User talk:Hipal/Archive 27

reliable sources?

Here are a few examples of what I have told you regarding beer articles:

http://jeannierenee.com/
http://www.belgianstyle.com/mmguide/index.html
http://www.evansale.com/index.html
http://www.plumpjackwines.com/plumpjackwines/
http://appellationbeer.com/
http://www.belgianexperts.com/
http://www.mensjournal.com/
http://www.traveliana.com/
Wheeler, G. & Roger Protz. Brew Your Own British Real Ale at Home, CAMRA Books, 1996. ISBN 1-85249-138-8 (article on a Belgian Flanders red)

Please note: all of these (with the exception of traveliana) are on Belgian beer articles. Can we please keep discussion of this on this talk page. Thank you. 83.163.63.37 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

These websites are being used in some Belgian beer articles, and you question if they are reliable sources? --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what I wrote? 83.163.63.37 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are ignoring this message. Would you mind telling me? 83.163.63.37 (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What articles? --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Beer in Belgium, wheat beer, saison, tripel and Flander red ale. 83.163.63.37 (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

External Links - Analytic Hierarchy Process

I'm in sympathy with efforts to keep a lid on superfluous External links, but I can't figure out what you're up to here. There are only three external links remaining in this article (after a high of 12), yet for some reason you reverted the recent removal of a tag on the section. If you don't like the remaining links, maybe you could just delete them. (IMHO, they're not very useful.) Lou Sander (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply I placed the tag there to indicate that the links need review. I restored the tag because it was removed while a very questionable one was still there. I'll eventually get around to reviewing them all if no one else does first. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the questionable link was questionable. It's gone now, though. I looked at the three that are left, and I would only keep Meixner, which IMHO is indeed useful in understanding the hard-to-understand math. Teknomo has some value, but its English isn't so good and it's focused on MCDA rather than AHP. The IT Options Analysis is just a paper on an application of AHP, of which there are hundreds. There's no reason to have it as an external link.

I propose deleting Teknomo and IT Options Analysis, then removing the tag. Lou Sander (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the remaining links. I've gone ahead and removed the two and the tag. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

GMTA!  ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Kneeling chair page

I would like to recommend that you add a photograph of the original kneeling chair, the Variable balans to this article....i am not able to do so.

It seems odd that an article on kneeling chairs does not contain the standard by which all another chairs in the category derived.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.84.19.174 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but finding acceptable images can be difficult. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Free or Open Source Information Extraction Software

Hello Ronz. I believe there should be a "Free or Open Source Information Extraction Software" section in the article "Information Extraction". Except for GATE, OpenCalais is a very useful service, gaining more and more popularity, although it could be also seen as a service for named entity recognition. CRF++ is also a very good tool for IE used in several IE projects. Other tools exist as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George1975 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem listing notable tools (tools with their own article). Unfortunately, only one entry has its own article, and that article has no references to show WP:N has been met. WP:WTAF so it's clear we're encouraging notable entries rather than WP:SPAM. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Comparison of wiki farms

Thanks. I updated the page, since I usually use it to compare different wiki farms. In fact, it was that article that helped me find Referata and YourWiki. Before I learned about them, I used Wikia to host all the wikis I'm involved it. I just wanted to make sure that the article remains useful to others. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Greek shops

Which part of the reliable source guideline are you citing when removing "greekshops" as a reference? I did a quick check and the only thing related I could find was that promotional type websites should not be used to make "big" claims. Sourcing a chronology or release year is not a problem as far as I can see. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph of WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles[2] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations – see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. "

Promotional material is discussed in WP:PROMO. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also the problem that these links were spammed. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jul_1#http:.2F.2Fspam.greekshops.com --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Talk:Comparison of wiki farms.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Menachem Mendel Schneerson

Unless I missed something the only issue with those sources was with the blog, not the book. So I reinstated the book. If I am mistaken, please point me to the place such consensus was reached. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The question of the book doesn't appear settled yet. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your unbiased edits which improved that article. My military decorationsare not trivial BTW. After All have YOU been awarded an Army Commendation medal for heroism? Think about it --- :) Please reconsider adding that content. Thanks.  :) Jvmphoto (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I believe such military decorations are worth mentioning. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Gene Savoy article

Dear Ronz,

I am rather new at editing on Wikipedia, and so may be unaware of certain editing guidelines and general procedures, but I am surprised that you deleted all my recent additions to the article on Gene Savoy. Why delete additional titles of books by Gene Savoy under the section titled "Books by Gene Savoy"? Why delete additional links that lead to information that is supportive or gives positive recognition of Gene Savoy rather than including only links to information that is derogatory or insulting? And why do you object to moving controversial and highly-opinionated statements into a section titled "Controversy" rather than leaving them in the main body of the article where such statements can color the whole tone of the article? Please explain your purposes thoroughly. You seem to have "been around" for awhile, and I would appreciate knowing what the procedures are for making sure that an article like this one can become balanced rather than continue as it is. RGP (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this with me.

