the guys editing it themselves poses a COI if there aren't any other active editing parties. --NeoVampTrunks 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I certainly think the Wicked Tinkers article should remain. I'm just concerned about Warren's editing, especially in light of the history of the articles. I appreciate your letting him know. Thanks! --Ronz 17:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Pro/Engineer et al.

I noticed that the folks at Pro/E seem to be upset at you. I looked at the article and understand why you'd be concerned. Is it still this side of OK? The external links in particular seem close to excessive, though I've seem other pages that objectively seem as bad, just more amateurish (Getting Things Done). I've run across other pages, like Scrapbooking (esp. Talk:Scrapbooking#Links under consideration) that are amateurishly commercial. I'd welcome your thoughts so I can encourage clean up without discouraging desirable contributions. DCDuring 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The links need a thorough cleanup. The article needs some independent sources, and then be written around those sources. I'm assuming it's notable enough for its own article. I'm guessing the spammers are the same editor or are working together. --Ronz 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that

Hi. Thanks for taking care of the article that the anon kept translating today. It was actually Portuguese, and the anon is probably Brazilian. I also suspect that he might have been editing here because the article, which currently doesn't exist on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, cannot be created there right now, since the redlink has been protected by a Cascading Protection over there. In all likelihood, the user ended up here after not finding the article there and not being able to create it there (on pt.wiki, anons can still create new pages). I will try to sort out the situation with the Administrators on pt.wiki, and then we can refer people who would like to contribute in Portuguese there. Cheers, Redux 01:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help. --Ronz 03:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Superfruit page

Hi Ronz -- thanks for visiting the superfruit article. That page is new and still a WIP so I am organizing references, external links and notes to comply with the Wiki guidelines over time. I admit that, to date, I have been collating references that help establish a baseline of knowledge about this new food and beverage category. Any specific suggestions? Take care. --Paul144 00:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a close look. The list of references needs a thorough cleanup. It looks like there are some WP:OR and WP:SYN issues in the article, but the unorganized references make it almost impossible to tell. --Ronz 01:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

wiki software

What external links need to be removed? MahangaTalk 05:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of links in Comparison of wiki software‎ . Some probably should be notes, maybe there's a reference in there too, there are a lot of links to other wikis, and many are just spam. --Ronz 15:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve Hoffman

Hi Ronz. I agree with you that there are enough references to keep this article. However, I'm afraid your new BLPN report will linger fruitlessly unless you want to add some new reasoning there. Also I *do* think there is COI editing present (since some of us told the FreeSWITCH forum members they had a COI). If the 'Controversy' section were dropped due to BLP, then the struggle with the COI editors would probably quiesce, and we might close the COI report. EdJohnston 15:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi Ronz, the information on the auction of the disc in question (The Doors 'Soft Parade') seems to be first person and valid to me. It was sold by Steve Hoffman to one of his forum members. I do not see a dispute over these facts. The disc (Signed by Mr. Hoffman)and price paid for it are not refuted by Mr. Hoffman, especially when you consider that this is a post from Mr. Hoffman's own forum. I did some reading at his site, and in fact Mr. Hoffman takes a dim view to violation of copyright laws and the sale of bootleg material. This of course makes his actions indeed controversial. Consider for a moment the industry in which he works. Foultip (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply os in the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SiteSell_Corporate username

Hello Ronz, we noticed that a biography had been started on our president, Ken Evoy. We registered a username to accurately reflect who we are and to add objective information to this biography. There was an objection about the username at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SiteSell_Corporate

What do you recommend? Do we keep the name? Change it? Or should we not contribute to this at all? It strikes us that we would be a useful source of objective information for this biography? SiteSell Corporate 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I recall correctly there's a guideline about corporate usernames, beyond just what I can find in WP:USERNAME. Something about not having accounts to represent a group... If I'm remembering correctly, then you should change the username or abandon the account and start another. Even if I'm mistaken, it's probably a good idea. Read through WP:USERNAME yourself and see what you think.
What is acceptable is for an individual to create a personal account, disclose a conflict of interest (eg state that you're an employee of SiteSell), and then edit according to WP:COI. This allows you to help with the article to protect your interests. --Ronz 18:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much Ronz. By identifying ourselves clearly as SiteSell Corporate, we figured we had openly revealed any conflict of interest position. The only additions we made were objective ones about Dr. Evoy's earlier years as a physician, information that the general public is unlikely to know without an official source. I think we'll just stay out of this now, since there seems to be quite a bit of worry about a common-sense approach, judging by the flurry of activity after our post. Sorry to cause consternation. We were only trying to help. By the way, we'd suggest an edit -- Dr. Evoy did not popularize the terms "keyword" or "monetization" although certainly uses them. "Presell" is a concept developed by him in 2000 and that has indeed been gathering traction. A search at Google for "presell" should help you document that. But we'll stay out of it and let other individuals contribute to this as they have been doing. Aside from that, the article is accurate and neutral. SiteSell CorporateSiteSell Corporate 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad I could be helpful. I hope you'll think about adding comments like the above to the article talk page, where they could be very helpful. --Ronz 17:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, again. And we figured out how to join the talk at Ken Evoy. Hey, this is not easy to do, I don't know how you have mastered all this. ;-) Anyway, we did join the talk... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ken_Evoy#From_SiteSell_Corporate We'll bow out now. SiteSell Corporate 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You're doing a great job. I'm hoping that Akradecki‎ will respond soon. As far as I'm concerned, the COI warning on the article should be removed. --Ronz 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ChangeWaves is not spam

Why did you delete the link to the ChangeWaves blog from the article on Futures Studies? There is no other link to consistently updated futures-oriented blog in the list of external links, and this blog provides frequently updated futures thought. It is not violating any of the external links policies and it is not spam. While the blog is connected to a for-profit corporation, the blog's contents are definitely relevant to this wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.97.244 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to the comments on your talk page. Please note that blogs are normally not appropriate per WP:EL. Please note that spamming usually refers to how a link was added, rather than the quality of that link (see Wp:spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer). --Ronz 23:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Hoffman

I've added some comments at Talk:Steve Hoffman. Corvus cornix 02:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz 02:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

List of mind mapping software

Here you go. --Emc² • contact me 15:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz 16:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring

Hi Ronz. I liked your comment on WP:DNFTT, but would appreciate some input as to what your opinion would be on what should be refactored in my posts. Please respond at my talkpage. Thanks! ScienceApologist 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

External Link Removal

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for removing external link from my entry for NotJustBrowsing. The reason I added NotJustBrowsing entry with external link was not to increase google ranking, advertising or promotion. Since this browser is a new concept in browsing and is pioneer of multiple of functionalities and there is no independent review or independent article yet written for it. The only information that is available on this browser is on its website and so the external link is appropriate. Otherwise just a word "NotJustBrowsing" as an entry in the list of browsers will trigger a user search and that will lead to that external link.

Will an article in Wikipedia on this browser by its author not come under self promotion? or spam?

Ebbee 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the situation. It falls under WP:COI. If I were you I'd start the article as a user subpage and be sure the article relies primarily on multiple independent reliable sources that would allow the article to meet the notability guideline. Then, I'd seek editors to review it. Once you have others agreeing that it meets WP:N and does not come across as being promotional for you, then I'm sure one of them would help you move it to a regular article.
That said, what you're asking is a bit outside my experience, so you might want to take it to Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest or even Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. --Ronz 17:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
A slightly better approach: Start by making sure you understand WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Then find some sources that you think will meet the criteria for WP:N. I wouldn't bother starting to write an article until you have those sources and you've had other editors review them for you. You might save some time and frustration this way.
The sources will probably be reviews and tech news articles that discuss the software at some length. --Ronz 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. It is a difficult situation. I checked wikipedia for 'browsing types' and there was nothing on that topic too. Now you see 3 out of 4 distinct browsing types (tabbed, linear, multiple, tailored) are present in NotJustBrowsing. A new type of contents syndication (Very Simple Syndication) is also introduced in NotJustBrowsing. Nobody seriously reviewed it in last almost three years. May be IT community do not comment on something as deviant as NotJustBrowsing.

