User talk:Hipal/Archive 28

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Speedy deletion declined: National Youth Rights Day

Hello Ronz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of National Youth Rights Day, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Ged UK 20:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

BMC Software

Thanks. I have read the CoI article and understand the need to attribute articles to independent resources. I will do so as I update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtish (talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Beer in Mexico

Hi.. you tagged Beer in Mexico with unreliable sources but I dont see which sources are problematic on the talk page. Can you make a note of which you find questionable? Thanks. Thelmadatter (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I've been meaning to get back to that article. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern about beer articles .... Instead of writing the same thing in two places, please check my response on the talk page of Beer in Mexico. I understand your intentions are good. Mine are too.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking, overlinking, and utility

Hi Ronz. Seasons' greetings! WP:LINKING voices a guideline about excessive Wikilinks.[1] As a webmaster for large knowledgebases, I gravitate toward more pragmatic concerns.[2] Which is to say that in this edit[3], the links aren't according to MOS, but maybe more to the point, wouldn't be used. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. That's what I get for simply copying what I found in similar articles. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Don;t worry

What I've added is 98% quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torckey (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Read WP:BLP. Discuss what you'd like to add on the article talk page. If you continue editing as you have, you'll likely be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Badagnani

If someone asks you to stop posting to their talk page, I suggest you do it. Failing to do so is disruptive, not to mention extremely discourteous. Discourteousness never improves the encyclopedia, and we will take steps to prevent it. You know I'm not friend of Badagnani; I think he should be banned permanently. Until that happens, cut it out, please. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not their talk page. It's Wikipedia's talk page for discussions to and about an editor. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I know whose it is. I'm telling you that, when someone asks you to stop, continuing to post is obnoxious. Don't do it. Be courteous and respectful instead of obnoxious, all the time. Being obnoxious is disruptive, and you will be blocked for it. I won't push the button, either. Do you understand? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to talk about Badagnani. Start a new RFC. I will endorse it. Stop posting to his talk page when he's asked you to stop, or else you're the one in the hot seat. Get it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith, while at the same time ignoring his. Ironic that. --Ronz (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all assuming anything about your faith, and I want him banned forever. You're doing something that is unlikely to lead to positive results. There is no excuse for that. I want Badagnani gone, but do it right; do it smart. Don't screw it up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never claimed anything about your faith, and I fully assume that you are contributing in perfectly good faith, and with poor judgment in this case. I will defend your good faith if anyone attacks it; just let me know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"continuing to post is obnoxious" I disagree. The statement assumes bad faith on my part. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't think you mean to be obnoxious. I think you're acting in misguided good faith. Why would you be intentionally obnoxious? That would make no sense; you're not stupid. You're just not thinking very well about what outcomes are likely to follow from your actions. If you think about it more carefully, your perfect faith will lead you to different actions. Post the RFC and let me endorse it, for example. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If I thought you were being intentionally obnoxious, I wouldn't bother talking to you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been through this before. I disagree with this civility-above-all-else attitude. You think it's obnoxious. I don't because the page does not belong to him. --Ronz (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuck civility. I don't believe in civility above all else for one second. I believe in effective above all else. Are you being effective? Do your posts change his behavior for the better? Are they likely to? How. Be realistic. If you convince me, I'll join you, because as I said, I think he should get the hell out. You're not helping achieve that, and you might be fucking it up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I'm unaware of any policy or guidelines on effectiveness. Seems that any would conflict with WP:BATTLE, "Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about policies or guidelines at all; those are stupid. I'm talking about what makes things better, and what doesn't. Do things that make things better, and don't do things that don't make things better. Why would you take any other approach? What's good about doing stuff that has no positive effect? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is, how do we fix the Badagnani problem. You wanna fight with me, or you wanna talk about that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"those are stupid" I disagree. They're a necessity, partially because of the problems that WP:BATTLE addresses. This is not a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My fix is to clean up after him, support other editors who have problems with him, and continue to communicate with him. I try not to change my behavior just because of empty complaints by Badagnani. --Ronz (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that there is a realistic chance that your "trying to communicate with him" is going to work? This is a completely ingenuous question, and I'm interested in your answer. Maybe you know something I don't know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's a solution other than an indef block, we've got to communicate with him. It's a sign of respect, and the basis of any resolution.