Have you looked at WP:NPOV yet? It's by far the most complicated Wikipedia policy. Complicated enough to have its own FAQ and tutorial.

"Controversy" sections and the like are specifically discouraged per WP:STRUCTURE.

Adding links just to create a supposed balance is usually inappropriate as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

After reading VPOV and all of its various sub-articles, I do find that Wikipedia prefers "folding debates into the narrative" to creating a "Controversy" section.

But I find no legitimate reason to delete a complete list of books by an author who is the subject of an article. What is your reason?

I also cannot find the Wikipedia policy that supports your elimination of all the external links I added. I can see why you might want to eliminate a single newspaper article that is not being used as a reference source. But why eliminate links to major YouTube coverage related to the subject's life and work? Or links to an article on the subject in Encyclopedia Britannica or some other online encyclopedia? Or a link to an online list of feature articles written about the subject? Please explain.RGP (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't cover everything in my first reply:

A list of major works by the subject of an article is acceptable, but what constitutes "major" works is usually settled on a case by case situation. Anything with its own article should be listed, of course. Self-published material not otherwise notable should not be listed. I don't think anyone would argue against entries that come from an independent, reliable source. Best if we discuss this further on the talk page so others can easily join the discussion.

You added the links as if they were sources, which they weren't. WP:UNDUE specifically mentions NPOV issues with regard to external links. WP:EL is the general guideline for external links.

I'm adding back the Britannica link, though we should incorporate it as a ref. --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would appreciate continuing discussion on these points on the article talk page as soon as possible. Please make the arrangements. As I said earlier, I am new at this and do not know the protocol.RGP (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You're doing great. Go ahead and start some discussions on the article talk page. Maybe one for what works to list, another for potential sources where you could include the links. I look forward to the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have finally completed the article on International Community of Christ so that some of the doctrinal material there may be referred to in the Gene Savoy biography rather than simply repeating it in the context of the biography. Please take a look when you have time and let me know what you think. I would like to have the church article clean and neutral before removing Gene Savoy's "teachings" from his biography. Building up the "theory" section is next. After that, and some cleanup, it should be ready for the wikipedia biogrpahers to have a look at it. --RGP (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job getting that started! Happy Holidays! --Ronz (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Ronz. I think I have finally completed a good, "neutral" draft of the article. Please take a look when you have time and let me know what you think. Is it time to call in the biography brigade to take a look, or do you think it still needs work? --RGP (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Question on removed external links in Latent semantic analysis

Hi Ronz,

I noticed that you cleaned up the external links section on Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) on October 7th. Thank you for removing the spam link. However, I disagree with your removal of the Sense Clusters and S-Space Package links. As an active researcher in the field, these links provide significant value to those visitors who would like to see how LSA could be implemented. LSA is a non-trivial algorithm and the links provide detailed information for software developers. I believe this falls under the "accurate material that cannot be integrated into Wikipedia due to amount of detail" on the WP:EL page. Furthermore, both highlight different aspects of how LSA can be used within the Natural Language Processing field, which is not intuitive from the content of the Wikipedia article. If you still believe they should not be present, could you clarify your reasoning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juggernaut the (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment.

"to those visitors who would like to see how LSA could be implemented" I don't think that is close enough to the topic of the article nor the purpose of Wikipedia (WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTHOWTO). --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply.

However, I would counter that LSA is fundamentally an algorithm. As such, implementing it an interesting research question, and is itself briefly discussed in the article. If you examine other algorithm pages, e.g. Merge Sort, Latent Dirichlet allocation (an LSA-like algorithm), or even the Singular Value Decomposition page (which is fundamental to LSA), these all include discussions of how the algorithm is implemented and provide external links to how the algorithm could be realized. I don't think Sense Clusters and the S-Space Package are how-to in the sense that WP:NOTHOWTO. Moreover, both frame LSA within the larger contexts: Sense Clusters for information retrieval and S-Space Package for linguistics and cognitive science. -- Juggernaut the (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we continue this discussion at the article talk page. Since it's just the two of us so far, WP:THIRD might be a helpful step as well. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, it's been over two months, and a third party has yet to comment on our discussion on the Talk:Latent_semantic_analysis page. Do you know of an editor who might help in the discussion? Juggernaut the (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll see what I can do to get some perspective from others. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article talk page, replied, and asked for help at WP:THIRD. --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Third molar

with link submission? I will, but I don't know whats the problem with my site.

