User talk:Hipal/Archive 24

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

LinkFarm

RE: your post, "official site links formatted as references violate WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK", I am not seeing any place in policy pages that support your statement that "Official site links formatted as references violate" anything.

List of guide dog schools is a moderately well formatted list that fits well within the style guide line of WP:List. In my reading of WP:SELFPUB (which is part of a policy not a style guideline) Primary references serving solely to support the existence of an establishment are acceptable. As you know as indicated by the first sentence under the editing window all Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and content of lists are not an exception to verifiability policy.

Could you go into more detail and supply references to specific places in policy on why you think supplying a single link to each of several separate items is a violation of Wikipedia expectations? (p.s. I have not been getting on line regularly so may be a couple days before I get back here) Jeepday (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message.
"Primary references serving solely to support the existence of an establishment are acceptable" Really? How so? I'd say just the reverse, that those links do not belong as references because of WP:SELFPUB #1 & #5. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
How do such links not violate WP:SPAM? How does an article sourced this way not violate much of WP:NOT (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO)? --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Jeepday (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You're overlooking #1 and &5, after I pointed them out. Why? --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You are having failure to communicate, You asked for a specific rationale I gave you one. I asked for specific rationale and you responded with "How does an article sourced this way not violate much of WP:NOT (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO)? ". Ignoring my request for specifics while offering responses like yours above is not a two way communication process. You have failed to support your argument, instead demanding that I refute it. There is no conversation to continue here. Jeepday (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Please focus on the issues, rather than me.
I asked for you to explain your position, by quoting what I'd like clarified, and citing my concerns related to your position.
If you would like clarification or expansion of my comments, just ask.
I'd like an answer to my question, "How does an article sourced this way not violate much of WP:NOT (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO)?" I notice that others have brought up similar concerns. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interpretations of policies and guidelines