Anyway, 1710 visitors were referred to notjustbrowsing.com from external link from wikipedia in last 5 months (since I added first time in "list of web browsers"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebbee (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Creativity

Hi there, I apologize for not having any idea how to use this, but I'm a reporter from the Las Vegas Sun. I'm writing a story that has to do with the Wikipedia article on creativity you've edited several times, and I was hoping you would perhaps speak to me about it. You can find me at charlotte.hsu@lasvegassun.com.

Thanks - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charhsu (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm happy to answer questions here. You didn't indicate what article you're interested in, but I don't think I've edited much to ones on creativity other than just doing some routine cleanup, which is probably the bulk of my Wikipedia editing. If that's what you're interested in, the real experts here can be found in WT:WPSPAM.
I'm guessing you might be working on something related to For librarians, a new world and a new role. (Nice article!) --Ronz 21:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Network Simulation

Ronz,

I noticed that you have deleted certain external links on the network simulation page. I feel that these links are required since they let people know which are the best simulators in the world. Unfortunately, there is no other place on the web which has these details.

Coming to the policy on external links, these are not meant for advertising purposes, since I would like to retain links to the best 5 in the world. No special treatment is being given to any one !.

Also, please note that these links have gained acceptance as important sources of information, given that they have been on here for the past 2 years.

Let me know your thoughts on the matter

- Waldstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldstein (talk • contribs) 07:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If we can find a reliable independent source that says they are the best in the world, then we could use that source as a reference or external link. --Ronz 18:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing Links

Ok, I admit it, while I use wiki for lots of research, I have never edited it. So, I don't get the "external" links. I see vendors with pages of "information" that are on their websites, reference their products, etc. What is different about our page? Is it not enough "information" - or why was the eSign Portal, which is being used in several law schools, etc. "spam"? I'm confused, and thought maybe you could explain it. We are a leader in this industry, have been expert witness in ediscovery/electronic contract cases etc. so we *know* esignatures and digital signatures - so our knowledge is real world. Maybe the website is not done appropriately so that it reflects that information.

If one vendor can place what is tantamount to an ad in the external links, (Silanis, ARX, Youzon) then all should be able to as well (Orion, CIC, INtegrisign...the industry is busy)....and I'll be happy to conform if I only knew how. Thank you! JKCmomma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.123.195 (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that you will not follow wikipedia policies and guidelines because others aren't either? --Ronz 20:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if that's how it came out - but I guess I don't understand how if we're violating the policy they're not? I was trying to understand what was different about our site than theirs, since we're paying someone/somebodies money to "upgrade" our site, it would seem appropriate to make it appropriate. We're trying to follow policy and want to understand it, and have everyone play by the same rules. I read it, and reread it, and while I get it, I guess I sort of don't.JKCmomma 208.180.123.195 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the continued discussion. I'm guessing this is frustrating for you and I appreciate your ability to keep cool in this situation.
No one is saying that others are not violating the same policies/guidelines. If others are, it should be discussed on the article talk page. (I'm tight on time at the moment - I'll continue later). --Ronz 15:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Net Promoter

You seem to have destroyed the Net Promoter page repeatedly. Researchers want to be able to learn about the concept. You removed all reference to the essential elements required to do that.

While it may be relevant to include some reference to the work of researchers with a commercial interest in alternative approaches (for example, Keiningham of Ipsos Loyalty), removing all description of the approach, how it is calculated, how it is used, as well as reference to respected companies making use of it seems beyond irresponsible. If you believe this article is "promotional" then please help make it less so without gutting it of all reference and educational value.

By the way, if you were to actually read the detail of the Keiningham article you reference, I think you would find that the data and analysis reported in it shows only that Net Promoter is about as good statistically as more complicated metrics. One might take issue with the data set used, the analytic methodology of the researchers, or even the motives of the authors in drawing conclusions far beyond what their data shows. The article does not address the practicality of the approach versus alternatives, which is, I believe, its greatest merit according to companies using it.

Please don't destroy the usefulness of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.246.170.23 (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article reads like an advertisement and has been tagged as such for a very long time. --Ronz 21:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please check Net Promoter Score? Someone made edits to it, and I added some references. I think it seems less like an advert now. If you disagree, could you give me some specifics so I can try again? --Elvira100 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add more when I get a chance. --Ronz 01:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Any chance we can remove the Advert tag now? Check the article. Seems very simple. Elvira100 (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The article still needs a lot of work. There are still pov problems, and the need for more and better references. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No new knowledge allowed on Wikipedia?

I am new to Wikipedia but isn't the point of Wikepedia that this is the place to find the latest knowledge, expecially when it is presented by academic scholars? You seem to remove everything that is new knowledge in the fields that I am interested in. I have even made a point of given sources because I was told this was important here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anita Burr (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"You seem to remove everything that is new knowledge in the fields that I am interested in." I've done no such thing. Please read the contents of your talk page. Thanks! --Ronz 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi, I've prepared a clean version of Jill Whalen at User:Jehochman/Jill Whalen. Would you be willing to check that and possibly install it? I'm not going to do so myself. It seems that some of Jill's fans puffed up the article, but I don't think she was involved. - Jehochman Talk 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. I'll take a look. --Ronz 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. Great job! --Ronz 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam?

Hi Ronz,

Please check my comment at Talk:Force-based_algorithms.

Tks

LuisFagundes —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisFagundes (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 November 2007

List of Mind Mapping software: Freeware

Hi! I have read Wiki articles on External links and Images, but I still have a trouble understanding your actions (and I would really like to):

1. You have deleted the screenshot of Cayra software and have left the screenshot for Mapul. Tell me what's the difference between these two programs? They're both free, besides I strongly believe Cayra needs a screenshot because it has a particular approach to mind mapping which is seen on the screenshot.

2. You have deleted the link to Cayra's official website and have left the ones for Semantik and Loughborough University Library. What is the difference?

If there's a need of third-party impartial opinion, you can take a look at Cayra's "References" [1]: e.g. from the Mindmap-software.com [2] or from Mind-mapping.org [3] which is the biggest source of links for mind-mapping software.

I think that Cayra's screenshot and/or website should be on this List, because screenshots are neccessary for people to see that there're different approaches to mind mapping, and Cayra's website is a source of in-depth information on the topic of mind mapping.

Waiting for your response, Kind regards, Julia sova 07:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I forgot to give you the proper warnings on your user talk page concerning your edits. I've done so now. --Ronz 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I have read WP:EL and WP:SPAM and I still don't see any break of neutrality in adding a screenshot. Maybe you can point it out for me? And I really, really don't understand why the same rules about EL are not applied for ALL links? --Julia sova 09:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What about WP:COI? You appear to be arguing that because you think others are breaking rules, you should be allowed to break rules as well. --Ronz 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I think that same rules should be applied to everyone. If you delete link to 1 website, or screenshot to 1 program, why don't you delete them ALL? Otherwise it makes people think you're favoring one program and not favoring others. Which... brings other questions, too. You know what I mean? Julia sova 14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's time that you respond to WP:COI. --Ronz 16:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

I suggest we protect the Bosniaks article from edit by newly created users. This article has sustained alot of transient pov pushing and vandalism from users who have created their accounts only for that purpous. Best Regards Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You can make a request yourself at WP:RFPP. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision history of Master of Business Administration

I am interested why you have deleted the inclusion within this section. I looked into the company that publishes worldwide rankings and it is recognised and the chosen rankings of the European Career Guide for applicants looking at doing an MBA, EMBA and so on.