With regards,

Dusan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.173.144 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this with me.

Prior to your commenting above, your only contributions to Wikipedia were adding links to your websites. See WP:PROMO, WP:COI, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:ELNO #1 and #4. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hypnosis

Hello Ronz,

Thank you for your message.

I'm very keen on adding additional value to Wikipedia and felt that offering users an external link to user based reviews would be of value to the information already being offered. I have read the external links guide and felt the content I'm offering flowed from the article and due to its nature, was unsuitable for integration within the article itself.

I would be very grateful for any additional advice you could give on changes you would like to see and of course, anything I can do to add extra value to Wikipedia, which is already a fantastic resource that I use on almost a daily basis.

Thank you for your time,

Best Regards,

Adrian Knight 78.144.244.127 (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Adrian.

User-based reviews are almost always inappropriate additions to Wikipedia. As you correctly identified, they are not suitable as sources within the article. Similarly, they are rarely appropriate as external links, per WP:ELNO #1, #11, and secondarily per #4, #5, #13. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Outsourcing

Would you object to removal of the cleanup tag from Outsourcing? (Some sections still a bit long and we've got a tag on the external links; but overall we might have reached the OK state.) RJFJR (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I appreciate all the work you've done on it. Seems like the tag still fits given the bullet lists, unformatted references, and promotional wording such as "More information on the pros of outsourcing can be found in Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat." --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, I removed "More information on the pros of outsourcing can be found in Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat. In particular, the section on the "5th flattener of the world" may be informative.". (It's already listed in the further reading section.) The bulleted list doesn't bother me because I wouldn't want to change them to headings. I'll have to look at it some mroe. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to understand

Hi. I am trying to understand the rules of this game. I have created a page for a water quality network...WQIN, that is completely legit and a very useful resource for us working on water quality. It has been deleted, and I think I understand why. I tried to compare it to the Slashdot article, which, on my understanding, it is the same type of resource. I can see that /. 's wording is more "encyclopedic" than what I wrote.

But I do not understand why removing the links on Water, water pollution and water quality? It is completely related and I think anybody looking for information would find that useful. By the way, WQIN is non commercial, it is not selling anything, just a virtual community of practice being developed at Colorado State University, where I am a PhD student(forgot to mention that before).

Granted it is not as well known as /., but who is it?

I am really trying to understand... so please tell me what I did wrong.

Regards,

Fernanda 06:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)dalcanale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalcanale (talk • contribs) 05:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Replying on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I understood the reasons, although I would argue that, at least for the specific Water Quality page, the link makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain the rules.

Dalcanale (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jeff V. Merkey

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jeff V. Merkey. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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/Jeff V. Merkey. 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) 01:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

External Links: GangaTalao

Hi Ronz...

After speaking to a few people over here in Mauritius as well as a couple of Religious Bodies in regards to the Sacred Lake of Ganga Talao, It seems that the link to the website can be added. I have read the terms and conditions for External Links of Wikipedia and to be honest we do not breach any of them.

The website itself is here to provide more information about the Sacred Lake, the events there, prayers etc... And you classified it as a Tourism site? huh? A bit strange for a tourist to look for prayers ? You spoke about promoting the website, huh? the aim is only to provide more information not available on the Wikipedia Article... Well we are not adding it as a source, just an External link.

But my query today is that i will be really glad if you could help me to include the website in the GangaTalao Article on Wikipedia. If you could guide me through about what's wrong with it? Or if we can get an Administrator to give a feedback?

With Thanks Kamal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamal2099 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. You've already choosen a very good WP:DR method by asking for help at WP:EAR. Let's see what feedback you get, then work from there. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Request toreadmit DataRush link

Can you please allow the link to Pervasive DataRush to remain. While this is a proprietary technology, it is used by The University of Texas in Austin in data profiling/predictive analytics tests. Specifically, it was used in predictive analytics testing for Netflix in conjunction with UT -- it processes data at high rates to improve the data mining experience.

