User talk:Hipal/Archive 20
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Linux.com
The reply has come. See the noticeboard. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for alerting me. That makes sense with what I was able to find on my own. I'll follow up in the articles. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Link in Domain hack
Hi Ronz, you removed a line that i have just added on this page: Domain Hack [1] From the external links. Why was it? I think the link was relevant as the other links on the page. Did I make any cosmetic issue? Thanks. Varadi82 (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I have just checked the diff and it says it was offtopic, but if you take a look at the site it has better domain hack search feature than the other sites. Maybe the description i wrote for the link was too general, but I think the link still has a place on that page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_hack Thanks. Varadi82 (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I've now removed the other search tool as well. The most relevant guideline is WP:EL, but you may want to look at WP:SPAMMER as well. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I think it's equitable. First I thought my link can be placed there as there were a similar link, but as you removed that too I think it's correct now. Thanks. Varadi82 (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Woods results removal.
Ronz, for your information opened an arbitration case regarding your removal of the Woods results, Cheers Seeyou (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
As I presume you will have noticed, I have a copy of the Woods paper. I am willing to answer questions about its contents. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
RfArb on you
Seeyou has filed a RfArb against you. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Hopefully, it make getting him banned that much easier, given that it's totally baseless. --Ronz (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I was surprised in a way that it is directed at you. I mean the conversations I was watching at ANI sounded like it was moving in the direction of one against him/her. I think this was a bad move on their part and may get turned on them instead of just refused out right. There seems to be a lot of editors not happy with See You at the moment. Oh well, life at Wiki and all, hope you are well. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ping, you've got mail! It's pretty much me babbling but I think you'll understand! :) I also saw that there is an RFC3 on the same subject as the RFArb, amazing, totally amazing to me! Just when I think things can't get weirder, poof it does. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi
Hello, thanks for the welcome. Bare with me here, I'm still a bit new to wiki editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grainfeed189 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest Message
Hi Ronz... can you shed some light about the conflict of interest message you posted on my talk? Unsure about what you may even be referring to...
Thanks!--Christian B (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. Sorry I didn't elaborate, but I wasn't sure how much information to provide. I try to stay far away from anything that might violate WP:OUTING.
- Basically, I was cleaning up some spam when I noticed that some links you added were all related. I thought it best to be sure you know about WP:COI, just in case. It's just a few edits, long ago. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I will definitely keep COI in mind in the future.. thanks!--Christian B (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Woodhead Publishing Limited
I added some references to Woodhead Publishing Limited and removed the copyvio text. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think your edit [[1]] is mistaken; the edits are not necessarily linkspam. Can you re-consider? Bearian (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I'm always willing to reconsider. If they aren't linkspam, what are they? Not references... --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- These organizations are legitimate. I'd settle to having the links at the botton under "External Links". Bearian (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the list of External Links. That's good as it is. I may make a CE or 2 here and there. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the article as is, if the spamming is minimal. I'm still a bit confused as to the problem. I tend to apply WP:EL and WP:NOTLINKS fairly strictly, especially to better quality articles, and especially to those that attract spam. If the article continues to attract more spam, I'll want to trim back the external links to links to articles or similar information, removing links to associations, institutes, etc. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the list of External Links. That's good as it is. I may make a CE or 2 here and there. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- These organizations are legitimate. I'd settle to having the links at the botton under "External Links". Bearian (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Telepresence issues
I hope you are the right guy....
What are your qualification regarding the Telepresence industry? You have too many incorrect accretions to list, here's a few.
Are you the guy who has been deleting DVE from the commercial Telepresence line up??
We have been building telepresence systems longer than Telenetics, and Cisco and HP use DVE internally. We sell desktop, small and midsize telepresence rooms and large room systems. Put us back into the line up. Or give me a reson why not.
DVE holds the largest patent base in the world for Telepresence display technology. We have been a corporation since 1995, and are responsible for much of the videoconferencing industry changes you give credit to Telesuite and Cisco. You have been deleting most or all references to my company with invalid rational.
1) DVE is my company, hence copy write issues are moot. 2) Your Cisco write up is factually incorrect. 3) Our Telepresence stage was developed for the entertainment industry, and is and has been used to bring celebrities in stage to ENTERTAIN people interactively via codecs.
I would like to speak to you over the phone, please give me your contact info... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.128.131 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Yes, I'm one of the editors that has reverted your edits. I hope that we can work this out.
- To protect my privacy, it would be best if you contacted me here. My email is another option.
- As DVE is your company, you have a conflict of interest and should be using the article talk pages as your primary means of contributing anything related to your company.
- Copyright issues are still relevant, even if it were appropriate for you to add the information to the article.