The Business educational institutions site them with equal acceptance to the ones that have already been listed, please see examples below:

http://www.triumemba.org/news/rankings.php

http://www.hec.fr/hec/eng/about/rankings.html

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/staffStudentsAndAlumni/newsandviews/15-03-2004.htm

http://www.gsba.ch/ranking.html

The list goes on.

They should be included, unless you know of another reason why they should be segregated out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio1st (talk • contribs) 10:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you're just using the opportunity to promote your conflict of interest against wikipedia policies --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ronz, no conflict of interest, I was just bored at work and thought I would look around Wiki and update some stuff that interests me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio1st (talk • contribs) 09:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So it's just coincidence that your first two edits promoted the interests of studio1st.com? --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Studio1st.com is a photographic studio hire company and the 2 topics I wrote on was Web Design and MBAs. Personally I can not see a linking between photography and those subjects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio1st (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to get a third party involved, because I see a very clear coi. Have you looked at the username policy yet? --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll explain the coi I see here, then we can discuss if we need others to help. Your first two edits are adding Whitefield Consulting Worldwide and adding an unsourced paragraph about Mark Hebblewhite. Mark is the owner of Studio1st, correct? And Whitefield Consulting Worldwide was one of your major clients, correct? --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ronz,

If “FACTS” can not be updated to Wikipedia, then this defeats the purpose.

I have not promoted any company and have no intention on promoting any company; the only thing I have done is updated specific sections that interest me. I have not spammed the system, and started tidying up a section.

You should either learn to work with others; assisting with the update of Wiki, than pretending to be a character from a cheap cop movie. Maybe, using your energy to offer advice and become a little less pedantic would be considerably more beneficial.

For most users, your attitude would just simply turn them away and create another account. If you have issues with me, then best get in touch with Wiki and get my account deleted. Whilst you are doing that, I will carry on re-writing other sections of this site. Studio1st (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can follow WP:NPOV and WP:COI, you'll be fine. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rick Cesari

Good job, keep at it. Do you want to be an admin? Bearian (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to be even handed.
Maybe I'll look at becoming an admin in the future... --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Return of the Turkish Spammer?

I noticed the work you did the other day on an IP that was adding Turkish commercial links (78.174.6.216). I think this person is back - 78.174.44.101 - at least one of the links is the same as one added on Building then. Is there anything I need to do about this new round besides reverting and warning - and adding links like you did, I guess? I'm still learning here. Jackollie (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. You can report it to WT:WPSPAM. I'll try to take a look though. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of non profit website

Ron I am surprised that you categorised a non profit website and organisation working for the education of the poor and orphan kids in himalayan state as being personal , advertisement and biased. Please revisit the website and find out yourself if someone is making money out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msemwall (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Making money out if has nothing to do with it. Please read WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK, which are already on your talk page, especially Wp:spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if you haven't been promoting the site heavily with your edits, the article did not meet WP:N. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cryonics Society

Dear Ronz:

This is in reference to the Cryonics Society article.

1. The notice regarding the article's being written like an advertisement was placed earlier. It was rewrittern. The advertisement marker was removed, and not replaced. This time I added several references -- as indicated by the banner mentioning a need for them, and made no changes to the text except to mention that one of the organization's officials was a member of the bars of California, Ontario, and Alberta, as confirmed in one of the references.

Yet the advertisement label has now been re-added. How does an article that is tagged as an advertisement, then allowed to run without the tag, become an advertisement again by mentioning the legal qualifications of an official in the organization? If that is the case, I will be happy to remove it.

2. The Talk notice gave the following reason for removing all references: "Moved from the article because there was no indication that any were actually used".

That is because they were removed instantly. Am I correct that there is some indicator of when changes are made? If you will access them, you will notice that the references were removed literally within minutes of being placed. How can they be 'actually used' by anyone if they are taken off at once?

The other reason indicated for removing the references is: "Some might not be reliable sources):"

All are reliable sources. Xpress is a legitimate newspaper in Dubai (UAE), The Future And You is a long-running podcast. The Arizona House records are available publicly, and Alcor (which hosts the records) is itself a multi-million dollar non-profit, which you can confirm by accessing nonprofit research engines such as Guidestar (another reference which was removed.)

Every one of these s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Typeform (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply add the references in such a way that it is clear where and how they're being used. I went over all of them, and have serious WP:RS concerns, but until I know how they are supposedly being used, I'm withholding further comments. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Cryonics Society - Conclusion

Dear Ronz:

Excuse me for ending a message in mid-sentence. Apparently there are length limits I was not aware of. To conclude what I was saying:


Every one of these s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Typeform (talk • contribs) 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User VMS Mosaic

Have you had a chance to revisit the issues you raised on my talk page? My page is still in the Category 'Usernames editors have expressed concern over'. Do you still have concerns in that regard? VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't get back to you. I'll follow up. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


NotJustBrowsing vanished from List of Web Browsers again

Hi Ronz: What went wrong this time Ronz? Another policy change? --Ebbee 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See the article talk page. An editor brought up the issue of all the redlinks in the article, suggesting they be removed. I agreed, and the article has been changed accordingly. --Ronz 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Stustu12's external links

Replied there; I hope we can reach a suitable compromise.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything to compromise upon. You don't appear to understand the situation in spite of all that I've done to explain it. --Ronz (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Arts and Crafts site links removal

Hi. I see that you have systematically removed all the links to my site. I don't understand your reasoning. the fact that it is my site and that it has adsense on it will prevent you form seeing the fact that each link pointed to a tutorial with the valuable information related to the topic of Wikipedia page. I understand your struggle for keeping the wikipedia clean from unrelevant spam, however you are removing links to relevant information. I have had tens of visitors coming from those links write to me asking me questions about relevan crafts or commending me on providing such a useful resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.104.8 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks coming here to discuss it and for letting me know it's your site. Wikipedia policy is very clear on these issues. You have a WP:COI, and you have spammed your website in order to attract more visitors to your site. I'm sorry, but this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I have read the COI article you have referred me to. The closest match to the criteria mentioned there is the following:

Self-promotion
Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.
Examples of these types of material include:
:  1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).

Still, I think that you (and many other Wiki editors) are being blinded by the fact that there are ads on the linked page, without actually looking at the content of the page. The article linked to was definitelly not "obscure or not particularly relevant". It was spot on on-topic. It was a useful resource. As i pointed before, people coming form Wikipedia have initated a correspondence with me on the topic of the page.

The site was made by my wife and myself. She is an occupational therapist and is very good with crafts and I am just helping build and maintain the site. We have personally done each of those craft activities and taken photographs. True, there are ads on the site but why is it forbidden ? It does not make the site "commercial". The fact is that the existance of ads has made the site irrelevant in your eyes but not in the eyes of visitors.

Please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have mentioned on the Papier Mache page, I would like to know the status of the link. Can I reinclude it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.104.8 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I've responded on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the drama

Hi Ronz,
I thought to let you know about this real drama surrounding NotJustBrowsing. Have a look at [[4]], [[5]], [[6]] and [[7]]. It will be a good learning experience for all working for wikipedia.