Thanks,

Glenn Maddox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.13.2 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate the note, I'm concerned that you've taken no notice of the warnings and blocks that have occurred for editors spamming this link while having a conflict of interest. I'm going to remove all the subsequently spammed links. If you want to dispute my removal of these links, I suggest starting at WP:COIN, though any other dispute resolution method would be fine. --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

CUP Controversy

http://www.xxxxxxxxxx.com/B843-DES672.htm#More%20Wikipedia%20Asses

It seems like you've stirred up a hornet's nest with your edits!

xxxxxxxxxxx=cosmoetica (Schneider's blackballed site) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.233.246 (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pain management

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Pain management. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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/Pain management. 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) 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Samples

It is insane to suggest that no for-profit company can make a contribution on these legal forms. We have legal forms that a free to the public and that are used by lawyers around the country. Why on earth does someone think it is a good idea to delete these links? Wiki users come to these pages and spend over 3 minutes. It is a commerical site but there is no sales or lead pitch in the sample forms. These are sample forms for lawyers. I think maybe it would be wise if we did not become too overcome with our great power as editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.201.106 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm assuming you haven't seen the discussions and warnings to the accounts and ip addresses that have added these links in the past.

"It is insane to suggest that no for-profit company can make a contribution on these legal forms." I hope no one is making such suggestions. I certainly am not. I'll gladly help if someone else has been doing so.

We're writing an encyclopedia for everyone, worldwide, not just lawyers practicing in Maryland. These links have been spammed to Wikipedia for over five years now, against the conflict of interest policies as well. I think it would be wise to review WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI before considering adding the links again. If you'd like to get others' opinion on the matter, WP:ELN or WP:COIN would be the good places to start. --Ronz (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this paragraph. What I've said is that anyone looking at this stuff would realize it is offered under the rubric of a help center for lawyers. The paragraph above about someone being targeted, attacked, called names, stalked or blocked seems so out of context. I wrote one note (now two) listed above. Is there a trial lawyer editor who can look at these things because I'm clearly not selling free information for my competitor lawyers. I'm offering meaningful samples that illustrate the point being discussed. Do a google search for any of these terms. We are on top for them because we are one of the few law firms who have put up this kind of information. I'll show anyone who wants to see the all of the data on this, including how long Wiki readers stay to review these materials. I don't think it is fair to target our education efforts because we happen to be lawyers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.201.106 (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you were confused by the new, unrelated discussion.

"I'm offering meaningful samples that illustrate the point being discussed." In doing so, you've violated WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Those are behavioral problems that need to be addressed before this can be settled. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a not a how-to manual. Adding links to examples, especially examples aimed as an extremely small subset of Wikipedia readers, is of little value. Additionally, such external links attract more of the same. Eventually, an editor will notice the multiple links of questionable value and remove them per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK, as I did when I first encountered these links.

There's a simple solution to this: Contribute directly to the article rather than adding external links. You obviously have a great deal of expertise on these subjects. I'm sure you could easily provide reliable sources to verify the information in the articles, or edit the articles to correct, clarify, or expand them.

As I pointed out above, WP:ELN and WP:COIN are good places to get others' opinions on this situation. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Proper venue

There is no proper venue. I'm a relatively new editor according to my edit history so any complaint I issue about anything will simply get me targeted, attacked, called names, stalked and blocked. So the proper venue is acting just like the editor who is behaving badly toward me. There is no proper venue for newbies on wikipedia; they're not allowed. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Continue to behave in such a manner and you'll be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

JTAG Free software and JTAG external link www.boundary-scan.co,uk

Hi Ronz

JTAG Free software paragraph was deleted by you today form the JTAG entry. Indeed I thought this might be a bit borderline regarding content - there is some genuine free software tool to be gained here that I figured could benefit the community reading the JTAG entry - if you feel this is not the case and it contravenes guidleines fair enough as I am not a very regular contributor it would be wrong of me to make a decision.

On the other hand I could use some guidance on a link to boundary-scan.co.uk, that you also deleted. This has been an external link on JTAG for 10 months without any issues. It does contain I think some valuable additional information on JTAG standards not shown wiki site - can you suggest how this site can be amended so as to remain a valuable external link ? All or nearly all external links on the JTAG entry are directed to pages of commercial software vendors so I guess we could delete all of these without redress, could we ?

Please advise

Mapstain (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Mapstain

Thanks for the note. Yes, I also noticed that many JTAG-related articles have inappropriate external links that need to be removed.

Given how poorly these articles are referenced, I'd be against any external link that couldn't be used as a future reference or to find future references. I'm going to go ahead and tag the articles to attract and direct new editors to the problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

stadium-arcadium.com

Stadium-Arcadium.com is the number one news source for red hot chili peppers news updates and always provides red hot chili peppers news days, weeks, even months before the official site does.

