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.
Recent edits to the article on polymer clay
Hi Ronz:
Related to recent edits to the entries for polymer clay, you can find relevant information at www.polymerartarchive.com
This site is attempting to record and document the early history of polymer as an art form and it is the only source for this sort of information as no historical volume has yet been written. Please check out that site and then if you think is it appropriate, please reinstate reference and/or links to Polymer Art Archive where appropriate. I do believe that readers will find additional helpful information at that site.
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.166.139 (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Could you start a discussion on Talk:Polymer clay so it's easier for others to comment? I don't have time to look at www.polymerartarchive.com right now. --Ronz (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Ronz: I don't understand the workings of Wikipedia and don't really understand how to do that:
here are a few links to Polymer Art Archive to make your assessment easier:
No indication that this organisation meets the notability guidelines. The coverage I can find is minor, not the significant coverage required by the guidelines
Could please, for each of the following links, provided a detailed argument for why they should not be included in the particle swarm optimization article:
On the talk page I see no argument more intelligent than "these links should not be included because there is no consensus." Clearly, if no one is interested in providing any well reasoned arguments to build such consensus, this if a form of circular reasoning.
Looking forward to your reply,
—Ruud 12:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The burden is on you to convince everyone else why they should be included per WP:ELBURDEN.
There's plenty more reasoning on the talk page than what you've summarized. --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, you must understand, that it would be very hard for me to convince you if I do not understand why you oppose inclusion. So I make another kind request to provide me with insight into your reasoning on this issue. —Ruud 15:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It's probably best if you didn't concern yourself with making assumptions on what others may or may not understand. If you're unsure, ask questions.
Maybe start by addressing what I've already written? I've made multiple comments on the dispute. I hope they make my reasoning clear. If not, do you have any specific disagreements with them? Would you like me to clarify them further? --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Good luck with that. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I am undecided if this is the proper place to put this but I'm hoping you won't have to hunt too long to find who commented with my colorful signature. :) I saw your last comment at the AN/i and since the thread isn't getting too much from others I would suggest you taking this behavior to an administrator to stop the behavior that unacceptable. I could put a warning on the talk page of the user too, but it too has no meaning with me not being an administrator. I think you've hit the point where an administrator needs to make a firm comment to this user with no ifs or buts about it. I hope you are doing well though. Let me know if I can help. I am online sporadic these days so I've not really being doing anything useful for awhile. I do hope to get real life calmed down again to be able to accomplish more things again. Take care, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a stand and for the follow-up. Hopefully he'll improve. --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Apologies
Just proving a point o a friend Ron. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarguru777 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I've removed the warning I left you. Please be more careful in the future. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Stephen Barrett
Would you like to bet there isn't contraverisal content on other BLP pages? The fact that Barrett has been sued for his work, is relavent to the his bio, and any article linked to him. Regarding any "agreement", if not posted on the talk page; I will ignore it. You have to document it, not just say there is one. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISEGOOD WORKS 22:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
"Would you like to bet there isn't contraverisal content on other BLP pages?" I think both of agree that following BLP is the best solution, regardless of problems elsewhere.
The agreement was made some three years ago. I'm in the process of finding it. --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a great deal of trouble finding it. There's no easy way to find when content was removed from articles, and the talk page archives are full of discussion on the topic. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I will honor the agreement sight-unseen this once, but I don't normally concur with this type of change considering the way I wrote my content. I purposely made no assertions even on undisputed fact in order that only the existence of the litigation be presented. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISEGOOD WORKS 23:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to take care of other matters. I'll place it on the article talk page when I find it. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I still contend that non-confrontational content is warranted. The article should not give only the impression that Barrett's assertions are always correct or go unchallenged. The last sentence of the Consumer Information section gives the impression that he is a saint. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISEGOOD WORKS 23:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of control editors
You said:
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.
Sorry, I cannot comment on content, because Dougweller follows me around Wiki and simply deletes everything I add.