Is there a way out of this crisis? Can these middle level gate keepers be avoided? The last one very simple page was very similar to [[8]]. -- Ebbee (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I admire your persistence and patience, and I don't like saying it but perhaps you can wait until there are better reviews published about the product? The advise you're getting from these editors is excellent. I'm actually taking notes for when I encounter similar situations in the future. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 8 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Talk:Bosniaks. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Stifle (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|I restored legitimate comments by myself and others to a talk page on a protected article for the purpose of discussing the disputes for which that article is protected. Removal of others' comments to talk pages is a form of simple and obvious vandalism, the exact type of vandalism that is exempt from 3rr. Further, if editors are to be blocked for simply trying to contribute legitimately to talk pages, then any single editor can be stifled from contributing to Wikipedia simply by having enough other editors remove that single editor's comments.
Note that the editor who began the edit-warring for the purpose of removing my comments in Talk:Bosniaks also did so in WQA (diff #1 below). Note also, that while the comments I restored are legitimate, the two editors that removed these comments are both involved in disputes with me over the legitimacy of their own contributions to the same page.
When I last restored the comments, I refactored the only portion of it that was in dispute (diff #2 below).
Also note that this is a part of a dispute where personal discussion (diff #4), WP:THIRD (diff #3), WP:3RR, and WP:WQA were all tried without response (plus ANI on a related issue with a different editor).}}

  1. 18:18, 4 December 2007 NeutralBosnian removed my legitimate comments in WQA --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. 02:02, 5 December 2007 I refactored the only disputed content of comments --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. 20:35, 3 December 2007 I sought third party opinion for NeutralBosnian's edits that violate WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. 00:04, 4 December 2007 I encouraged NeutralBosnian to use WQA after he harassed me on my user page. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the unblock template as your block is expired.
I don't consider your reverts to be exempt for the vandalism reason. Please see User:William M. Connolley/3RR for a good description. And while seeking third opinions or outside help is laudable, it does not exempt you from the revert rule. Finally, edit-warring, even if it doesn't technically violate 3RR, is still a blockable offence. NeutralBosnian was also blocked for 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I disagree. You blocked me for simply trying to comment to a talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Balkans arbitration remedy

In a recently-closed arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're aware. What is an appropriate manner for notifying people? I'm working to find better solutions to such conflicts, but this is a good step. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
A good way of notifying people of the arbitration decision is, if I may self-promote, the way I notified you above. Feel free to copy that message and notify other people, and if you have notified someone and they continue to disrupt, you can make a listing at WP:AE. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Could you now withdraw the notice and remove me from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Log_of_blocks_and_bans? --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No. That would be counterproductive. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain?
I've thought over what happened and I was wrong reverting as I did, and handling most of the situation in general. The vandalism that was happening should have be treated as blatant and disruptive. 3RR is no place to address the massive problems that such editors cause. There was no need to revert anyways. I should have simply made sure the information was in the article archive, and then summarized my deleted comments in a new discussion asking for specific responses as to why others were having problems with, and notified all other editors whose comments were deleted to do the same.
Finally, if you could, I'd like responses to User_talk:Ronz#Another_solution:_Balkans_arbitration_remedy. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be counterproductive to withdraw the notice because then in the unlikely event that your behaviour requires the remedy to be invoked again, it would not be effective. The idea is to let you know that the remedy exists, because it requires people to be given notice of it.
I am responding to the other message in its section. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Another solution: Balkans arbitration remedy

Please note I've been working extremely hard to try to find alternative solutions to these problems. I'm happy to explain in detail what I'm currently doing, and could use a great deal of help. I've written only a few things down, recently in Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus. Summarizing, I think the best solution is to strongly encourage editors to use the article talk pages, protecting articles if necessary, then strongly holding editors to WP:TALK and WP:CON. WP:TALK directs editors on proper use of the talk page and proper interactions with others. In the talk page discussions editors should explain their perspectives in terms of current policies and guidelines, linking to them as needed to be clear. Editors that are unable to follow WP:TALK should be drawn into dispute resolution, in venues other than the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Example

Recent example with User:83.67.73.117 concerning his use of Talk:Bosniaks as a forum in violation of WP:TALK, WP:BATTLE, and WP:SOAP:

--Ronz (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be in order. I am going to put a notice of the arbitration decision on that user's talk page and then it can be applied by reference to WP:AE in future. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I also support the above proposed solution. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Further ideas

One of the problems that I see that's not being addressed, which I brought up in arbitration early this year, is that most of these editors are inexperienced with Wikipedia and their experience comes from interacting in extremely controversial articles where civility is often overlooked (to put it gently). It would be helpful to encourage these editors to work on articles that had a better editing environment, and also encourage them to seek a WP:MENTOR. --Ronz 21:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I actually wanted feedback on how I was approaching these problems as written in User_talk:Ronz#Another_solution:_Balkans_arbitration_remedy rather than help with individual cases (not that I don't need help with the cases too). I'd like to expand it into an essay once I get some initial feedback. Or perhaps it could be incorporated into an existing essay or even guideline. I'm not sure at this point. Instead, I'd just like to get feedback on the approach first. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I think that is a decent approach and a good way of going "softly softly" for people who are genuinely trying to contribute while not tolerating any nonsense. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

spam

hi and thanks for your clarification. I agree that this is unwise to add links massively (although in some rare circumstances it may enhance the value of the articles). In all cases links should be definitely looked closer on and removed if redundant. Pundit|utter 13:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

When an editor has spammed a link, it's recommended that all the links that were spammed by that editor be removed. Even more so when there's a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I understand your view. It also is very good that you keep an eye on potential spam issues. In this particular case, when value of the links is considered, I believe we all agree they are probably useful for the articles. Of course it does not change the fact, that they were not added in a way following the proper procedure. For now, I believe we should probably try to calm down this conflict - all things aside, the worse case scenario is that one of the parties involved is disappointed and walks out from Wikipedia. What we all, I think, want to achieve is that we all stay with Wikipedia, but follow the procedures and be better editors in the future. Would you agree to keep the links, while admitting they were added improperly? best Pundit|utter 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping mediate the situation! Much appreciated. I'm good for now with what links are left. I mostly agree with Piotrus' final edits, though I did make some changes. The links in Coding (social sciences) are questionable, but it's basically a stub so they're probably helpful until the article is expanded and referenced. I provided detailed comments for Content analysis [9], and am waiting responses. Qualitative research is a bit of a mess. I was holding off on commenting further until this blew over. Basically, I think the article is at a point where the references should be cited in-line, and the only external links should be other reliable sources that aren't currently being used. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! I am really grateful for your non-biased and calm approach. Pundit|utter 02:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks. I wish the links were actually more useful, but they're more they type that might be helpful for short and developing articles, but really don't fit once an article has a good level of detail and is well-referenced.
If you ever want to challenge your obviously excellent mediation skills, I can point you to a couple that are what I consider real controversies where I really need some help. --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) for now I think I need to settle in the en-wiki for a while to see how the customs and procedures work here - everything is very similar, but there are nuances. Once I'm accustomed with how it works, I will gladly be of help. Pundit|utter 16:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Careful or I might actually hold you to this ;^) Thanks again! --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Digital Signature / Electronic Signature External Links & Silanis Blacklisting

Hello Ronz,

I am the Marketing Director for Silanis Technology. IP Address 66.46.217.132

It has just come to my attention that Silanis has been blacklisted from editing Wikipedia as a result of our contributions being deemed SPAM.