It always provides citable sources to all news articles it publishes. As an rhcp fan I consider this link to be essential to the article in view of the fact they're releasing a new album next year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.213.61 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you make your case for the external link on the article talk page. You may want to also review the past discussions on the link and why it was removed in the past. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Allergy undoing

Are you sure that external link you undid at Allergy was a spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cikicdragan (talk • contribs) 12:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was spammed by 69.236.95.105 (talk · contribs), that much is clear. It is also likely that this is related to the spamming by 69.236.96.109 (talk · contribs) and 24.6.210.27 (talk · contribs).

Spamming aside, the link appears too far off topic for such a well-referenced article. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

reverting

I do not require dispute resolution. I just require that you cease reverting or hiding my comments from talkpages. Thankyou Polargeo (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay let us draw a line under this. Feel free to unhide all comments on the article Polargeo (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I hope this means that the situation has come to and end. If not, I'll notify you before taking any action to revert or hide new comments by you, unless WP:RPA applies. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this doesn't apply to my talk page. As the instructions clearly state, "I'll most likely remove any offending comments" per WP:TALK and WP:AGF. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

JTAG Reference

Hi Ronz

Last week I asked for some guidance on referencing a valuable site with JTAG information www.boundary-scan.co.uk none yet has been forthcoming With the execption of a product flash on the home-page (which can be removed if that will help) this site is non-biased and non-commercial. Today I added a reference to JTAG Flash Programming as this is not a widely understood topic and is succinctly dealt with on wwww.boundary-scan.co.uk page 9 well away form the home page - yet still you chose to delete it.

At least two of the existing references at the JTAG entry have more blatant commercial links than the one I inserted so do I delete thhes in a tit-for-tat mode or do I hope that you will examine my reference in more detail and deem it acceptable data form an expert source ?

Regards

Mapstain (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out previously, the article needs more and better sources. You added the same link you've been adding previously to support a trivial example in the article.

If you notice, I tagged the article further, indicating some references fail WP:RS. It's perfectly acceptable to remove references that fail WP:RS. A discussion on the article talk page is better if it's unclear.

Also, since this has been going on for a while, you might want to consider another dispute resolution method. WP:THIRD could be used in this case and is by far the fastest way to get another viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• My two cents, as someone who's spent some time whacking that page into sanity (yes it still needs work): I never really liked that boundary-scan.co.uk stuff either. In fact I thought I'd deleted the link myself; I know I at least thought about it when cleaning up the links. The quality of that info is kind of borderline, and it's promotional though not purely commercial. On the flip side, it's hard to find well structured JTAG info on the web, so that's surely why at least once I left it in. 69.226.238.251 (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazing

Hi, I have that list on my watch page and saw the postings that you and SA did with the behavior of the other editors. You would think at the wiki alert civility policies would be followed. I am still amazed at how editors feel it's ok to behave like this. If you haven't read the latest, take a peek. I was going to make a comment but I was afraid I wouldn't remain civil after reading some of the comments that call SA a troll so I cancelled my post. I hope you are well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sad. I've barely noticed SA since his last block. He seems to be doing much better at handling himself when baited and attacked.

I don't expect much from WQA. Wikipedia does little to enforce civility, and editors know it. Still, the outright refusal to be civil in WQA should attract a bit of attention. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for what I brought to your talk page by posting this here. Is there something I might be able to do to calm things down? I am seeing the responses from Polargeo as frustration. I just noticed that s/he has templated you with what looked like a vanadalism notice. Maybe I can show him the don't template the regulars if s/he isn't aware of this? I didn't notice if the editor was aware of this since templating editors that are established editors usually don't respond well. Anyways, if I can help let me know. I feel partially responsible for what has been happening here on your talk page. I know this is/was being discussed at the talk page, the wiki alert board, the bio board. Is there other places this is being discussed? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. You're not to blame. I'd already reverted multiple inappropriate comments by him in User_talk:Ronz#reverting.

S/he appears to be another of the unfortunate editors that rarely sees how most of Wikipedia works, because s/he only works on contentious topics. We both know what it's like working on such topics - endless disputes with tendentious and disruptive advocates. That's the norm for such articles, so editors who work solely on such articles don't know any better. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted links

Hi. Just wondering why you think I'm spamming. I posted a couple of links to companies that provide digital cinema package encoding because there were none on the page. There are lots of links to other companies on there. Why are only the ones I post spam? I think it's relevant, interesting and useful information because so few companies offer DCP services. I even posted a name of the company under "list of digital cinema companies" and it was removed again. It is a digital cinema company so I don't see what the issue is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margolisd (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It was getting to the point where I was going to suggest your account be blocked for a short period of time.