I improved the Deva Victrix page by adding a separate section for the elliptical building, as this is perhaps the most interesting building on the site. I also added a new section for the Market Hall inscription. And then along comes the mighty Dougweller and deletes the whole lot. Had Dougweller even heard of the Deva fortress before now? So on what basis did he delete it all? Did he even bother to read the update?
And Narwhal2 identified as the fringe writer Ralph Ellis -- all these socks were adding references to him.Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
New To Wiki
Not warring with editing. I just don't understand the flow. there are soo many rules to Wiki and i'm just learning. so to abrubtly block a newbie is like taking a bottle from a baby..(smile) Please work with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divageek2010 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting me. I'm not the only one concerned with the problems you've been causing. Best to explain your situation on your talk page, and address the policies and guidelines identified there as concerns. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
(Ronz, I hope you don't mind me leaping in here...)
Divageek2010,
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
The main thing is, in any dispute at all, talk to the other people. Don't try to keep editing an article, if others disagree. Stop, and discuss it on the article talk page. Otherwise, it's chaos; so the warnings you got were nothing personal. Users are never blocked as a punishment, but instead, to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. If people insist on forcing their edits on an article without discussing things, then they are blocked. Please read WP:DISCUSS.
There is no deadline; if the page is 'wrong' for a while, whilst we discuss things, it does not matter. Once there is a consensus to make the change, then fine, we can make it - and, if someone edits it against some established consensus, without discussion, then they get warned.
If in doubt, stop, and ask for help. You can do that by either;
Thanks for the help! I've responded further on Divageek2010's talk. --Ronz (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Ronz. I am in no way affiliation of the documentary. The documentary is a verifiable resource that explains the Tea Party Movement and the key players involved. It is one of the only credible mediums that explains this grassroots organization and I am using it as a reference to refer to some of the VERY IMPORTANT figures within the tea party movement. WIKI is like chinese to me really don't understand how it works, excuse me while i'm learning. I thought it was more user friendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divageek2010 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's very overwhelming for anyone. You've attracted a lot of attention with you initial edits, resulting in a lot of messages to you that makes it even more overwhelming.
Take your time, discuss what you're trying to do, and ask questions. Everything you've been trying to accomplish can be recreated if appropriate sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I typically avoid highly charged political/religious topics. I've seen some of diva's edits and some of the various IP edits and want to screem... but I don't want to be drawn in any more than I have to. Diva, you might want to check out the AfD. I've worded my !vote deliberately to buy you time to edit it and gave you some guidance as to how to save it. Basically, provide sources that are from reliable sources and not trivial and the article will be kept. Trivial mentions or non-reliable sources won't save it.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Tea Party Movie
Just as an FYI and trivial point but the Tea Party Movie wasn't deleted as SPAM, but rather as a copyvio.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 22:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Copyvio trumps spam. I had trimmed back the copyrighted material, but I guess not enough.
I didn't warn him about the copyvio problem in addition to everything else. At least he's communicating now. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Request for reference
hi,
This is Veerender from IIT Kanpur,India. You have sighted me as an example of think-tank from India.I would like to know the reference for this citation.
Please mail me on : veek@iitk.ac.in
thanks & regards
Veerender kumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veeruvishwa (talk • contribs) 07:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're asking. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Will do. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ronz your continued collapsing of text on the talk page is disruptive. Please stop.Griswaldo (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll stop while I give you time to explain yourself. Accusations of disruption shouldn't be made lightly. I await an explanation from you. If none is offered, I'll collapse the improper comments once again. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You continue the disruption by labeling his comments like that. I don't see any accusations of gaming in his comment. You are the one who needs to explain why you are collapsing another editors comments and putting non-neutral section headings over them. Please do explain, otherwise it really just appears as disruption.Griswaldo (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Nice. You justify yourself after the fact? Come on. You can do better than this.