I've seen a bit of progress with him. Look how many comments of mine he's left on his talk page. It's not much, but it's an improvement.

I've looked at his last big ANI, and linked it in the current one. There's a lengthy discussion on his objections to editors commenting on his talk page. After reading that, I find this discussion even more ironic, though I like the recent comments about civility and communication. --Ronz (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you posted that link. As for civility and communication, sometimes it seems that I don't get through to some people until I yell a little. It means I failed to do it right. I always think it's a shame, and wish I were better at avoiding it. I believe everything I say about civility, but I'm not always the best at taking my own advice. I'm human, and sometimes my passions win. Perhaps that's understandable.

Your optimism is admirable, although I continue to question your judgment in this particular case. I don't think that posts that he keeps removing are what help. I may be wrong. I just don't see how doing something that you know pushes a button is supposed to make someone more likely to listen to you. When I said "obnoxious" above, I meant obnoxious to Badagnani, and therefore likely to be rejected out of hand by him. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer on that point.

Eventually, we're in agreement regarding Badagnani. If he starts communicating with others in a productive way, it would be great to have him on board. Otherwise, he'll have to go. The first option is preferred, but the second may be necessary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"I don't think that posts that he keeps removing are what help" I agree. I certainly could take more care in what I post to his talk page after he removes one of mine. Certainly no need to mention his removing comments more than once.

I think it's pragmatism more than optimism.

Thanks for the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just popping by

Hi Ronz, I have you on my watchlist which of course you are aware of. I enjoyed the way the two of you talked out your discussion above. I've been involved in some heated discussions lately where it's like hair pulling time because it feels like the more I type the less someone is listening. So to see the two of you state what you feel about a heated situation amicably like you two just did was impressive to me.

I really just want to wish you a belated Happy and Healthy New Year (though I guess belated is not exactly correct since the year is only on it's 5th day. :)) I haven't crossed paths with you for quite sometime now. I hope we do someday soon. It's always been a pleasure to work with you. Again, happy, healthy New Year, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks. Happy New Year to you as well! I'm surprised it went so well. I need to drop you an email. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would love to hear from you. Send me an update about how you are doing. I definitely will respond back. I drove today for the first time since 9/11's surgery date. Boy I felt like a beginner again. I can't move my neck like before so it was definitely very weird turning my body at a point so I could see. Seat belts aren't made for people like me! :) Look forward to hearing from you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on getting out on the road! --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability for Solidworks

Hi Ronz,

I saw you added a notability tag to the solidworks article, and thought I would send a message asking for clarification. When I see tags at the top of the page, I always review them to A) see if I can help and B) see if they are necessary. While a few of the tags up there are probably justifiable, the notability tag made me do a double take.

Can you seriously suggest that this software isn't notable? The article states that there is an established user base of 750,000 users, with over 1 million licenses sold. For perspective only, there are articles on wikipedia about various Linux distros that only have a few thousand users. I can agree that the article needs cleanup and needs to be reworked to meet the wikipedia style and quality standards. I suppose it also reads a little bit like an advertisement. I can not, however, understand how this could not be an important and notable article.

I would like to add some personal comments as well. While I wouldn't add this to an article as it is original 'research' I do know that solidworks is very quickly becoming the industry standard CAD package in new product design. Also, Solidworks is now taught in all of the engineering schools that I know of.

If you really think that the notability tag is justified here, please reply on my talk page with your concerns, and I will do my best to answer them with sources including citations.

Thanks, CoolMike (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I just skimmed the article, and while I agree it needs work, I would say that Solidworks is easily a piece of notable software as it is currently one of the most common three dimensional mechanical engineering design programs. --kelapstick (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The article needs multiple sources demonstrating notability per WP:N. They shouldn't be hard to find and include. --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I've been looking, the issue is sorting out the press release from actual articles, I have had some success, have posted them on Cool Mike's talk page.--kelapstick (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for the help! --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Please try to find a tag that is more appropriate than the notability, yet gets the point you want to make accross. I was looking through the list of possible tags for the solidworks situation, and it seems like there are 100 or more possible tags. I feel that the 3rd party sources takes care of the problem, as adding third party sources would necessary mitigate the notability question. If you feel you need another tag to try and address your concerns, please try to find a more appropriate tag than the notability. I will leave the tag as it is for a day or so to give you a chance to find a more appropriate tag. Thanks, CoolMike (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't see one that better fits. Is there a template available for customizing for such situations? --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Matt Chamberlain

Those links were references, and not intended as advertising.-5- (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. They are all self-published sources written by the equipment providers to promote themselves. There wasn't a single independent, reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Ronz.