I think it's spamming because of the concerns raised on your talk page, your continuing to add the same link multiple times after the concerns were raised, and because you've made no other contributions to Wikipedia other than to add these links and start an article that was speedily deleted. Further, the article was about the company you've spammed the most, plus all the links you've added are to companies that are related. --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologise. I'm new to Wikipedia. It took me a while to even realise I was getting any messages. I added links to a company called ExpressDCP and another called DCPFoundry. They are not related to each other in any way whatsoever. The UK is actually quite a big place. Also, there are 14 companies listed as Digital Cinema Companies. So I could see no harm in adding two more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margolisd (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was concerned that you weren't aware of the messages as well. Thanks for clarifying that, as well as your apology.

I apologize for my comment that all the companies are related. Only ExpressDCP and Two Roads Productions are related as far as I can tell.

I hope you'll continue to contribute to Wikipedia, being more careful to follow WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Aditya's talk page.
Message added 16:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Astronominov 16:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Filipino cuisine

Hello Ronz, I'd like to get your views on the article and reliable sources for it. Could you please put them on the talk page? Thanks. Lambanog (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

... disregard of the documentary evidence content of Hulda Clark's death certificate.

Hi Ronz, could do with some support upon the disregard of the documentary evidence content of Hulda Clark's death certificate. Warm thanks; WATerian (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think we need some explanation on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

EL Deletions for "Angel investor"

Ronz, thanks for your good work in fighting link-spam. However, the ELs that you (or your bot) deleted from the article Angel investor are all legitimate links of long standing that have been exhaustively discussed and approved by the article's regular editors over the years (as you'll see on the article's Talk page). This article, precisely because of its subject matter, is particularly susceptible to external link spam for commercial purposes. However, rest assured that the three or four regular editors monitor it VERY closely and immediately revert spam link inclusions (as you can clearly see from the article's History.)

The remaining links (the ones you removed wholesale) are ones that the editors have determined are appropriate for this article according to WP:EL. They include the two non-profit institutions that study and report on the field (ACEF and CVR), the national non-profit associations that monitor the field in their respective regions or countries (EBAN, ACA, NACO, et al). and the one official platform for the industry that serves up live statistics on the subject (Angelsoft). In the future, please propose any wholesale edits like this on the article's Talk page for discussion, prior to changing the article, thanks! Yorker (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm glad that you're keeping the spam down. I disagree and will discuss on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

JTAG article ... "citations", "references", etc

So I thought I'd check up on the JTAG page and suddenly I see ugly banners on the top of the page saying more citations and better references are needed. I'm trying to make sense of this. When I look at that page and think about how to improve it, those issues aren't particularly on the radar. (I think: clearer presentation on various topics, more info here, too bad all the design-for-test stuff in WP is such a mess, should I add a detailed example of for example JTAG debug on ARM, and so on.)

For citations ... which specific things need citations? It's not helpful to make such blanket criticisms. Many details are in the IEEE spec, which are cited in the first sentence. And there are references to the higher level things built on top of those. Are there specific statements you'd like to see citations for? If not, I'd be inclined to just remove the "need citations" banner. Are you just asking for a light dusting of citations to make it all better, or are there something closer to objective criteria we could use to know when that goal has been met? The banner gives no help.

Same thing with "need references". Although there, I've got to point out that WP has, in effect, a bias against certain classes of technological topic. One way this shows up with JTAG is that essentially all interesting documents are primary sources (from JTAG vendors of one kind or another, thus foolishly deemed "not reliable"), and there aren't many viable secondary sources because the stuff is too darn technical for anything except almost content-free trade press notices ... except stuff from participants, thus classed as primary. Even the Universities go to primary sources instead of writing citable surveys. And it's still too new for there to be good tertiary sources; encyclopaedic content isn't there, outside of WP where it's still "in beta" (as it were). All of which means that I'm unfortunately used to seeing the best, and most authoritative, references in technical areas be treated like dirt by WPedians because they're not secondary sources. Sigh. If only it were Manga; then there'd be no problem getting acceptable secondary sources.