Ronz, I have a chance to chat about this, and I see that I am not alone in my views. My main sticking point with the deletion of these sorts of lists is that it is a matter of interpretation as to where to draw the dividing line between "Spam" and "Useful link" or between "Yellow page directory" and "Useful list". For example, I worked to create List of longest suspension bridge spans which nobody has challenged as being anything other than a useful list. However, it its beginnings a large majority of the bridges did not have articles. When I nominated it for feature status, it was criticized for having too many red links so I created stubs for all the bridges (which struck me as being absurd). Most of these stubs have not changed in the last few years, and basically contain the information that can be found in the list. The list has links to the homepages for each bridge, just as the guide dog article has links to all the schools. So it is not simply the external links that are problematic. They exist everywhere. It is part of our guidelines to include a link to a corporation's website in the article about the corporation. External links are a fundamental part of the value of Wikipedia.
The creation of pages at Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Each person finds some useful piece of information and adds it. The next person can find that information and add to it. In creating the Bridge list, I started with a couple of outdated (and as it turns out inaccurate) lists that I found on the internet. I then added external links for each bridge. For someone looking to find out more about each bridge, the bridge's webpage is the most useful link that could be added. If someone were to decide to write an article about the bridge, that is where they would start. Later if some information is challenged they can find a third party source to confirm or refute the challenged information. This is how Wikipedia came into being. By people incrementally making things better and adding more information. It didn't just spring into existence fully formed. If you had nominated my list of bridges for deletion because it was full of external links and had a large proportion of redlinks, I might have just gotten frustrated and walked away. My point is that it is unproductive to take such a hard line and apply such a strict interpretation of the meaning of "directory" or "spam". The reality is that everyone LOVES Wikipedia because they can find the information they want as well as links to the things they are looking for. For this reason, I think we have to take a broad view of our guidelines and focus on the most egregious manifestations of Spam. In my view, the guidelines are written with practicalities in mind. We don't want lists that have thousands of entries because they are unmanageable. We don't want lists that can never be made comprehensive because they might give a false impression. We don't want a list of things just related to topics that we find unencyclopedic. If we have articles about guide-dog schools and can create a comprehensive list of all of them which is manageable, then what is the practical problem with having such a list? If there are links to the schools that are listed, it will help others find out information about those schools and that might result in more articles about notable schools. This all seems like a good thing to me, and in keeping with a less rigid interpretation of our guidelines, which was the norm during the first few years of Wikipedia.
Rigid interpretations were applied to deal with articles about living people, and I think there is good reason to become more strict about those articles. However, strict orthodoxy seems very counter productive everywhere else. It alienates users - old and new. It stimulates long drawn out talk page and AFD discussions. It dampens the spirit of collaboration. You can take the energy you are using to police these pages and apply them to something much more egregious. Pages like List of guide dog schools and List of gamelan ensembles in the United States are not going to bring down Wikipedia. They many not be your view of proper pages, but I respectfully request that you allow others to disagree with you, and to accept harmless things that may be a little outside your interpretation. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. Obviously, you have given a lot of thought to this.
I don't think the articles need to be deleted, if they follow the applicable policies and guidelines.
"External links are a fundamental part of the value of Wikipedia." No they are not, hence the many policies and guidelines related to them. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not a directory.
"However, strict orthodoxy seems very counter productive everywhere else." We disagree on that. I'm sure you'd change your mind if you thought about a bit. BLP is one exception, as you point out. So is Copyvio. So is 3RR. So is Spam. So is Vandal. So is Threat. So is V.
Again, I don't see the necessity of deleting the articles, if only we can bring them into line with the applicable policies and guidelines. The problem with List of gamelan ensembles in the United States is that is blatantly violates multiple policies and guidelines, and editors support keeping the article as is with absurd Wikilawyering and calls to ignore policies and guidelines.
Finally, it would help if you'd stop with the accusations. You appear to have made up your mind about me before any direct interaction between us on these issues, after ignoring my attempts to reach out to you. --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ronz, I never saw your name until you showed up on the List of gamelan ensembles in the United States and took a hard and fast position about external links that you are still insisting on. I have accused you of "rigid orthodoxy", which I believe is a fair assessment of your behavior. I would be more than happy for you to prove me wrong. I came to your page, as you requested, to discuss this. Which I am still willing to do. I will agree with you that there are other policies which sometimes need to be enforced more rigidly, but there will always be shades of gray and different interpretations. If you cannot see that people may come to different conclusions than yours then you should probably focus your efforts on things that are more black and white. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If you cannot have discussions with others before making accusations of them, maybe you should take a break. I'm not going to make any attempts to prove anything to you. Get over it. If you're just going to make demands of others, you're the one causing problems. As I already pointed out to you, WP:BATTLE covers this. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Template needs help

As a contributor to this template, would you like to take a look at Template talk:Contemporary writers#Doesn't always work. Truthanado (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think I can help. Looking at the template, it looks like you have to give it the id that the contemporary writers site uses. I don't know if those id's have changed, but that would be my guess. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

your message

Just wanted to let you know that i responded (on my talk page) to teh messages you left on my talkpage.

thanks! LiptonInstituteofTea (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Project management

Hi Ronz,

I have been having a hard time managing the project management article, removing several new material because I want the article to give an overview.

Now a new editor keeps adding his brand new article Project management for Media and Entertainment to the see also section, dispite several of my removals, edit summaries, messages on his talkpage, and a general note on the article. I have removed that link three times now, but he has reverted this removal three times as well.

Could you please take a look, and give me your opinion. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Yes, Project management and the related article are frustrating. I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

External Links and Alternate Uses of Products

Hi Ronz,

AltUse.com is creating a worldwide repository of alternative uses to extend the utility of everyday products. AltUse provides alternative uses for common items, e.g. Honey, Coffee Grounds, etc. Information I added to Wikipedia is offered (external links for various items) to provide other uses beyond the traditional method for using a product. Examples may be viewed at http://www.AltUse.com

Would you please reconsider the links to alternative uses of products as not spam?