Thank you for your message, Ronz, which was

"I've reverted two of your edits [1] and [2] because they appear more as personal opinions than content suitable for an encyclopedia article. It's best to discuss such matters on article talk pages, so editors can help determine what portions worth including in the article with proper sources."

I looked at the edits you referred to, and what I wrote has nothing to do with any opinion personal or otherwise, mine or anyone else's; it in fact is what is extensively known across India, has been so for well over a century at the very least, and is so in all likelihood for several millennia; while the posts I attempted to correct were at total variance in the first case (Krischnakamala) with what is known in India generally, and very incomplete without the parts I added in the second (uses of chilly).

The reason I did not add citations is as simple as this - if someone refers to London as Londre with no reference to the English name, a correction is based on generally known fact, and while you might find a citation for that it would be silly to ask for one. On the other hand someone publishing somewhere an error, an incorrect report, might then go on to site it and this merely compounds the error, obviously. A recent noble laureate on BBC proved as much logically when someone mentioned something from a book that was at variance with what he was saying. Sorry I cannot cite the exact name or the timing of the show when it was aired, and might with some trouble find the name of the person - the nobel laureate - who argued thus logically and completely, but the point is really not if I can cite all this.

If you need a weight to balance these posts you might take a survey amongst people from India - not limiting it to Kerala, for one thing, and asking those that relate to the region mentioned for another. (For Krishnakamala as someone from Maharashtra or Karnataka, for Chhole ask anyone from Delhi or Punjaab, about the reference to Tamilnadu ask women from Tamilnadu, etc).

You may, of course, decide as an editor to use your privilege to scrap all corrections I have made and post a general instruction to not accept anything without citation. This will merely compound the errors of printed sources into Wikipedia and discourage people generally from letting their general knowledge being shared, which is the sort of thing that leads to for example India now having to battle against various US corporations attempting to patent ancient knowledge of India from Ayurveda to every household and kitchen.

In short, citations are only as good as the sources which might err, while general knowledge might be without a reference. And if one cannot correct an error in Wiki without citations it will lead to Wiki being full of such errors by giving preference to those that can cite incorrect facts for support.

I notice that the page here and most other places says at the bottom

"If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here"

and also that the corrections I made or additions I made were to material which I don't remember being provided with citations, but then again perhaps that is because the material is not tagged with citations where it is given, so I failed to notice it since looking for the citation separate from the posts is hard work and not worth my time in this case.

One example - use of saliva for antibiotic purposes is now being discovered in west while in India it has been a general practice especially amongst poor, and could not have been anything but a traditional knowledge. This might be possible to find a citation for, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look. It is an indubitable fact however, citation or not or whatever.

Thank you again -

PS- I looked again and found a really stupid error in the original post which I had added to, not corrected, on the chilly page. The particular quote, offensively incorrect, is "daddojanam ("dadhi" curd, "ojanam" rice in Sanskrit)" - offensively because Sanskrt (r is a vowel in Sanskrt and its daughter languages, a vowel beind defined as the sound one makes without touching any part of the mouth to any other part; the name of the language, and indeed the name of Krschna, use the vowel r pure, without any addition of i or u as often colloquially and entirely mistakenly done) does not tolerate mistakes any more than mathematics does - and the correct version would be Dadhyodanam, with Odanam being (cooked and ready to eat) rice. If Ojanam is a word in Sanskrt at all I am not so far aware of it, but then an extensive knowledge is yet not complete. The spelling you have used is probably given by someone whose language distorts words and sounds wholesale, of which there is at least one, and it can be done for political purposes a la badmouthing of Semites by certain power interests.