- If the Cisco write-up is incorrect, it would be best to bring it up on the article talk page so it can be properly addressed. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
What are your qualification regarding my Telepresence industry? I see your not an administrator for Wikipedia. Are you the guy who has been deleting DVE from the commercial Telepresence line up?? Big mistake…… Here’s why.
DVE holds the largest patent base in the world for Telepresence display technology. We have been a Videoconference / Telepresence research corporation since 1995, and are responsible for much of the videoconferencing industry changes you give credit to Telesuite and Cisco and others. You may be responsible for removing my company from most of the changes I made to the Telepresence category in Wikipedia. Also, you may be responsible for locking me out of the edit feature. My Co-Founder Dr. Steve McNelley’s Doctoral Thesis was a double blind study proving the importance of true eye-contact of videoconferencing in 1996. I have been researching videoconferencing display issues since 1992. We first showed the transparent Telepresence in 2006 not Cisco, and hold the patent for the effect. We showed our Immersion room June of 2006 at Telepresence World. Cisco followed almost one year after with the Musion Stage effect. Our Telepresence stage is vastly superior in every way to the older Musion Approach. Our Immersion room will gain headline news 1st Q of 09. And is the best Telepresence experience in the world today, Beating out all comers. We were attending trade shows in the early days competing with Telesuite, only we were still deep into the research end. Telesuite had the first commercial Telepresence room system before we did, However, our first commercial products addressed the lack of eye-contact with regard to all other videoconference systems of that era. We had large room system installs as far back as 1997.
Our Telepresence Stage must go back into the Entertainment section ASAP. As it deserves to be there. You may try to articulate it first if you wish…. But I will re-write if it fails to capture the Importance of this immerging Telepresence product category.
Lastly. In the history section DVE deserves some mention as we were there during the earliest times of the display end of videoconferencing research.
We should talk over the phone…. I would like to understand were you come from. As you are guarding the Telepresence page and apparently have your own opinions,,,,,,,,, That effect how the world understands Telepresence as a whole.
I expect to hear from you……
1) DVE is my company, hence copy write issues are moot. 2) Your Cisco write up is factually incorrect. To me it reads like a Cisco brochure. 3) Our Telepresence stage was developed for the entertainment industry, and is and has been used to bring celebrities in stage to ENTERTAIN people interactively via codecs. 4) I will contact the dispute group to go over all our issues and complaints —Preceding unsigned comment added by True Telepresence (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's the point of your comments above. I don't see any effort to address anything I've brought up, so I don't know what else to say at this point.
- If you want to change the Telepresence article, then you should start discussing your concerns in the article's talk page.
- Also, your comment, "Big mistake" is inappropriate. Please try not to take anything personal here. I'm happy to help you and others improve the Telepresence article. To do so, we all need to follow some basic WP:Etiquette. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
DVE Telepresence
Ronz,
I found your responses and am unclear as to how Digital Video Enterprises, Inc is put back into the (commercial Telepresence) line up with Cisco, and the others listed there in. We will Discuss the (entertainment) topic, and (Telepresence History) in good time. However, There is absolutely no valid reason why we are not listed amongst our on par competitors. It is my concern this topic is controlled by persons with predisposed ideologies regarding Telepresence as a concept.
Can I post relevant Telepresence articles?
Now I understand how to post edits....please unblock me.
True TelepresenceTrue Telepresence 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by True Telepresence (talk • contribs)
- I'm glad you've continued our conversation. Sorry I've been unclear.
- If I were in your position, I'd begin by starting discussions in Talk:Telepresence about your concerns. If you could include potential references in your discussions, especially references from independent, reliable sources that are not primary sources, they would be very helpful for us all to work from.
- You are not blocked, but the article is protected from editing by ip addresses and new accounts. Once you've edited long enough, you'll be able to edit the article. (I'm not clear on how long you need to have been editing before you'll not longer be considered a new account.) --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
commercial telepresence......True Telepresence 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ronz,
Please respond to my primary question. Why isn’t my company listed with the other Telepresence companies under ( Commercial Telepresence ) You removed us, I need to understand why you feel we shouldn’t be listed. I would appreciate a specific answer
- I don't feel that it shouldn't be listed. It isn't currently listed because the only times it was added, it was added in ways that violated multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines, policies and guidelines listed in the warnings on User_talk:72.219.132.5 --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Commercial Telepresence SystemsTrue Telepresence 16:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ronz,
Cool, As I was totally unaware of the correct methods to officially edit into the Telepresence topic. Or WP rules and guidelines. Would you do me the great favor correctly adding into the Commercial Telepresence Systems listing:
Digital Video Enterprises, Inc (DVE)
Also, in the Dec. AV Pro magazine is a top to bottom review of the Telepresence Systems product offerings. Please read and let me know your reactions.
The new guy……
Adding links to posts.