I want to first apologize for not addressing this earlier. I was not ignoring earlier messages from you or others, I was simply unaware that messages were being posted to my account. If you see recent repeated attempts to replace text that was deleted, it was because I was trying to figure out who was removing it (I assumed it was being done maliciously).

While I do appreciate the importance of Wikipedia NOT being used as a marketing vehicle, I have 2 concerns with being blacklisted.

Firstly, while you have applied this policy strictly to Silanis, our competitors remain on these pages. ARX, Yozons, PGP and others. If you are going to enforce this rule, it should be done uniformly.

Secondly, we ourselves have a very strict policy about not taking a commercial approach to our articles and resources. We were the first in the industry to create a resource center with the goal of educating the marketplace to increase adoption of the technology in general. As such, our articles are extremely educational. It is a shame that readers seeking useful information on this topic would not have access to white papers from experts simply because there is a presumption of bias.

I would greatly appreciate a response to this message. Please advise what can be done to resolve either of my concerns.

Thanks, Andrea Masterton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.217.132 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 December 2007

There's already a report about this at WP:COIN#Silanis. You should discuss it there. However, your competitors have absolutely nothing to do with this. The problem is strictly with how links to Silanis were added, and the fact that they were being added from Silanis ip addresses. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Entity-Relationship model

Hello Ronz,

I undid your removal of the non-notable softwares in Entity-Relationshiup Diagram page, because it has already helped me and I belive other users in finding a solution that can be adequate for creating this diagram with an open-source solution. I was the initial person who divided the list in proprietary and open source software as I was trying to find a software that fullfill my need, and as I expected, many other people contributed with solutions and finally I dicovered Power*Architect which has recently became open-source. I am a System Analyst of a major brazilian governament company and my division has adopted this software for it´s use after these events. So I think is really helpful, and ask you to leave it. As you may already know, there isn´t any open-source solution in this area with the recent exception I told you. Our best hope is Power*Architect and brModelo. Please don´t remove this list. Other softwares may appear and this page is my (and others) first source of information.

You me reach me on nt777@hotmail.com

Nelson Teixeira —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.70.139.207 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article talk page. There are a couple of ways where something like this could be made to work, but it's going to take more than this I'm afraid. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


I have continued the dicussion in the article talk page, as you requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.148.140.157 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WQA

Actually, I do consider the "alert" informally resolved, as there is a consensus on the WQA page of several editors actually discussing, but the wording for use of the template that I should "believe the situation is resolved with consensus or at very least grudging acceptance of the involved parties" doesn't seem to have been satisfied yet, as the people you were dealing with haven't agreed with our characterisation of yourself as a reasonable editor who is trying to salvage a contentious cycle of articles from partisan chaos. I have left notes on their talk pages letting them know how the situation sorts out for me, but as you know they may have little effect. The good news is single subject editors who declare up front that it's their POV or the highway are going to have more difficulties than they cause at a certain point, IME. Several of them have been sanctioned by admins at this point, and that promises to make any ensuing round of sanctions that much more effective. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Makes perfect sense. --Ronz 21:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
A sockpuppet! Now he has more difficulties than he's causing others. If you suspect he comes round again in other guise please let me know, we've got a good taste of his prose style and I'd be happy to help out. I also appreciate how you've kept your aplomb in your contributions to the subject. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye open, though I'm still trying to figure out how to write sockpuppet reports without being harassed for doing so when they're Balkans-related. I got my first block because of this, so I'm not sure about "aplomb", but thanks for the support. --Ronz (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
If the suspected socks pass the duck test well enough, an admin can intervene to prevent harassment. I'm sorry you were blocked, just in the short bit of interaction with you and the balkan brigade you seemed calm and polite. I've had some experience with this puppetmaster now, so at the first whiff of suspicion, drop me a line. If I see enough markers of their previous style in the new incarnation, I'll be happy to block them as a suspected sock. If a review is requested, either another admin will do so or even checkuser can then verify if necessary. In either case, the debate will then have passed to the blocking admin. Cheers, --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help and advise. Much appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosniaks

Hi RONZ. I would be happy to make a draft for the ethnicity section and submt it for evaluation/ suggestions Hxseek (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I made a simple and obvious suggestion, but it would be nice to rework it. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Korphai

Were you going to respond? - I wasn't planning on it, it seems to have done a good enough job of getting sourced. I'll just let an admin close it as keep, which is what it looks like will happen. Corvus cornixtalk 19:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll change mine to weak keep as I planned. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: External Links

Ronz, hi, I was not aware of this consensus about external links, thanks. I have appreciated having comprehensive lists of software in Wikipedia. I guess I'll have to bone up on this subject as to what Wikipedia is and is not. We certainly could use a comprehensive or a list of the major Wiki Genealogy Software. Do you think it would be appropriate to start it? I guess that would mean contributing articles within Wikipedia about each wiki, which I'm not prepared or equipped to do. Oh well.--socrtwo (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There are alternatives like finding a list in a reliable source, or adding an external link to a list that doesn't meet WP:RS --Ronz (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch FAQ

I think this is a good idea and a good suggestion you made for the first entry [10]. Whether this goes into the main body of the article or not we should make it clear what we are able to establish factually in the Talk space. —Whig (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been brought up a few times and it's one of the few things that no one has disagreed with. Always good to identify what is agreed upon... --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch disruption

I would take it upon myself to archive tendentious discussions, but I'll let someone else do that. For now, I think I'm going to put up a DNFTT warning at the top of the page. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to do such archiving, but it's difficult to do without escalating the situation. I don't see any clear-cut situations yet.
As you no doubt notice, there are some extremely delicate egos here looking for any excuse at all to play the victim. Best to let them just blow up in ways that only add to the evidence that they are intentionally being disruptive to wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, they'll make a case against themselves if you just let them be. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch concerns with PeterStJohn

Thanks for your note on my talk page. Certainly we want to keep cool heads; however, first, mere politeness is insufficient, as disruptive editting can be done with a patina of politeness; second, we are saddled with disruptive editting, and addressing it openly is IMO more effective, and more honest, than ignoring it. Unhappily we have disruptive editting on both "sides" of the core issue; people over-reacting to the perceived attack against science, and people over-reacting to a perceived attack against Faith. Both Science and Faith have been used by manipulative people in fraudulent ways. Myself, I'm a scientist, but both sides have bad people. Pete St.John (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to focus on the "bad people" then use the proper forums, like their talk pages, WP:THIRD, or WP:WQA. If you want to deal with page disruption, read and follow WP:DE. However, there's no end to the disruption if too many stop assuming good faith, and start thinking it's okay for them to ignore WP:TALK in order to stop others from being disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The current status of what we have posted to each other (can't really call it a conversation, IMO) at my talk:

==Talk:Quackwatch== I really appreciate what you're trying to do with comments such as this [11]. You're trying to calm the situation, that's clear. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Quackwatch is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you'll consider refactoring per above: [12]. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Should we seek a third-party to help? I'm disappointed by the edits you made to User:PeterStJohn/ScratchPad, after I made the comment above. It appears you're no longer discussing the issues with me per WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
again, if you cite specifics, I can address them. Overbroad generalizations are too easy to brush off as insinuations which of course is not what you intend. However, the edits that disappoint you are in my userspace, not in an article. Please feel free to point out a specific thing that violates a specific policy. Also, feel free to bring in more people, although I wonder at the term "third" party, as there seem to be more than three already. And no, I don't mean to ignore you, but ScienceApologist is posting much faster, and more conspicuously, e.g. at the ANI he brought, which you may wish to follow. So lacking specifics to address, I'm busier elsewhere. And yeah, I'll copy this to your talk. Pete St.John (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I asked you to refactor a comment per WP:TALK. You made no response. Then I found that you're making notes about me about concerns that you have made no attempt to discuss with me. Are third parties involved in any of these comments? None that I see. Are you too busy to address these issues? Seems to me that if you have time to make all those notes in your userspace, you have some time. --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I did respond to you, two centimetres up from this line. "...if you cite specifics, I can address them". We don't have any meaningful dialogue at all, you ask me to refactor, I ask you to cite specifics, you ask me to refactor, etc. Pretty frustrating, huh? You seem to want me to refactor. I seem to want specifics. Can that ever be resolved or are we doomed to eternal repetition? I guess the ball is in my court, I should guess what you mean, and refactor accordingly. Pete St.John (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you remove and apologize for the following, "I consider your pugnaciousness to be misguided and disruptive" and "(over and over again; which is [[Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing|tendentious)".