The use of sch in Krschna by me is due to the fact that Sanskrt (and her daughter languages too) use two very different sounds recognised as separate in India but not in Europe - one in forefront of the mouth and one way back. Sh represents the former which is more common of those, as in Shankar, while sch can be used to represent the latter, as in Uscha (commonly written Usha) or Krschna (commonly written Krishna in Roman script).

Dr, J. G. 07:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJGMD (talk • contribs) 07:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. As I pointed out, I think these edits should be discussed on the relevant article talk page. Your subsequent edits to those articles have none of the problems that concerned me, and I see you've started a discussion on another article's talk page. Good work! --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Spam

I do not understand why putting links to webpages which contain videos relevant to the subject is considered to be SPAM. I understand about the nofollow tag - I am not trying to promote anything, just provide more information. Chris Pettit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chpettit (talk • contribs) 12:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a WP:COI with all the links you've added. Are you claiming that you do not? --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. I certainly have an interest in people seeing the videos I make but where is the conflict? I am simply saying "here is a video you may be interested to see" where the video is relevant to an article. Many people have viewed the videos so presumably found them useful. However if this is against WP rules I will stop adding them. CPettit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chpettit (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be best if you stopped adding links to your videos, but read through WP:COI to understand the situation and your options better. See WP:YT regarding video links in particular. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these. There is certainly no problem about copyright and for most of the links there is no "special interest" or viewpoint. Most of the videos I would link to simply give information about organisations that may be able to help the viewer or that are trying to make life better for other people. The only exception are videos about The West Bank and, possibly, climate change, although this is now a majority concern. I think I will be more selective in future and only leave links to videos which do not express a particular viewpoint. --Chpettit (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be best if you started discussions on the talk pages of all articles you wish to add such links. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Reversion against information on your edits

I noticed now that you had said

"I've reverted two of your edits [1] and [2] because they appear more as personal opinions than content suitable for an encyclopedia article"

and saw the reversion.

What I had provided was information that is widespread general knowledge, correcting the gross error (calling what is known as Krishnakamala as rakhi flowers instead in the first instance, entirely incorrect, which I had corrected) or lack of most general information (uses of chilly in India as I gave are extremely well known).

In both cases it was information, correction, and nothing to do with anyone's personal opinion much less mine; what I gave was - again - widespread general knowledge, which corrected the wrong information ("rakhi flowers"?!!) or lack of any general information (about uses of chilly). - Dr, J. G. 12:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As I noted above in response to your other comments, I think your subsequent edits are much better. Good job! --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Avoidance and 1RR

I've effectively avoided you ever since you grossly offended me, but I don't think my statement has anything to do with "grudge" (refactored). My view on the issue has been changed as time goes by because only one hand can not clap.

Is it fair to impose the 1RR ban to only one party when the other party do wrong? I do not want to preserve such (refactored) comments of yours in my talk page, so there is no need for any continuation between us. "Avoidance" is a recommend DR, so I want that since I've observed your behavior for long enough time. That is why I did not report you to any administrative venue(refactored). However, if you still want to talk about your conducts, feel free to leave the message your talk page, then I will put this page on my watchlist from the time being and answer you as possible as I can.-Caspian blue 20:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've refactored your comments, indicating where I did so, in the hope that it will allow us to continue a discussion. If you want further explanation, refer to the diffs. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You've not addressed my concerns and you've continued your behavior. That's not avoidance. That's only avoidance of taking responsibility for your behavior. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're very out of line making a file of personal attacks and refactoring my comments with the false labeling. That is against WP:NPA and WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. You've been warned not to do such things many times, so don't touch others comments. I think I will have no business with you ever. Avoidance would be a good solution for both of us --Caspian blue 20:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"You're very out of line making a file of personal attacks and refactoring my comments with the false labeling." No I'm not. I'm trying to conduct a civil discussion. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"That is against..." No it isn't. Again, I'm trying to conduct a civil discussion.