There are documents about using JTAG, like the TI "Testability Primer" referenced (as an external link), which I count as good references. But they don't necessarily relate to specific topics in the article. And like too many of the good technical refs, they focus on boundary scan applications ... instead of the day-in, day-out use of JTAG in systems development, outside of the manufacturing production test line.

-- 69.226.238.251 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yes, it's difficult to write Wikipedia articles on such topics. If proper references are being removed, make a case on the talk page, and take it to WP:RSN if necessary.

WP:V states, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." The "needs references" notice is my alternative to stubbing the article by removing most of the unsourced material. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't provided the guidance necessary to make your feedback concrete/useful and actionable. I don't see quotations; so that clause doesn't apply. And you haven't provided specifics about "challenged" (by challenging) or "likely to be challenged", which means all you're doing is waving a flag ... not constructive, when all a subject expert has to go on is guesswork. Ditto threatening to stub "the unsourced material" ... exactly what material are you saying is unsourced?? Somewhere between all and none of it? Your non-feedback is impossible to use. And that article is far from being a "stub", so that strategy would not demonstrate good faith. Maybe you should actually bring a few specific issues up on the article's Talk page instead?

It looks to me like you did the right thing in removing those boundary-scan.uk refs and then just got fed up with needing to repeat that, so then you unjustifiably slammed the whole article. If that's not really what happened, please provide enough concrete details that someone could address your feedback (and know when it's done). There are enough real issues where that article needs improvment; playing "fetch me a rock", by trying to guess what you want, is not a constructive game to start playing.

-- 69.226.238.251 (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ronz and the IP. I happened to see this discussion, and I notice that this URL at Texas Instruments is a page that has links to a number of trade-press articles. I personally think it would be of interest to know about well-known chips that have used JTAG, such as (apparently) the 80486. For a widely-used product, you would think that its usage of JTAG would be recorded in the trade press, so you would not have to rely entirely on company documents. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ed ... who do you think added that link to the JTAG page in the first place?!? The point is more about the upcoming extension than about generic JTAG. I'll add another reference to that; it's relevant to the new ARM11 example I finally got around to adding. (Ability to switch TAPs in and out of scan chains, to support debugging of low power system states.)

And did you look at the "Widespread Uses" section? I quote: ARM processors (the most popular 32-bit processors in the world, way more so than Intel's since they're used in for example cell phones and modems), FPGAs, higher capability 8 and 16 bit microcontrollers. So I'm confused what you might be suggesting. It's pointless to try listing things in more detail than that ... that list already covers most of the market in embedded processors (which, even more so than just the ARM part, is way larger than the x86-compatible market).

Said differently: well known to who?? It *already* gives that information! I reworded things to hit less-knowledgeable readers over the head with what they just read. Even trade press doesn't cover that level of obviousness, any more than they point out that a new chip uses (gasp!!) transistors.

I've seen no useful feedback from Ronz, so I removed those two ugly banners. (But I did add refs to the IEEE docs, and in that new example.) If you have anything concrete, please put the feedback into the article's Talk page where it belongs, or an explicit "this specific thing needs a cite" in the article text.

-- 69.226.238.251 (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

spam help @ texas ratios

I was wondering if you can help here? I have referenced your name in the talk.

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Talk:Texas ratio.
Message added B.S. Lawrence 25 Nov 2009. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for letting me know. Responded on talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why nuscho.com link should be included

nuscho.com contains neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to the amount of detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronMan2009 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. There's a discussion at Talk:Texas ratio. WP:ELN is a good place to get others' perspective on the situation. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Information extraction

I am sorry, but where did you see the inappropriate external link? The link was neither an advertisement, nor a personal web page. It was a link to an open source project hosted at sourceforge, that is widely used in information extraction tasks Please do not remove my links. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by George1975 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the article talk page. If you want others' perspectives, try WP:ELN. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

About the Khloe Kardashian article

It's not defamation to point out hypocrisy. And I DID use sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diddlyman2004 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. If you missed it when you were previously warned, per WP:BLP "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research."

I don't think the source you used would ever be considered a reliable source for use anywhere on Wikipedia. Given the BLP problems with material from that source, I think it should be blacklisted --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain your editing?

Take the time to read the material. You have removed links to this site[1], but you have not removed links to this site [2] from the following wiki pages: Ba_Khin, Theravada etc. Can you explain this? Both sites are of the same type so, as it stands, your edits seem very biased. Mysticeditor (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I usually clean up after only one spammer at a time.