Hello,
I appreciate your feedback. If I ever add a link to a Wikipedia article I'm always sure it's relevant and contributes value to the piece. I'm not a spammer by any means. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Have a great day!
72.154.32.88 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I stand by the warning. The link was promotional, and added in a way that would mislead other editors as to how the information was added and why. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
True Telepresence 04:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ronz,
This is the communication that forced my response directed to you. If you didn’t write this, then please except my humble apology. Although this came from someone. Did you Write this?
+ == Adding links to posts. ==
- +
- + Hello,
- +
- + I appreciate your feedback. If I ever add a link to a Wikipedia article I'm always sure it's relevant and contributes value to the piece. I'm not a spammer by any means. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Have a great day!
- +
- + 72.154.32.88 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please review
Hello, This article link from PRO AV MAGAZINE Online (http://www.proavmagazine.com/) was sent to you by me. To view this article click on the following link below. America Online users: Cut-and-paste the link into your web browser and hit the enter key. http://www.proavmagazine.com/industry-news.asp?articleID=805312
This sould help you to understand DVETrue Telepresence 19:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. Definitely a useful reference for the article. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the changes I've made over the last couple of days. I think I have improved the article considerably. There are still quite a few links, but I don't think it really feels like a linkfarm anymore.Naraht (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- The links have got to go at some time. I'm holding off until it's clear that the edit-warring is under control. I don't want to do anything that could be used as an excuse for more problems. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- The question becomes what are appropriate exterior links for that page? If Omega Omega Omega (to pick a random example) fraternity exists on 25 campuses in the Philippines, but does not have a Wikipedia page, which of these is appropriate? 1) Having the entry in the second column that would be wikilinked if it had one as a normal weblink? 2) Having a reference showing that the group exists and then having the link in the reference (which turns out to be where the external links are on a lot of pages), 3) Something else?
- I have done quite a bit of looking around on the net and have come to believe that this list on Wikipedia may be the best list of Fraternities and Sororities in the Philippines, sad as that may be. The only page that even tries is Greekwatch, but they've basically copied from the Wikipedia page. I continued looking and found a site called Pinoy Fraternity which is a forum for Filipino Greeks, the list of Frats that they have loops back to the Wikipedia page. So it seems like everyone else is using the Wikipedia page as the source...
Naraht (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
GridGain
I just went at the list of references with an axe. I cut two, and three failed verification. I've mentioned the issue at the talk page. Hopefully that gets things headed in the right direction with the article (or else it headed to AfD). —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
question
You reverted This. I am not questioning your reasoning but since it directs to a totally different person I have to ask why. Is there a reason I am missing about this? I just want to understand myself why this is to be added, thanks as always. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Crohnie. It's to disambiguate between the two Stephen Barretts. When there are just a few articles with nearly identical names, it's usually fine to just link like this from one to the other. When there are more, then it's better to create a separate disambiguation article that lists them all. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks I understand now what you are saying, thanks for explaining. This place sure can be confusing at times! :) Anyways I hope you are well and as always thanks for taking the time to explain. I'm going to go lie down for awhile myself. New problems, new frustrations, oh well. Take care and I hope we talk again soon. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
wow
Dude, I checked your history. You're not an admin, but you edited Wikipedia in the past 2 and a half years every day, making at least 10 changes on avarage each day. I mean... omg.. lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizso (talk • contribs) 02:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
How to semi-protect pages
Ronz,
I know that the examples of Computer prank are deleted...
How do I semi-protect from it?
Answer it on User:KingScreamer
Thank You
KingScreamer (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
User talk page mixup?
Just a heads up, but it appears that you confused Seeyou's talk page with your own in your advising him to follow the guidance "above". PSWG1920 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand. For me, "above" links to the previous discussion on his talk page about his behavior. I wasn't referring to my talk page at all. I guess I should provide diffs though. --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I see now. That link didn't seem to go anywhere, but that was because the previous discussion was (on my resolution) close enough to the bottom of the screen. I thought you might have been intending to refer him to the notice at the top of your talk page. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: Seeyou
Hrm, since you've had more experience with this case, I would like to discuss it with you on IRC, as it is much faster, please join #wikipedia-en connect, so we can discuss this in real-time. Look for Daedalus969.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Sea of Love
Hello Ronz, The only reason that I modified this article was because the actual movie uses the word "Eyes", not "Lives" as is written in the article. If correcting articles that are technically inaccurate is going to be frowned upon, then so be it. E racer1999 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seemed to be vandalism at the time, and what little I could find to verify it supported that assumption. "Eyes" is very strange. What are you using to verify it? --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I was actually watching the movie at the time and looked up some information regarding it. I read through the plot and played back the movie on my DVR just to be sure that I heard it right. I could be wrong, but it sure sounds more like "Eyes" than it does "Lives." I remembered it because I thought that it was a strange thing to say. After reading my message, I realize that the way I wrote it sounded kind of brash. Just letting you know that it's nothing personal. E racer1999 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that's fine. I haven't had a chance to review it, though. E racer1999 (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
AFD
AfD nomination of Jake and Amir
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jake and Amir, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake and Amir. Thank you. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Promotional post...