Someone brought up edit-warring and gaming. If those weren't accusations, then I guess it's all off topic and should be removed, right?
I await an explanation not based upon future events. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Should I instead remove it as being off topic? --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the inappropriate comment and will assume your accusations are just unintentional outbursts. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You are not allowed to remove content from talk pages. Please cease doing so. Thank you. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISEGOOD WORKS 02:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't do so, but you did. I assume it was an accident. I hope you won't remove content once again. --Ronz (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent the situation or harass me.
It's no a threat. It documents your problematic behavior. Hopefully, you'll learn to follow Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines before further action is taken. --Ronz (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ronz. Regarding this I have no opinion (I can't view the clip) but can you tell me the policies/guidelines that it contravenes? There is some activity around it at Depression (mood) (history). Cheers. Anthony (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I've explained below. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
So, you're saying the video adds nothing new (or that couldn't be added as text) to Major depressive disorder, so it's not compliant with WP:EL? Sorry, I still can't view it. Anthony (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. It doesn't add anything beyond the presentation format. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. Anthony (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Not a spam but an informative addition
Hey there,
You removed my link to a movie about depression treatment and identification.
As I mentioned in the edit summary, the link I've added is a "service to the public produced by ERA-Net Neuron—a non-profit, multinational, EC-supported consortium on neuroscience research". It has no kind of deliberate advertising or promotion, whereas the website is not privately owned, nor is it intended to make any sort of commercial benefit, but simply to bring the work of the European Union research centre to the wide public.
Nevertheless, a link directly to their website may not be necessary. Will you accept the changes, should I leave that reference out? 85.65.243.51 (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for following up. You've already been notified by multiple editors about it. Your repeated linking to ERA-Net Neuron—a is spamming. The video itself is redundant to the material in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Did I misread, or has he been editing with other ips? Seems like he's finding messages on the one ip talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Anthony (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Ronz. Are you saying you have watched the video? Anthony (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I was in the process of noting on your talk page that I appreciate your friendliness and effort to work with all involved.
I'm saying you should ask rather than assume, and not give advice to others based upon such assumptions.
I made comments on the content of the video, so naturally, I viewed it prior to making such comments. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Aahh. In my memory I was merging your comment into the one that followed it on the Depression (mood) talk page.
The video is not about all mood disorders, so doesn't belong in Mood Disorder. I agree that the best fit is in the MDD article, where it is redundant. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC) <--I really have no opinion on the content, though my impression, having watched a few minutes,
Very blurry of me, I apologise. Anthony (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC) In fact your assessment of where it should go - if it were to go anywhere - has been spot on all along. Anthony (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I see where you're coming from regarding redundancy, and I'd like to have that argument, but on WP:ELN, but I really don't see what the COI issue might be. If you don't want to discuss that here, that's fine with me. I'm just explaining my comment about WP:COIN: the talk page wasn't the place for that, that's all. Anthony (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Glad we cleared that up.
There are no ongoing coi problems. 85.65.243.51 (talk·contribs) was adding the link against a coi, but he's done a great job of dealing with the situation. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Ronz. I welcome you to follow the copyright issues development here. 85.65.243.51 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Know Nothings
You have now made three reverts to this article, and should be aware of WP:3RR limiting the number of reverts that you may make. TFD (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I should have been more careful. At least I've gotten editors to discuss the matter. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Question - RomanHistorian
Dylan Flaherty reported me on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts because of the edits I made regarding his Insane Clown Posse posts. I thought I did everything correctly, having reverted my changes when I realized the issue. Would you mind going over there and just leaving your two cents?RomanHistorian (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
RomanHistorian, after Ronz reverted and hid your edits, you removed them from the article talk page. But you kept them on BLP, so I have more than sufficient basis for the Wikiquette report. If you revert the nastiness on both BLP and Wikiquette, and then leave me alone, I will drop my report. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'll respond at WQA. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Eames Lounge Chair addition on shock mounts
Hi Ronz,
I contributed text to the Eames Lounge Chair Wikipedia entry several days ago, that we were going to supplement with photos to illustrate the defects, and methods of repairing. The text was removed the next day. What types of citations would be appropriate to better lay a foundation for the edit? I thought photos would do that, but didn't know how to add them, and requested an associate add them later. Did you save the edited material? Unfortunately, I did not. If you did, and think the material might be appropriately supported, I would appreciate your forwarding the textual material to me.