Thank you, Dictate (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)dictate

Given that the content is user-contributed and the site is ad-heavy, I don't think it is appropriate as an external link. As I pointed out in my edit summary, these concerns are covered by WP:ELNO #2, 5, 10. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I agree that the link is not appropriate. Specifically, it violates the following from WP:ELNO: Possibly 1, certainly 2 (all the information in the site is unverifiable), likely 4, perhaps 5, maybe 11, and also possibly 13.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 23:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett

If you go forward with AE, please add me as an endorse (if that's allowed) as I might not have access for a few days. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm hoping it won't be necessary, but that's up to the disruptive editors. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged personal attack

Okay, so I noticed your edit to my talk page warning me to not do personal attacks, and I was just wondering what that was about. I do not recall making any edits at all for several weeks, and the ones I do remember were just grammar and reverting vandalism. Could you please point out what I said that caused your warning? 98.219.132.3 (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page

I prefer keeping the discussion in one place, if that works for you. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Badagnani

Thx, Ronz. Definitely endorsed. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality control and genetic algorithms

Hi Ronz, could you express your opinion about the ongoing issues at the Quality control and genetic algorithms article. Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw there was a dispute there, but didn't look at the specifics. I will now. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

List of digital library projects

This is just a quick note that the a page you've commented on before List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at [1] Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've voiced my agreement on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Messages

Please see that I am new to Wikipedia, I have responded to your messages now, hopefully we can resolve the editing issues, rather than just leave them hanging, I think that most of the edits are now fine, please give me some feedback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ridley (talk • contribs) 06:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll respond on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're being talked about

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Spamfighters_repeatedly_trying_to_delete_longstanding_popular_chart_of_wiki_farms. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I was hoping no one would take the WP:BAIT. --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've heard you be called a lot of things but a SPA is one I would never have thought of! ;) I got a good laugh from it though since I know you're editing style. Keep up the good work. :) Well it's been awhile, how is it going with you? I hope you are well. Keep in touch ocassionally, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that someone is laughing. I suppose I should as well, along with just ignoring such nonsense. Thanks for the note. Busy. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I understand busy. Just remember this is just another day at Wikipedia, and this too shall pass. Drop by if you get some free time. I haven't seen you around lately. Take care, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Seeyou and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jéské Couriano (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 June 2009

Water tank, mea culpa, mea culpa

I just stumbled accoss the discussion part of a user page assigned to me... I am guilty of inserting references to my commercial website, thinking I was adding value... Totally missed your chastisement and promise of censure... Wiki is a bit compicated to the uninitiated and I remain so... but hereby promise to commercial links to my website. Vinmax —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.47.135 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The message to you was written to be extremely polite, but I understand how you could find it upsetting. Yes, Wikipedia is complicated. You've run into policies that by necessity have to be rather strictly enforced. I'm sorry that you were upset by the message and thank you for responding. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

good job

I think you are doing a great job reporting spam. And, the article you want someone to delete, dont worry, it is up for deletion now. All in All, good job.--98.151.241.73 (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re John Dehlin's "linkspam"

Earlier today, I made an edit to John Dehlin's wiki page linking to his site Mormon Matters. This was then "undone" as linkspam. What do we need to do (I represent another writer at the blog) to have the link reinstated (especially since it *is* Dehlin's own blog and the link is 100% relevant to a discussion). What are Wikipedia's policies in the future for these kinds of issues. Does Mormon Matters need its own wiki instead?

Thank you for your time. 69.151.50.29 (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The relevant policies/guidelines are WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. The article is about the person, so all references and external links should be about the person. Links within the article body should be to references only. I hope this quick reply is helpful. --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

System dynamics

Hi, I commented on you last edit on System dynamics on it's talkpage, see here. Could you take a look. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Seeyou (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ronz

thank you for the editorial links, which were indeed useful. Also I am pleasantly surprised to see the editorial policing work on Wikipedia.

You are also right in assuming that I have a personal interest in lean, albeit not a commercial one as in the case of the advertisments that I tried to remove. Year after year I have mark essays that are all-too-often based on the infomercials on Wikipedia, so this is my attempt to rectify at least some aspects of it. The article "Lean Dynamics" marks a case in point, which I see is in dispute already. I would suggest deleting it entirely.

In any case I have no intentions of engaging in editorial battles with commercial providers. I have made my points, now it is over to others to further refine those.

Kind regards - MH

balsalmic vinegar FYI

FYI, wanted to make sure you were aware of the discussion at Talk:Balsamic vinegar#spam links. tedder (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the context. I didn't know. tedder (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-Conflict of interest policy

Hi Ronz, thank you for the Conflict of interest policy.
I will read and try to respect it.
Patrhoue (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

JTAG 'Spam'

Hi Ronz

Please can you explain why you are deleting links or spam as you refer to www.JTAG.COM but not from other commercial JTAG suppliers on the JTAG article - external links. I fully appreciate you battle against spam but can you account for this apparent inconsistency ?