I'm in the process of cleaning up the others. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Judge Maria Lopez article

Lopez WAS controversial for her role in a well-known Massachusetts case where she gave probation to a child molestor. Calling a judge controversial for what many perceive is a bad decision is NOT defamatory. I'm starting to wonder whether the editor threatening to block me has a pro-PETA or pro-criminal bias. Same thing happened with the article about NCCU when I added information on well-known liar Crystal Mangum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diddlyman2004 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The information was removed per WP:BLP, as indicated on your talk page. Without being properly sourced, such statements should be removed immediatedly. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Aditya's talk page.
Message added 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aditya Ex Machina 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Talk:General_Architecture_for_Text_Engineering.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Valyt (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gamemaniac

I removed the CSD G11 tag from Gamemaniac that you placed as it is not written in a matter that relates blatant advertising such as "Buy software XXX now!!!" It does inadvertently states importance by stating that it offers "the latest..." so I could not qualify it as A7 either. I placed a PROD on the article and notified the articles creator. Unless notability can be established per Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria it will most likely be deleted. Any questions or concerns feel free to ping me. Kindly Calmer Waters 03:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

General Architecture for Text Engineering

Ggorrell (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC): Been working on "wikification", i.e. making all the external links into references, including more links to other wikipedia articles. Take a look and see what you think?

Good work! --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandra Lee

I appreciate that you may find my contributions controversial, but that does not make them nonfactual. There were three sources cited, including the Food TV website. That is more than sufficient for a one paragraph addition.

Fact: Critics have noted her love of alcohol (see Referenced site) Fact: Lee spends a significant portion of her show discussing, making, and consuming cocktails (see show) Fact: Lee has prepared "Driver friendly" cocktails with liquor in them (See reference) Fact: Lee has prepared cocktails on a public beach (See reference) Fact: One of her critics has created a drinking game to honor her love of alcohol.

Stating and referencing verifiable facts is not libelous. If there is a specific statement you;d like me to edit or reference, please be more specific. However, I don't appreciate you simply deleting my edits because you disagree with the people I'm citing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PVS3 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources meet WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Other parts of the page already referenced FoodTV.com, so your claim that "None" of the sources met the standard is either false or selectively enforced. However, when I went to reinsert my factual statements onto her page, I noticed they had gone under "Personal Life" and not "Critical Reaction" - I was attempting to describe a noteworthy portion of the critical reaction to her show, and meant for the addition to be in that section. I have edited my comments to include more references, and placed it in the appropriate section. So to reiterate: I was stating facts and providing references, end of story. I didn't say "Sandra Lee is a boozehound" I said: "Critics have pointed out that she drinks a lot, and always works liquor into her show" PVS3 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP violations are very serious. So serious that edits that remove BLP problems are exempt from WP:3RR. You'll be blocked if you continue this way. I suggest reading WP:BLP carefully, then if you still feel the material is appropriate, take the dispute to WP:BLPN for review by other editors. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chicken riggies

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chicken riggies. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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/Chicken riggies. 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) 01:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The health benefits of walnuts

Thank you for removing a bunch of gratuitous bolding and for taging the new section in the article on the genus Juglans. I have moved the section to the article on Juglans regia, because the food "walnut" of commerce is nearly always the Persian walnut (especially in Europe). I also moved your comment on the "Talk" page to the Juglans regia "Talk" page.

I am not sure what to do about such sections. They appear to me to be nothing more than free industry advertising masquerading as encyclopedic information derived from peer-reviewed scientific research, but I hate to get a reputation for wholesale deletion of referenced content. I would be interested in any suggestions. Jay L09 (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have a problem with deleting information sourced only by cherry-picked studies. If there's no review article as well, then it probably doesn't belong. See WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What gives with Tom Bergeron's page??

Hey. Why did you take down my edit to Tom Bergeron's page. Did you see the source?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steviedias69! (talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays! --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Appears logical to me...and well sourced...I don't know why you would have removed it. Happy holidays Ronz. --kelapstick (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

... disregard of the documentary evidence content of Hulda Clark's death certificate.

Hi Ronz, could do with some support upon the disregard of the documentary evidence content of Hulda Clark's death certificate. Warm thanks; WATerian (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, could do with some further support upon the published disregard of the documentary evidence content of Hulda Clark's death certificate. Your previous assistance led to some progress. Please also explain how to ensure that the references cited in the discussion section can be maintained to help evidence counterargument regarding untrue publication. Warm thanks; WATerian (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, I noticed the back-and-forth. Best just to discuss the concerns on the article talk page to avoid any further escalation of the situation. I'll join in. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)