"You've been warned not to do such things many times, so don't touch others comments." Those warnings were little more than personal attacks themselves. I've given them more consideration than they deserve. I will continue to refactor others' comments when I think it is best, and am happy to discuss my rationale for doing so. --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"I think I will have no business with you ever." Thanks! If this is your solution to your attacks against me, then I expect you to hold yourself to it. That means no further personal attacks from you against me anywhere on Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Is it fair to impose the 1RR ban to only one party when the other party do wrong?" Given that this is not the case, it's irrelevant. Time and time again it's been demonstrated and discussed at length that Badagnani has problems with anyone that disputes his edits. --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Marc Sinden puffery

Thanks for your comments, I've replied on my own talk. Little grape (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the first pass at this is pretty much done now. In any case - I have to stop now, otherwise the will to live may leave me entirely..... Little grape (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

strangeapparatus.com

I notice that the external link that I had placed was removed. The link was to a non-comercial website and added information that was not available in the article nor from any of the other external links (i.e it contained practical and detailed constructional details of a theremin). I respectfully submit that the link should be reinstated as it was useful, expanded on the information in the article and complied with the spirit of the Wikipedia project. Best regards, 203.91.94.116 (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. You spammed the same link to two other articles, in violation of WP:SPAMMER. If you think the link is appropriate per WP:EL, discuss it on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Spam links

Hello, Ronz. Thank you for cleaning up after the spam. One easy way is to use this script which allows you to instantly rollback everything on the screen while using an edit summary. You might also want to use popups to verify each revert first. Triplestop x3 16:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I should use it for blatant spammers. It would be easier and faster to revert afterwards anything worth keeping. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How does it work? I need rollback privileges, right? --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you would need rollback. It basically clicks every rollback button on the screen. Triplestop x3 16:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any way to add additional information to the edit summary of a rollback? I suppose explaining on the user's talk page would be enough... --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you need edit summaries, use Twinkle (enable it in preferences). I just modified the script so you can use whatever summary you choose. You can request rollback here. If you do ever use the script, make sure you are very careful. Triplestop x3 17:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Also, he's occasionally adding other, appropriate, content still. I've restored once such edit here. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused what rollback does in complicated situations. I'm going ahead and requesting permission, the I'll experiment at WP:NAS/R. I've put off using a tool like Twinkle for too long now. Looks like it would be very helpful with large scale vandalism, as well as cases where others' only partially cleaned up after persistent vandals like here. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Snap! Weird.... Little grape (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hey there, I know you've been involved in this matter so I thoughtI'd bring this to your attentions in case you miss it. I hope this is helpful. As usual, ignore if not interested. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I was wondering who would pull it out of the archives. It should be an open-and-shut case, given how much worse his behavior became mid-2008. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems everything here at times have to take the long route to get to the destinations. :) Be careful at arbcom, my first only case was a disaster. What most of us thought was open and shut wasn't to be. It can get very weird there. Watch out for yourself. Good luck, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll participate little in ArbCom, other than to demonstrate that his behavior has been bad for years, and that it significantly escalated in mid-2008, all before I interacted with him. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Entschuldigung

I guess I was a bit harsh or unfriendly. The Kolmar article at the JWA is very good, the Ruth Landes thing better than most Michigan Anthropologists stuff, but in principle you were absolutely right and correct. It is much better to use the information for the article etc. Alles Gute, --Radh (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I was glad you spoke up, and was interested in seeing if you wanted to review further edits. In general, it should be a helpful link. The problem is there are hundreds of articles to review. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving to ArbCom, unfortunately

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Badagnani 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,

— Bdb484 (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of cchr.org.uk links

Wiki policy is allow links of those that give balance to any article; where link exists, could not be included for copyright reasons. You have removed links CCHR.UK. Any health care treatments requires policing, when things go wrong, person might turn Wiki, and where main article makes claims, these be counter balanced from external link.

Therefore request all links, all of which been added via myself onto NHS, pages, be reinstated as soon as possible. NHS an organisation that abused me, abused many, daily new people join the cause to out psychiatric abuse.

Sincerely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.236.41 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm sorry you had such experiences with NHS. However, Wikipedia is no place to work out your grievances (per WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE). I hope you'll be able to find proper help for dealing with such trauma, if you've not already.