With thanks

JS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.50.148 (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Simply, I haven't yet tried to clean up all the improper external links and light spamming per WP:EL. Instead, I've just cleaned up after the most blatant spamming per WP:SPAM. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

PhotoReading Page

Okay...what did I do wrong. I deleted the section because it references something that is put out as a study but was nothing more than an examination by one person. I included a link for you to see what I mean. Please explain. Because of the holiday, I might not respond back quickly. Thank you. Good & Fair (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It is an independent, reliable source. It is sources of this type that should dominate the entire article. I've requested help from others to rewrite the article around such sources. If we cannot find enough of such sources, the article should be deleted or stubbed. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ronz...The source might be reliable, but although I'm not a research scholar, it seems the Learning Strategies' response is valid. Did you read it? Does it make sense to you? Why was it removed? Comments? Good & Fair (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I've been writing material that I've posted based on what I've read in the PhotoReading book, heard on the CDs, read on the Learning Strategies websites, and learned from my personal experience using PhotoReading. You're saying that is not enough, right? Good & Fair (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
More than that. I'm saying that we cannot have an article based primarily upon such sources, and that we have no article currently because those are the only type of sources we're finding so far other than the study.

Re: Please refactor

You wrote:

[2] per WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Like you said: "Working on Wikipedia requires communication between editors". So - don't advise editors to just ignore other editors... Because that would be contradictory!
Thanks! -- Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. There's no contradiction if you weren't misrepresenting me, in violation of multiple behavioral policies. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Insadong

Hello, Ronz, the removed external links by you are "restored" by me because those links from official Korean tourist/Seoul City sites are far from your definition of "spam". I hope you're more careful when you remove something from articles. Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The links were "spammed" as I described them. Please be more careful when you characterize others' edits. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
See WP:SPAM for more information. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

For your enlightenment:

  • "Don't drink water - it remembers all the shit it had in it."

-- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice to have a message from someone without an axe to grind fueled by assuming bad faith. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

As you know, you've reverted 3 times in a period of 24 hours, so please be careful of your edits and more try to engage in developing the articles. Thanks.--Caspian blue 20:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Where? --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
At Insadong. Please more be careful. Thanks.--Caspian blue 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Learn to follow WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLE. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out to you before, try taking your accusations to a proper forum such as WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Bad faith accusations, harassment, personal attacks, disruptions, etc. are not welcome here, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue's talk page

Please tone things down a bit on User talk:Caspian blue. You are welcome to have disagreements with other editors, but please do not escalate the issue. If you feel that you are not receiving the attention you need for a specific issue, feel free to bring it up at the appropriate forum (dispute resolution, etc.) Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Too bad you took sides in this dispute. I responded on Caspian blue's talk page with two further comments:
  • [3]:

    Continuing from [4], I'm sorry that my efforts to clean up blatant spamming are interpreted as something else. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)"

  • [5]:

    "I've said "Let me alone" and "Take my compromise suggestion?" repeatedly. However, you're ignoring my simple ask and harass me. Please leave me alone. I'm not gonna report your 3RR violation"
    Yes, you wrote those things. I left you alone. You then wrote, "I know exactly why he is doing that on "Korean articles" due to his conflicts with a non-Korean editor working on Korean and traditional Korean music." Do you see how that remark is problematic? --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Caspian blue was unable to respond in like, but just continued the incivil behavior that you ignored. I hope that's no surprise to you when you take sides with someone making personal attacks that way. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You're an administrator. To me that means you have some additional tools. That's it. If you're unwilling or unable to explain yourself when you interject yourself into a dispute, then you need to bow out. You've not discussed the situation with me. You've taken sides. You've threatened to use your administrative tools to settle the dispute when I tried to engage you in a civil discussion. This is all escalation on your part. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

16:57, 1 July 2009 Ronz (talk | contribs) (4,061 bytes) (→External links: ad-heavy) (undo)

Most of the ads are now removed. Is the link ok to put back?