By way of supporting my expertise, my company is the only I am aware of that repairs broken Eames Lounge plywood shells, and has been doing so for many years. Clients have shipped them to us from New Zealand to Belgium, and other parts of Europe and South America. We repair several Eames Lounge chairs with broken lower back shells, resulting from shock mount failure, every month. We always retain the original external veneer. Our website shows part of the process: http://www.oleklejbzon.com/pages/newfurniture/modern_eames.htm
Thanks for your consideration. This was my first Wikipedia posting, so I am a neophyte regarding Wikipedia guidelines and standards. I am however, capable of scholarly writing, being a Yale College grad, BA Economics, '79, and look forward to any guidance you can offer. Thanks for your indulgence.
Sincerely,
Peter Triestman 973-615-1257
Olek Lejbzon & Co. Olek Lejbzon (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for following up on this. Welcome to Wikipedia.
As a very important aside, you need to either change your username or user a new account per WP:CORPNAME. I'll leave you some general info about Wikipedia once you decide.
Wikipedia keeps a database of most edits. The information is still available in the article history here.
I removed the information with the edit summary, "rv unsourced, promotional, not how-to" meaning I reverted the edit, the material was not properly sourced, it was overly promotional, and was too much like a instruction manual.
If you're still reading after all those policies and guidelines (yes, they can be a bit overwhelming at times), let me try to answer your questions:
Most of the material is not suited for Wikipedia per WP:NOTHOWTO, but might be appropriate for related projects described there.
I don't see anything obvious from your contribution that WP:NOTHOWTO doesn't apply to, so I'll respond in general. WP:V is Wikipedia's verifiability policy which is summarized as, "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." "Reliable" is a reference to the Identifying reliable sources guideline. So, basically, you need to provide at least some sources, and some of those sources should be known for publishing reliable or authoritative material on the topic at hand. There can be a great deal of leeway depending on the topic.
The Eames Lounge Chair article needs a lot of work. It needs more and better references. It probably has too much detail in some places, and not enough in others. It's a good article for a new editor to work on, since it's not heavily read or edited. I hope you'll consider giving it another try.
Also, take a look at WP:COI as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Antique rugs
First off I would like to say that I am not spamming. I have spent days, months and years researching and I do happen to work for Nazmiyal but if the so many companies and other sites agree that we are the best source of information then why not place the link to the site? There are so few people in the world that truly know the history behind these great works of art and Wiki had no info at all until we started putting it in. We are the only people who take the time to research and learn so if you have an issue with my information then why not challenge the validity? I am not trying to sell anything - just teach! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Om2728 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Let's take this one concern at a time, starting with the most important: You're at risk of being blocked for sockpuppetry. Please respond here. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I did already - can you check and make sure I did it right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Om2728 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You responded, but didn't respond to the concerns. There are some guidelines on how to respond here that you may have missed. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Source criticism is not a BLP violation
Please stop removing source discussions on noticeboards as BLP violations. If you are really concerned take it to the BLP/N and get some consensus on this first. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No. Read BLP. Its very, very clear: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Take it the BLP/N Ronz. I get it you think its a BLP violation, but you have no support in that claim at the moment. Time to get the support or stop deleting comments of other people. That's how it works at Wikipedia. I am well aware of what the policy on BLP says, but that's not the issue, it is whether or the policy applies here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Editwarring
Without taking a position, I can promise you that edit warring on noticeboards over arugable but not clear-cut BLP violations is not best practices. I have left this exact message on the talk pages of both parties - I propose that you both cut it out and reach some kind of agreement as to what parts of the comment are objectionable and should be excised. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Good point. It could look I'm using the exemption to get him blocked. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm in the process of writing one as well. I'll add mine once it's further along. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"I'm in the process of writing one as well. I'll add mine once it's further along." I took this to mean you were going to post a separate BLP/N request for input regarding the same issue. That is why I said "please do no duplicate the requests". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Simple misunderstanding. I guess you hadn't noticed that I already incorporated it. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI - BLPN