Focusing now on the links: Not only did I remove the links, but I recommended the site be blacklisted at Wikipedia:RSPAM#cchr.org.uk. Feel free to comment there. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mya_Thwin

Hi, could you go ahead and delete the article Mya_Thwin? I don’t think anyone will object. Mysticeditor (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and proposed deletion. If no one objects, it will be deleted Jan 20. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. I don't see the case for deletion. Notability is established. Mysticeditor (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Memory Foam

I am sorry but I do not understand the problem you are having with my edit to Memory_foam? I added 1 article where citation was needed about foam density, then I fixed a broken link on reference #1, and lastly I added another article for a citation about the smell of a mattress topper. I am not understanding why the third one got removed as it has no advertisements of any sort, it is just an information page. Sorry if I somehow broke the rules or I am missing something as I am new to editing Wikipedia. I felt all three additions I did were very good additions. I added two articles which needed citations and fixed a broken one. Please excuse the fact that I had to edit this comment about 5 times to make it look like its supposed to and follow format.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.58.218 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 24.111.58.218 (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. As I pointed out in my edit summary [4], www.viscoelasticmatresstopper.net is not a reliable source. It's not even a valid link. You meant to add www.viscoelasticmattresstopper.net , which has been repeatedly added to the article by others, even though it's not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, good catch on it not being a valid url, I thought I typed it correctly. I had seen that article before on this page which is why I bookmarked it. I have been doing extensive research lately on these mattresses as it is quite a large purchase for myself. The wikipedia entry has been priceless and so have a few of the other references including the link you removed. I do not understand how you say that it is not a reliable source, the page is not advertising or selling anything and, that web page describes the owner's personal experience about the chemical odors which is almost identical word for word with what is in the "Hazards" section of Memory_foam. So it seemed like a perfect citation, sorry for all of the questions. I have been an avid reading of Wikipedia for a long time and figured I owed it to the site to contribute from time to time. As you can tell I am still definitely learning 24.111.58.218 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Sounds like a simple mistake. WP:RS describes the guidelines for reliable sources. Because of the quality we want from our encyclopedia articles, self-published sources are subject to additional rules. Because in this case the author of viscoelasticmattresstopper.net is purposely concealing his identity, I can't imagine any circumstances where it would be an acceptable source. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the link again. You claim that the unknown author is some sort of expert. Who's the author and what are his credentials? --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the about section on the website it describes why the owner is an expert on the topic, however due to your issues I took the liberty of contacting him via his website's email. His name is Chris, he spent the last 2 month of last semester (Oct and Nov) doing his final project in some university business class on this exact topic, he also told me that he has owned multiple memory foam mattresses and two different brands of memory foam toppers. His website describes almost word for word the experiences that are included in the hazards section of the Wikipedia entry. After searching through Google for multiple hours it was the single most credible source for the final paragraph of any other website. You need to calm down on your Wikipedia edits, you are the sole person who has a problem with this source. I personally found it extremely helpful in my research when I was contemplating making a purchase of this specific product.24.111.58.218 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The source fails WP:RS. The source fails WP:SELFPUB. If you want to attempt an argument to the contrary, please do so on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why remove dot.cloud book citation at cloud computing page

It's one of the most referenced cloud computing books and you took it down. Why? Go to amazon and search cloud computing to see for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.ashcroft (talk • contribs) 17:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I took it down because, as I said in my edit summary, it is "not apparent what this verifies". You've made no edits to the article recently or in the past that appear to be verifiable from this reference. Your past edits to the article were to spam various promotional links. It appears you're continuing to add material for promotional purposes, just without the links this time. --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blatant vandal?

Not me, I didn't write anything bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkisston (talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you continue as you have done, I'll ask that you be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Trolling

I see that you have a spot of the trolling nature going on :-). I wonder when their open proxy <koff> will alter it's IP? :-) Shot info (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz

Good Day! I'm Mr. Chan from Philippine Cultural College. Recently we have our attention happening to the article of Phillipine Cultural College and we are thankful for reverting the article. We are trying to contact the administrators of wikipedia to update the information and protect it from users that can easily edit the article. Do you have any ideas if it is possible? Thank you very much! you may contact us through yahoo messenger or email info@pchsonline.org or pchs_itc@yahoo.com or you may visit our website www.pchsonline.org Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcc itc (talk • contribs) 00:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is protected until 25 Jan. Use Talk:Philippine Cultural College to discuss improvements and problems. I'll be checking the article for discussions and further problems. --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much :)