Cover letter examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyppo (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be against it. The only examples that I'd support having linked would be those written by experts. There's also the matter of WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

undo LinkSpam on Digital Cinema

Dear Ronz, i hope you are well. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for ensuring the quality of the Digital Cinema article on Wikipedia, as well as many others it seems ... You recently removed 2 times my "newbie" updates of the section "list of digital cinema companies" in that article.

I would like to submit to you my last revision, where all Links are removed. I still would like you to consider the references below, which i don't want to insert into the article because it would take certainly to much importance in comparison to other subjects. The d-cinema industry is very small and in your last edits you have removed global leaders from the list of d-cinema companies (Doremi for ex.). I would prefer to leave this decision to industry specialists if you don't mind.

More generally, the article requires a mention related to the Theater Management System software which is one of the keystone of the d-cinema rollout, especially in Europe. I am certainly not the best person to add such section, due to the quality of my English language, unfortunately.

thank you again for your time and consideration.

some References related to my last edit: http://en.wordpress.com/tag/digital-cinema-events/ http://digitalcinemabuyersguide.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/dvidea-at-cine-expo-2008/ http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=865 http://www.d2cinema.com/ http://www.cinemaexpo.com/filmexpo/photos/pdf/A_CEI09_TSB.pdf http://www.madcornishprojectionist.co.uk/news-europe.php http://fullres.blogspot.com/2008/06/dvidea-introduces-new-functionalities.html http://www.cineserver.nl/ http://www.manice.org/ (article of June 22nd 2009 related to Europalaces deployment + May 16th 2009, how to use a TMS software) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalprojection (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and references. I've copied the links to the article talk page for discussion there, where others can more easily see and participate in the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Links in MLearning

Hi Ronz,

How is adding a link to an academic resource considered spamming? It's a link to a book that has been published through a university press under a creative commons license. Researchers around the world are looking for information on mobile learning. Why do you wish to prevent this?

Thanks, Mkoole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkoole (talk • contribs) 20:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Given that the warning already on your talk page was about adding promotional material to Wikipedia, I should have used the same type of warning, rather than one about spamming. I've gone ahead and changed it.
As to the material itself, it's a link to a webpage that sells a book, and "Free download; creative commons license" is a promotion to click on the link, rather a description of the book.
Given the state of MLearning and the recent edit history, I'd hope that editors would be more interested in expanding and verifying the article, rather than just adding more links. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Evening,

I received your message about the external links being removed for Proof66 (and disappointed to see the notation for spam).

I read the guidelines for external links and spamming and am puzzled.

We are not a website that is trying to sell anybody anything. We are not a retail site. Rather, it's a collection of information of competitive judging results. That is, the same kind of neutral, objective authority that wikipedia (rightfully) seeks out.

Most oftentimes, a given distillery or label will have multiple "expressions" or even multiple labels that make adding the kind of results offered at Proof66 unwieldy and undesirable. Because of that, we concluded that an external link would be more apropriate than a string of medals and result with repetitive and redundant references. For those interested, merely follow the link.

I sense that you feel this is self-promotion. I suppose it's hard to disagree philosophically with that since we do believe the information is useful and seek to promote that fact. However, there is a notable absence of any competitive results on any well-known spirit brand entry in the wikipedia (unlike, for example, books and movies where awards are often cited). This seems to be a gap that we can usefully and quietly fill.

Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.114.1 (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:SPAMMER #1, #2, #5, and #6, as well as WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

More on Proof66

I understand your concerns. I agree that conflicts of interest are to be avoided.

Can we agree that the scores from independent judging panels are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia for given spirits?

If so, then how do suppose that these get included in the article? We may or may not agree that I have a conflict of interest but the fact remains that I am one of a very few people in the english-speaking world who has taken the time and trouble to famliarize myself with these particulars in their aggregate form. These are scores that are advertised (and often misinterpreted) in marketing material from the producers, mentioned on their websites, and labeled on the shelves of liquor stores. Without context, the consumer is unable to compare the relative merits of one score over another. Having that context is, I believe, of value.