I suggest you delete your /ScratchPad notes about me, and discuss the matters with me instead. I hope this is specific enough for you. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Ronz is correct, though I don't know what policies exist regarding private scratchpads, disputes should follow the normal WP:DR policies. —Whig (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
First: regarding my request to be more specific, am I to assume that by "refactor a comment per WP:TALK" you mean the quote you specify after my further appeal to be specific, "...your pugnaciousness..."? That's from a talk page somewhere, it would have been helpful (considering the enormity of stuff at the relevant pages) to have linked it. But yes, for example, you accuse me of refusing to talk with you, even though I have answered you every time you post on my Talk, and you used vague generalities over and over again while I asked for specifics. So yes I consider that pugnacious; it's eristic to formulate your rhetoric to denigrate me, instead of to converge towards agreement. So no I'm not inclined to retract that, but I'd rather reread it in context before making a final decision. I would get to that quicker if I had the link to which place you meant.
Second, the scratch pad is where I post notes (particularly, links) where I can find them, for later arguing my case in DRVs, ANIs, whatever. I take notes when issues become too complex for glib reactions. I could do that entirely offline, of course, so you could be completely oblivious to it. I don't see how that helps. The particular notes you mean are, I think, quotes from material you publically posted, simply gathered where I can find them easily as opposed to the archived talk pages. I don't understand your objection to my copying it for reference.
Third, I've been away during the Holidays and have a long, long way to catch up. Please continue to feel free to drop notes on my Talk when you feel I've neglected to address one of your objections.
Last, if Whig expects a response from me it would have been helpful to drop a note at my page, as I don't watch this one. So I'll ignore that. Pete St.John (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I've commented on your scratchpad, where it's easiest to be very specific about my concerns.
As for the rest, I think you need to read WP:TALK and WP:CHILLOUT very carefully. Your appear to follow the repeated behavior of making accusations, then failing to follow up when I've tried to discuss them with you. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be accusing each other of similar misfeasance. Specifically, I accuse you of repeatedly stating (as in, "failing to follow up" in the above) or implying ("tried to discuss..." implies that there was no discussion) that I don't reply, when in fact I have always replied (not always quickly). I don't change my wording or retract my statements, as you ask, but I absolutely never ignore you or fail to explain myself (maybe not always, or ever, to your satisfcation). My position is that you are the one being argumentative. Pete St.John (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Your position is very clear. The facts just don't agree with your position. I'm trying to focus on the facts here. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Pick a fact. However, I have to concede that I'm late replying to one item, here's the thread from there, with my last addition only minutes old:

Sub section: clip from Pete's Scratchpad

...I cannot find any evidence that these website reviews are actually peer reviewed. They appear to be solitary reviews, submitted to the journal, with no reviewing criteria at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That is, Ronz complains that the review is not reviewed. Think about it. Pete St.John (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What is there to think about. My concern, which has been brought up by others as well, is does this review meet WP:RS. Simple as that. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This seems amazingly circular, but consider these propositions:

1) QW is not peer-reviewed.

2) QW should be peer-reviewed.

3) There exists one person who has publically criticised QW for not peer-reviewing itself.

4) QW is an evil fascist conspiracy to inflate the costs of over-proscribed medications.

5) Anyone who disagrees with any word spoken or written by anyone who agrees with QW about anything, is destroying the Immortal Crystalline Edifice of True Science and causing the imminent collapse of Human Civilization.

Ronz, which of those 5 propositions do you believe I am claiming, and that I believe is supported by the citation? Hint: item 3. So someone publishing that QW should be peer-reviewed, is not a reliable source for the existence of someone publishing that QW should be peer-reviewed? No, that's surely not what you mean. My theory, and it's only a theory, is that you are ascribing one or more of the other propostions to me. Sorry to get to this late, I was out of town over the Holidays and I'm swamped. Still. Pete St.John (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You've made my point for me. Thanks! When you actually want to discuss facts, let me know by actually discussing them yourself. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to answer the last iteration of your question, because I finally figured out (part of) the confusion, but I'll let your remark right there settle it. Bye. Pete St.John (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
So you refuse to discuss the facts? --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" I can't say I've done any of that.206.162.145.2 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I fixed the warning. It was supposed to be specific to spamming, rather general vandalism. A uw-s3 warning rather than a uw-v3 warning. My apologies. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Digital Asset Management

Hi Ronz,

I understand and agree with the removal of the links as you have done, however I am perplexed as to why you removed a significant part of the article. I agree that removing links is something that was needed on the article and appologise for having added one, however, I think that your removal of vast majority of the Providers section siginificantly reduces the value of the page. Prior to my edits to fix a misspelling of North Plains Systems from "NorthPlains" there were a number of links in the page that as you pointed out should be removed, however, I think that only the links should be removed as the list of providers is very useful to someone who is looking for just such a solution. Your edits, while they definately remove the links, removed a lot of content too.

Jlegue (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not much of an advocate for WP:BRD, but I thought I'd chance it this time. My edit summaries were very descriptive, but it deserves some discussion now that you've brought it up. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation

I would recommend contacting an uninvolved admin, asking them to review your diffs, and if they deem it appropriate, issue a warning. If violations of NPA or whatever happen after the warning, then the block becomes appropriately preventative, instead of punitive, for past bad acts. Mr Which??? 01:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Simple and effective. Much appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. My god, this thread on my talkpage is confusing! I am certainly glad I'm not involved in that mess... :) Mr Which??? 19:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL! I so wish I never tried to solve these hopeless battles. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Break from QW

Can you point out where I'm responding in a fashion similar to their own? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're starting to get close is all I'm saying with the meatpuppetry discussion:
Borderline: 05:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC); 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Worth refactoring: 06:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
--Ronz (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess YMMV. I don't see those posts as being particularly problematic, and I basically see those lines of conversation as finished unless these users admit to behaving in an untoward manner. I have found that staying silent about suspicions is always worse in the long run then getting them out in the open. I also try to carefully outline them as my suspicions and nothing more. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It's just my perspective on the situation. Like I said in User_talk:Ronz#Quackwatch disruption, I prefer them to make their own case against themselves. They're doing a spectacularly good job of it. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you planning on doing anything with the cases they're developing? ANI perhaps? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Obviously (User_talk:Ronz#Recommendation), but I'm in no hurry to do so. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping in