I have no affiliation with Blackstone Career Institute. I am simply looking into education in this field and found that it might be informative to mention the availability of online courses. I cited this by adding an example to back my statement that they do in fact exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptjohns (talk • contribs) 18:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not aware that anyone indicated you might have an affiliation. Nevertheless, adding examples, especially adding nothing but examples, is promotional. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
"advertisment"
Sory about the "advertisment" you seem to think i placed on the paralegal site, it was never my intention to do this.
just to be clear www.ImInTrobule. makes no money from helping people find paralegal representation, no refferal fee, nothing.
SeemsMyNameIsToCommonToUse (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Steven
Never Mind. But just so im clear. What consitutes "Advertising"
So you removed a buch of links to a wiki that in your oppinion did not exist any longer in traffic ticket The truth is the links work Perfectly.. I put them back.. and now your saying im borderin on harrasment??
Im sorry im trying to be helpfull here but am i missing something?
SeemsMyNameIsToCommonToUse (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Stephen
- The article you used as an example, Benecaid, is problematic, and borderline advertising at least.
- What constitutes advertising is covered primarily in WP:SPAM, but WP:NPOV definitely applies as well.
- Your reverting multiple edits of mine borders on hounding. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I reveresed your edits because they no longer applied. The site was fully functional.. and your comment said the wiki was "dead". If you feel hounded I appologise but im just a newbie trying to learn the ways. and i seem to be completly lost
Also i would like to point out that Wiki now usese "nofollow" in all their external links, making it foolish to assume each link has SEO relevance.
At this point I will log off and maybe try again another day to contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeemsMyNameIsToCommonToUse (talk • contribs) 18:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I shouldn't have mentioned it, especially in an edit summary.
- Wiki's are usually not reliable sources, which is why I mentioned it was a wiki. I was trying to convey that I was removing it because it was dead (and had been for some time) and because it was a wiki.
- It's easy to get lost in Wikipedia. Policies relating to advertising are very strongly enforced in order to deal with the deluge of problems that occur daily.
- I hope you've already noticed on your own talk page that I think you're off to a good start with OPHP. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
Thanks for the Bikini link fix
Please, if and when possible, run through the article and its history to fix whatever you find broken. It's a bit lonely work trying to cook up a decent article on such a huge subject. Thanks again. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
MedCab
Per discussion on my talk page I have started a MedCab case involving you. Per your latest comments to me, I will attempt to make this message the last time I initiate direct discussion with you on this matter, lest you perceive what I have to say as harassment. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Help Please !
Ronz -
I have fought for 8 months to make the edits I make to Order Fulfillment and Fulfillment House remain in published.
There have been a number of people who have removed my external links... without even looking at the content. I have been through the "this is spam" before.. but all I am trying to do is make it so readers have access to some good external content that is neutral and unbiased.
When I saw you remove them. I was surprised... seeing as though you are part of WikiProject Spam. Is it possible, that in your attempt to keep Wiki Spam-free, you are rushing to conclusions?
If I am wrong, please tell me how the links do not meet the guidelines. I don't have anything to gain by submitting these links, other than the satisfaction of better educating readers on the subject, then the scope of the specific articles will allow.
Thanks -
Logistictech (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. I think the best solution is to discuss the matter on each article's talk page separately.
- You have it half-right when you say, "without even looking at the content." The problem is the way you have added the links, not necessarily the content.
- Our purpose here is to write quality encyclopedia articles, not to find good external links for those articles. In general, the best articles need few external links at all.
- Additionally, the article is question are poorly referenced. Focus should be on finding proper references. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Computer prank comebacks
Ronz,
Someone is re-editing this page. Even when I read it, it still comes back. I tried to semi-protect it, but it denied of protecting computer prank. Do you have any ideas how to make this article protected from re-editing?
KingScreamer (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I hadn't been keeping an eye on it, obviously. I don't think the article deserves any long-term protection. WP:RFPP is always an option if it gets worse. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I posted about the article at the wp:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Egyptian Yoga. Hopefully some folks experienced at dealing with this kind of thing will help out. It seems kind of lame to have to work on a subject and an article that isn't of interest to clean up the mess made by a POV pusher. We'll see what happens. As I was writing this up I took a peak, and someone is on the case already. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like that's getting the articles and editing some much-needed attention. Hopefully, we can get him to slow down and participate in meaningful discussions. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Conversation on http use
A conversation has been started about the use of http links on the WT:WPSPAM page. As a frequent editor of that page, your input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#http use on this page would be appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)