Yesterday, January 26, 2010, we update the history and college courses. i will remove everything that is look promotional. You may visit our website www.pchsonline.org Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.87.180 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't just copy content from PCC's website directly into the article. I've outlined what to do instead at User_talk:Pcc_itc. --Ronz (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Learning wiki

Hi there, i see you reverted the Genetic Algorithm tutorial demo i put there, citing that it's "redundant and spammy". However, it's useful for people new to GA to learn it via this demo. new to wikipedia, i realise that it should not appear in multiple places, like Genetic algorithms, evolutionary algorithms and evolutionary compuatation. I remember that you deleted the link from the latter 2, and i respected that, if that's wiki's norm.

now the link is only in Genetic algorithms, and is in fact more of a tutorial than other tutorial links there. can you explain more why it is regraded as "redundant and spammy"? i'm lost, but willing to learn, and would appreciate your sharing your insight and dealing with this calmly. thank you. ieee (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.31.23.114 someone who often edits/contributes to genetic algorithms suggested on 18 January "tutorials are provided in the Tutorials subsection of the External links section", which i did. Despite all above, if you still have reasons to believe that the tutorial link i added is "redundant and spammy", i'm open to hear. ieee (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. There are seven tutorials already, all better than the one you and others keep adding. I'll give more details on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

--- Dear Ronz,

Thank you for your reply.

I like learning and shall endeavor to remember adding discussions when editing.

I like wiki and have found it's most useful when I need to pull information fast on something that I don’t know. While I do not claim no coi, the purpose of adding that GA demo link was obvious to me – to help newcomers to EC/EA/GA learn quickly, and many who were introduced to the link did learn fast from it. However, all seven tutorials there cannot do the job as efficiently or effectively as this one. What made you suggest that any of the seven were better than this one?

I'm not claiming I'm an expert, but do have practiced GA for many years. I understand that several universities use it in their teaching, eg:

University of Glasgow of course – where the link is originated: http://userweb.elec.gla.ac.uk/y/yunli/ga_demo/

University of Sussex: http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/courses/nsai/

University of Granada: http://decsai.ugr.es/~ocordon/Docto-CE-RI-09-10.html Demo de Funcionamiento General de Algoritmos Genéticos

Other places, like ai-depot: http://geneticalgorithms.ai-depot.com/Applications.html

Since wiki is contributed and edited by the users, can't we let the users decide which one is better? Is there a way for wiki to monitor the hit rate or something that is more objective?

I believe that we both would like to see wiki shines with its user involvement and with its wider and quicker availability than other encyclopedias. ieee (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we should move this discussion to the article talk page so it's easier to get others' involved. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

now moved verbatim; but i'd like to restore the link for the time being - people can't have a view on what they don;t see. ieee (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Gosh, while I was painstakingly adding links for the schools, you were removing them at the same time... OK, if that's regarded excessive, I've now used 1 link for all. ieee (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just excessive, it's inappropriate. Please read WP:EL. If you continue like this, you'll likely be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

well, as i said, when i added links, you were removing them at the same time - so i didn't realise what's happening, and it's not deliberately wanting to have "more than enough opportunities" to familiarize with WP:EL. only learnt what EL really meant until i saw "what's likely to happen". so you see, it's nothing personal at this end either, and i believe we both just wanted to do a good job. ieee (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You may not have noticed the times WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK has been brought up in regards to your editing. Sorry for the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz: Have you actually had a look at the hudong.com page? It provides more neutral, objective pedia on one page than any other sites. I also remembered that wikipedia's Chinese page was already linked from the main text of the English one, as well as from the left pane. Also, the official site is already linked from the clearly visible right pane.

So the only thing missing is the hudong page. If only one EL would be preferred, shouldn't it be the hudong link? Don’t you agree, I mean objectively? unless you think there is a rivalry between hudong.com and wikipedia. ieee (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ELOFFICIAL, the official site is always listed in the External links section, and often in sidebars as well, as in this case.