Hi, I am just dropping in to say hello and to say that while in the hospital last weekend I noticed a lot hasn't changed with the Barrett article. What a shame. Hope you are well, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hang in there. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ronz -- how goes it? Same here on Barrett; I've been sort of "fasting" since it got too contentious. Speaking of which, I happened to notice your caution to John Gohde and then got flamed by him myself. If a user RfC is ever needed, I'll be glad to share the little slice of charm I experienced. cheers. --Jim Butler(talk) 06:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, things over the night went from weird to the bizarre. What is going on already? I am staying away. Personally I don't need or want the hassels that this article seems to continue to bring. It's really ashame though. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That sums it up nicely. The regular disruptions are happening at Quackwatch, and I'm involved with a similarly contentious article where I've run into this John Gohde. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it

Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett have got to be the most confounding controversy I have ever come across at Wikipedia. It needs to go through arbitration right now, there is just no other way this stuff is going to get resolved. The way that the Levine2112 group is operating is disruptive editing pure and simple and they seem to confuse the issue so much that well-meaning editors become vicious angry overnight (witness User:PeterStJohn). Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the patience to go through such an ordeal and the accompanying megabytes worth of data that such an action will generate. I wish there would be a group of uninvolved administrators who would swoop in and shut down the article entirely (maybe even delete it from Wikipedia for some time). I cannot believe that there are no less than six people operating on those pages that deserve to be kicked out of Wikipedia. I haven't seen such a high concentration of problem-editors since my days fighting the plasma cosmology wars. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. It's time to start pushing for Arbcom. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I would not mind being joined as a party if you would like to bring a case. —Whig (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I would also support this if someone acts, I don't know how to. I have left the QW page again for awhile because it seems no matter what I say I have to explain and it gets old with all the arguments about anything and everything suggested or written. The same subjects are talked about, just formed in a different manner it seems. It's just not worth the aggravation. I know of one excellent editor who left because of all of this and spoke to this person today as a matter of fact trying to change his/her mind and return full time to no avail. Some editors are out of control and it just doesn’t seem right anymore to allow the behaviors to continue. I am slow but I am learning much better and I try real hard to be civil at all times. I just wish some of the others would try to work better with the other editors and not continue to debate thinking that if I debate long enough I will get my way. It’s not supposed to work that way here but if enough editors leave, I guess this might work, I hope not but it is a thought worth thinking about. Sorry for the little vent, but I just want you all to know that you have my support to help stop all the disruptions and policies that are happening.--CrohnieGalTalk 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Net Promoter

UPDATE on Net Promoter research.

Dear Ronz,

The listing of the research I conducted with Professors Bruce Cooil, Tor Wallin Andreassen, and Lerzan Aksoy is incorrectly listed as being "my" research, and provides the appearance that my employer, IPSOS Loyalty, is involved in the research--it is not. Could you have this corrected so that my co-authors are given proper credit? This research is purely scientific, and my co-authors are well-regarded academics.

Additionally, my co-authors and I were recently informed that this research was awarded the MSI-H. Paul Root Award from the Journal of Marketing for the article that represents the "most significant contribution to the advancement of the practice of marketing." This award represents "best paper" from the leading scientific journal in all of management and economics (as measured by the citation index) and represents a significant statement by the scientific community regarding our research into Net Promoter.

Finally, the research reported to support Net Promoter by Paul Marsden and Mark Ritson was not published in any scientific journal--it does not meet that standard and therefore does not represent scientific evidence of a relationship between Net Promoter and firm growth. The only other scientific research into Net Promoter of which I am aware challenges the claims attributed to Net Promoter. These articles are:

Keiningham, Timothy L., 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.

Morgan, Neil A., and Lopo Leottte do Rego (2006), "The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction And Loyalty Metrics In Predicting Business Performance," Marketing Science, 25 (5), 426–439.

Pingitore, Gina, Neil A Morgan, Lopo L. Rego, Adriana Gigliotti, Jay Meyers (2007), "The Single-Question Trap," Marketing Research, vol. 19, no. 2 (Summer), p9-13.

I would like to note that my co-authors and I do not care what metrics managers choose to use. We only care about the research presented in our scientific journals, of which the Harvard Business Review (where Net Promoter was introduced) is one. Claims presented in these journals must be able to withstand scientific scrutiny.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Tim Keiningham —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLK 001 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me and explaining in such detail. I'll try to take care of it as soon as I can, but it would be more helpful to note of all this on the article talk page.
Note: originally added to User_talk:Ronz#No_new_knowledge_allowed_on_Wikipedia.3F --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Innovation - spammed, I guess...in a clever way

Hey there,

I've been looking for innovation on Wikipedia, and have discovered that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Innovation has been made useless (sort of): There have been inserted many lines of text written by Henry Bolanos. I dont know how to delete this - there is no "Edit" to that part, and it is above the introduction. Can you help?

br Anders Schroeder

anders@schroeder.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersschroeder (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone else already took care of it. Original research from the look of it. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch discussion from User talk:Jossi

Please participate in the discussions rather than simply reverting. In this case, the discussions stretch over three weeks. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

These "warnings" are unnecessary, I made only one edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I agree with your removing the warning and just leaving the justification.
As you already know, the article is almost always under dispute and the disputes are highly contentious. Your making a single edit without participating in the three-week-long discussion on the very information under dispute only escalates a tense situation. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You guys need to cool it, you are splitting hairs there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
Exactly my point. You're only escalating the situation by your edit to the article, and now making accusations of others. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

request

Ronz your email is not activated so would you email me please? Also I have ANI on my watch list and was shocked when I saw the accusation of you using a sock. I had to read it twice to make sure I read it correctl. You gave a good response though. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you have mail! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Social innovation

I added the business link so people could check out the comapny for themselves and to back up statements that refereed to that company. If these sources will confuse user then I will delete them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.78.52 (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and for starting a discussion. Let's see what we can work out on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:John Gohde

Hi, I have already left on warning for him a few days ago: [13] (which was promptly removed), and will look into leaving a second warning a bit more tomorrow. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have left another warning. Unfortunately, mine is but one voice, we'll need a consensus to deal with this situation effectively, and I believe the accumulated histories are weighty enough to get one. As User:John Gohde and User:Mr-Natural-Health the user in question has been put on parole and blocked many times, so I'd suggest at this point starting the ball rolling in the dispute resolution process, again. It helps to have all the bases covered with the progression: request for comment/user (which directly addresses the user(s)), followed by a request for mediation (about the alt-med ownership issues) and if these are unsuccessful ultimately a request for arbitration. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Considering that he has experienced year long bans and many blocks, and is repeating exactly the same behavior, another ArbCom would itself be a waste of time and actually a disruption of Wikipedia. He is a disruptive editor on parole and has been breaking his parole for some time. It just takes a courageous admin to ban him and that admin will get pretty much nothing but compliments (with the exception of sympathetic editors who deserve the same). -- Fyslee / talk 08:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I haven't abandoned Wikipedia! I had oral surgery last Thursday and have been been snowed away for a few days but now feel a little better and will spend today looking into things again. Regards, --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User Experience

Ronz, I do respect the rules. How about this diagram which is available in Flickr? @see: http://flickr.com/photos/bryce/106972762/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirBehzad (talk • contribs) 06:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Illyrians

My edition is referenced and sourced and the nameless editor called me a turk and made racial remarks on my origin page few edits back on my talk page.Megistias (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's annoying, but you can still be blocked per WP:3RR --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
He offended me in a racial manner and he ruins pages sourced and referenced.HE should be banned.Megistias (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've requested page protection. --Ronz (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
He does it on other pages as well.Megistias (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Picking your Wiki Mind... Please

Hello Ronz,

You are the only person I have had any interaction with, so, am afraid - I hope you do not mind me asking your opinion on something?