I abhor spam and am not attempting to insert personal opinion into the matter. If we can agree on the value of these scores, how then should we proceed? Do you want to see individual references in the article itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.114.1 (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Can we agree that the scores from independent judging panels are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia for given spirits?" I don't agree with that, though I think it needs to be discussed at length with more editors. From what I understand, such judging is so subjective as to be almost worthless, except as a means to promote the spirits in question. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is subjective but in the same way that Food & Wine Magaine's awards for chefs are subjective or the judges awarding the pulitzer prize for literature. We could get into a lengthy discussion of the credentials of the judging institutions we've selected (all professionals earning a living at it). There are certainly a great many people who would not agree that they are worthless and plenty of distillers extremely upset over the things that have been written about their particular spirit. What is the process for settling this question of merit with other reviewers? It appears to me that this is the central question and--once settled--automatically settles the issue of external links. I have, as you suggsted, read all the various guidelines but have not read anything about how to make this sort of appeal. I will, of course, refrain from making any more links until this is settled but I'm reluctant to simply "let it go" without appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.114.1 (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
"it is subjective but in the same way" Not as I understand it.
WP:DR explains how to go about addressing disputes. There are many options, but I think a discussion on WT:EL would be the best place to start. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mosso (cloud computing)

We are a separate division and have an official page. We are getting ready to move & change names also. AstralWiki (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Link on 'Dutch Auctions' page

Ronz,

I recently received your message regarding the link to Pricefalls.com, which has been removed. Pricefalls.com uses the Dutch Auction model as it has been historically known, unlike eBay. Because it is a live demonstration of a Dutch Auction, the link adds to the value of the article. We kindly ask that you do not remove it.

Thank you, Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.220.94 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Sounds like WP:COI may apply to this situation, if you're speaking and editing for others.
Links to live demonstrations will almost always be removed per WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. In this case, WP:SPAM also applies. --Ronz (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

deleting link to metallon.org

Hello,

metallon.org is non commercial and benefits the topic (Group) Decision Support Systems or "Group decision making" because it enables and supports those.

I do not understand a link to a supporting, free software, as advertising neither do wikipedia links or articles about linux, facebook, ibm just to name a few.

Regards, metalray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalray (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Responding at Talk:Group decision support system --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to your statement that such a link is spamming, there are whole articles on wikipedia about companies that offer products and services, including links to those. Does that imply that creating a whole article about metallon.org, a non-commercial aid to group decision making would validate the usage of a link? Supporting my contribution to the article "Group decision support system" is the statement on WP:NOTLINK#LINK "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article" --metalray
If you would like to start an article on metallon.org, I would be happy to help. However, if we cannot find enough references to meet WP:N, it may be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Proof66 and external links

I took your suggestion and started topic on external links. One of the users pointed out a precedent has been set by establishing a wiki article on "beer rating" that serves as a collection of services that essentially do for beer what we try to do for spirits at Proof66.

There is no "spirit rating" page analogous to the beer. I can easily start one, mention both the competitions and services involved, and let the article evolve. There are sporadic mentions throughout wikipedia of the awards we follow... we can become part of the wiki spirits project and help update those, mention the spirit ratings article to avoid exhaustive detail in the product-specific articles, and satisfy our principal aim of raising awareness.

Is this satisfactory for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phizbin (talk • contribs) 03:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion. I was holding off on commenting until others had a chance first.
I think a "spirit rating" article is a good idea. However, the beer rating article is not very good. It's short on secondary sources.
You don't need to please me. I'm trying to steer you around WP:COI and WP:SPAM problems. I think it's going well and I appreciate how you're approaching it. I'll help you with the article if you decide to start it. --Ronz (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good... thanks for your help. I'm the new kid on the block--I know I don't need to please you but it makes sense that it pass your sensibilities. Phizbin (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

System

Hi, I seem to have a mayor disagreement with a new editor. I wonder if you could check, and maybe comment on it on the talkpage. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

New developments kind of resolved the situation -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Comparison of website monitoring tools

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison of website monitoring tools. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of website monitoring tools. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:QuackGuru

You know you just posted the same IP twice, right? HalfShadow 21:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistake. --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Happens to me all the time: I try to cut/copy something and my computer won't register the click. HalfShadow 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipal/Archive_24"