The hudong.com looks like a non-English wiki, so I removed it per WP:ELNO #12 and WP:NONENGEL. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I like a rigorous editor, but why did you only remove those extra ELs today, and not together with others in one go yesterday? ieee (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Re 340150729, agreed, perhaps relatively too many references just from one source. However, "hardware" is the name of the game now for the PID controller, but that word is not mentioned anywhere there. So not trivial. For this reason, i'm to add the text back. do feel free to remove if not within the wiki guideline. ieee (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz: can you not remove this thread for me? I started it and i feel responsible for removing it when i no longer need it; i'm lost but can only remove talks on my own page. also, if the genetic algorithm revisions i've just made today are no good, can you revert them back to the version of 28 January? appreciated ieee (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the article to the 28 Jan version.

The thread is useful for me as a reference, and as you can see from this page I retain all discussions that meet WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks - that's fast! i can only do any editing in spare time. just realize that the power electronics application is off too - hope ok to add it back on ieee (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lady Annabel Goldsmith

I've reverted your deletion of the Private Eye reference, which I don't entirely understand. I assume your reference to BLP was about libel, but I don't see that this could be libel. See the article's talk page for discussion. Thanks! 93.96.236.8 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've removed the info per BLP. BLP applies to much, much more than just libel. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

House of Carrillo

Hi Ronz! Since you are very good with what is RS and what can and cannot be placed here and there, can you please help me with this article? I can't make out most of the references used because editors (mostly anons) will only put something like Alberto y Arturo García Carrafa, 2003, Blasoneshispanos, 2003, or Birmingham, 1986. Also, people are simply dumping names in there, it's like everyone with the surname Carrillo wants their grand dad included in the article. I'm not even sure if there should be an article like this. Thanks!– Shannon Rose ^Talk 13:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those are problematic without the full citation.

I think the first step is to start a discussion on the talk page. If the information isn't verifiable, it can be removed per WP:V. I wouldn't remove any without first making an attempt to find the references and discussing what was found on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

.

Hello Hipal.

You have been invited to join WikiProject Industrial design, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Industrial design-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project or the Design Portal. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members.

You may also wish to add to your userpage:
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Industrial design/Userbox}}
and to the top of your talk page:
== WikiProject Industrial design (announcements) ==
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Industrial design/Announcements}}

Know someone who might be interested? Please pass the message to others by pasting the code in their talk page:
== WikiProject Industrial design and Design Portal ==
{{Template:WikiProject_Industrial design/Welcome|~~~~}}

Thanks,
AlainR345^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 06:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Adenosine deaminase deficiency

FIY I've reverted your removal of the NCBI link, since this seems to meet WP:EL (expert-written and free access). Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's one of those mass-spammed links that's probably useful in most cases. They all need to be reviewed, however, because the spammer is sometimes adding them to the wrong article. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't really "spamming" though, since this is a very useful link if added to the correct article. For instance, it isn't like the AccessDNA spam, which is useless and aimed at selling genetic tests. I've left them a note on their talkpage saying that they should continue to add these links. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's WP:SPAM in that he's adding the link and nothing more to multiple articles. This is a behavioral problem.

It's inappropriate editing and a content problem in that he's not reviewing the appropriateness of his links. He's sometimes adding them to the wrong articles in his haste to mass spam them across wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if they are making a few mistakes, the intent is good and this is a useful external link. Please do not mass revert. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the "mistakes" eg diff are due to there being several different names for the same disease, so the addition of the link is in this case quite correct. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've looked over quite a few of his edits now, and he's doing a good job with making sure they are appropriate.

Still, there's the behavioral issue. If he continues this behavior, I'll give him a final warning. If he continues further, I'll request a block. If he takes some time out from his spamming to actually discuss his editing, I'm sure this can all be resolved quickly. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that is quite the wrong approach. So what if they are adding lots of links - they are adding lots of useful links. I would strongly object to any administrative action against somebody who is helping the encyclopedia by adding links that conform to our policy. If you are still skeptical as to if this is useful, I would recommend you discuss this at AN/I rather than acting unilaterally. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a position you can take, but you're going up against WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

See AN/I discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories on zinns page