I updated the following section, trying to follow the guidelines and wondered what your thoughts are on my changes.

This is the section I updated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Business_Administration#MBA_ranking_resources

I removed the first MBA Ranking Resources “Compilation of business school rankings” this is not a qualified MBA ranking resource and as such is not relevant for this section: self promotion (you taught me that one).

Updated the “Top 50 MBA programmes as determined by the United Kingdom Government” and included the date then I realised that this had been included in “Reference and Notes” and does not actually have anything to do with rankings. As such should not be in this section.

Would love to know what you think?


--Studio1st (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for my opinion.
I've tagged the external links section for cleanup. I don't see why any of those links should be there. When in doubt, use the article's discussion page. --Ronz (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, just read the discussion page and had a minor heart attack. --Studio1st (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Only figuratively, I hope. --Ronz (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User Expereience

Hi Ronz,

Please take a look at my inquiry in discussion for User Expeience Design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:User_experience_design

AmirBehzad (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I've been meaning to get to it. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

this number guy changed my page to TUrk,Albanian and others and called me racist names many times.See the history on my page.I have reported him but nothing has happened yet.Megistias (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

just 4 u

Please come to this section I created just for you. . . [14].TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've given a link to the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

You are one person who took the time to try to help me understand policies at the beginning. Your patience with me was remarkable to me since you had to continually repeat things until I finally understood. I hope my editing, although not that much, shows that I have learned and became a better editor over all this time. I thank you for your help and appreciate it very much. I wish you and yours a very Happy & Healthy holiday season. 2008 is around the corner and my wish for you is that is a full of happiness, great health and happy editing. Thank you again, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

about external links

Hello Ronz,

I saw your reply on the 'External Links' talk concerning a link to a blog with interesting content. I added some material in the article's discussion section. Is this what you really advised to do? Please help cuz I am slightly new to this! thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicheader (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good start! --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry but ...

The text is pertinent the the topic. Anthon01 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your personal attacks on others as a group are totally inappropriate. I'll take it to a third party if you persist. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you should take it to the third party. Anthon01 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Already have, as you have noticed. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I didn't and don't know where you have made your complaint. You you please let me know? Anthon01 (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
If you have submitted a complaint you should have left a notice on my talkpage. Don't I have the right to respond to you complaint? Anthon01 (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've requested twice today to let me know where you have placed a complaint. You haven't responded. Could you let me know one way or the other? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Anthon01 (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

John G. again

Hello again. I'm sorry I've been out of it for a while, but the surgery last week really kicked my butt. I must be getting old. Having worked in a surgery myself for most of my adult life, I shouldn't be too surprised.

I have replied to OrangeMarlin's arbcom enforcement motion [15]. I am glad that the issue(s) is/are getting attention from many other editors, which is the only way to reach a lasting solution, whatever it may be.

As an aside, I do myself support a wholly sceptical approach to alt med type things, even though now I teach tai chi chuan, tui na and qigong for a living myself. Go figure. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you aren't yet aware of it, you may be interested to have a look here: [16]
Happy New Year! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL. I just commented to you about it. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking about if I could contribute something useful, myself. It looks like the main points been covered pretty well by Guy. Admins can do a lot with obvious incivility or vandalism, but a case like this, with a user who has the attitude, but never quite walks up to typing the exact words that would justify singlehandedly blocking him, needs more attention from a wider base of editors if what happens is going to stick. I saw a funny essay that reminded me of the situation: WP:GIANTDICK. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I responded to the first one but then a second one opened and then got moved so my comments apparently have been lost in all the different ones set up now. Are there any suggestions from either of you? I think the 'notes' page that was set up and now deleted (though it might still be around and just hidden, he suggested this to another editor who's article was being ruled to delete) said it all. I think personally this article should be speedy deleted since it is seems to be a back door way to get a spin more positive to the other articles already written. Anyways, if I can help, please suggest where to post my concerns about all of this. A lot are watching this article and the cases of complaints but the many pages of comments are being spread over so many places that it's hard to keep up; at least it is for me. Any suggestions would be very welcomed by me. On a different note, Happy New Year's to both of you! --CrohnieGalTalk 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
To answer your question, yes that is the article, Complementary and alternative medicine. It just seems like a back door article and too many arguments because of it. I know it has a notice on the top to be merged but from what I understand a lot of it is just a duplication of other articles with a lean towards a more positive alternate ideas than towards a balance of pro and con. I hope this makes sense! :) This is the article that John started and wants to control, so I hope I have the right article in my head! :) Happy New Year! --CrohnieGalTalk 17:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that editing behavior needs to be tended to but where? There seems to be so many and then one of the ARB's got moved and I responded to the first one that was started and then the second one was initiated, then moved so my comments got lost in all of this, I think. The 'notes' page got deleted finally but the attacks are still on going. Any suggestions as to where I can respond again? If you look at the John Gohde first one you will see my comments. I suggested there that it should be immediately deleted too, along with some other things. I just don't know which complaint sight is the most current active site for making comments at this time. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
John's is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#John_Gohde_2. Hopefully this will get other editors to temper their behavior. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope so too but don't hold your breath, I like you too much! :) Thanks, I will repost what I put on the first one when I am able. Right now I have too much meds in me to think clearly enough. I am still recovering from my hospital stay and now I have a tooth that need to go big time, tomorrow as a matter of, that is killing me. Of course it happens during a holiday. My Crohn's is taking so much away from me it's driving me crazy. Oh well, thanks for the help. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation by Magnonimous

REFACTORED - information removed

Magnonimous (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Refactored --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the same junk from his user talk page after seeing this here. He is now blocked. -- Fyslee / talk 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

stubbification

"I wouldn't be opposed to a complete stubbification of the article" Someguy1221 (talk)

Magnonimous (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess some would call that being BOLD, hmm funny ol' world i'n'nit. Magnonimous (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what WP:CON is, nor do I think you understand the rest of what Someguy1221 wrote. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the rest of what he said, I never liked the Okinawa Coral article anyway. The content of that article belongs on Coral calcium. Magnonimous (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be ignoring the rest of what he said, and it doesn't justify your removing all the other content. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops!

I just reverted to a better version at Coral calcium. I hadn't noticed you were working on it. -- Fyslee / talk 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! No problem --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

??

Yeah, great, Ronz. At what point was I libellous? At what point did I make controversial statements without proper sources?

Of what exactly are you accusing me and what evidence do you have?


k —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowski (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave you the diff, and I see another editor has warned you as well. Any other questions? --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll ask the same question: Of what exactly are you accusing me and what evidence do you have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowski (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I gave you a blp warning with the diff that justifies the warning. No accusations were made by me. The other editor warned you that such comments could result in your being blocked for trolling and incivility. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Listen, Ron, here's what you wrote on my talk page:

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. [1] --Ronz

If you check the history, I have not made ANY statements on ANY page other than a TALK PAGE about anyone. Kalowski (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix that then. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. I now know what the diff means. You are suggesting that this

Hilarious. Actually, who cares? Who is this guy? Why have I ever bothered to get published facts here for a guy whose main job is surely to press 'record'. A mastering engineer? Or a re-mastering engineer? What the hell does it mean? Protect it forever, man. Hell... delete the poor guy!

is possibly libellous. How? Is he not a re-mastering engineer? From the Steve Hoffman page:

Steve Hoffman is an audio engineer from Los Angeles, California, who specializes in remastering sound recordings on compact disc and vinyl record.

Does an audio engineer not record sound? Or re-record sound. I have not libelled anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowski (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipal/Archive_10"