Hi Ronz, just a note to let you know your editing has been mentioned in a thread here at the BLPN - I had a quick look but I thought it better if you commented as to the exact issue. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh excuse me I see you have been notified, feel free to delete this. Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
by editor of magazine forced to issue retraction / IP address tracked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PredilCO (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Where's your evidence? When you have some, place it on the article talk page. Meanwhile, don't remove tags that are justified on the article talk page until the dispute is resolved. --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I hope you're not offended if I assume you're not fluent in English? There's a way to find translators to help you out, but I don't know where. Use {{helpme}} on your talk page to get some help.
Someone is an editor of a magazine? Someone, possibly the same person, issued a retraction about something somewhere? The ip you're concerned about might be involved somehow? --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Jon Fisher page objectivity
Ronz (talk) Majority of article dedicated to “and controversy” incl 15 distinct user edits since 2008 user: Ronz post.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PredilCO (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. Can you explain more thoroughly? --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You have new messagesHello, Hipal. You have new messages at Diannaa's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:diannaa/tb}} template.
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
New biographies of living persons noticeboard design
I've create a new design for the biographies of living persons noticeboard that simplifies the reporting process and makes the instructions clearer. Could you take a look at User:Netalarm/Lab 3 and provide some feedback on how to improve it or take it live? Feel free to submit a report there. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks nice - very similar to other noticeboards. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thank you
Thank you, Ronz, you're a prince. [1].Malke 2010 (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Glad I could be of some help. --Ronz (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the tags back into the Donald Leifert wikiarticle. I had put many of them in myself earlier (see here). Since then, I have been trying to help that particular editor, but to no avail (see here). I have even suggested that he work with it in his own user namespace. Another editor has been trying to bring the article into line with wikiguidelines and wikipolicies, but couldn’t really get the other editor to work collegially (see here). The more experienced editor would like to revert it back to a stub, then build it up in those areas where the subject acutally has some notability, namely his SciFi acting. (I don’t imagine he is sufficiently notable as an educator.) Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 05:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm hoping he'll avoid more personal attacks, vandalism, and edit-warring. If not, he'll be blocked.
In the meantime, let's just keep working slowly. --Ronz (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
ANI
You're mentioned here.--Ludwigs2 18:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Good luck with that! --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thanks! I hope you choose to participate, so we can quickly get to the bottom of the matter. --Ludwigs2 19:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll respond to good faith comments made by editors making an effort to follow WP:CON and WP:TALK. There's one so far by Scott MacDonald, which I've responded to, and the administrative comment by Griswaldo. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's what it comes down to. I have gone through all the background of this issue, and it is clear to me that it's as bad a case of tendentious editing and IDIDNTHEARTHAT as I have ever seen. I'm reluctant to block somebody who contributes as much as you do, but I really need to see some sign that you recognize that the community does not accept your behavior here, and a commitment not to do anything like this again. Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time to respond, and I believe I have to respond immediately, so:
I'm giving myself a few days to change my mind, but I don't believe I'll be editing Wikipedia further.
If I return, I have a great deal I want to change in my approach to editing. I've got a lot of ideas for what to do, but I'll want to discuss them with others, flesh out the sketchy ideas, and come up with something that will avoid all the problems that are of concern, especially WP:TE and WP:DE. I'll likely adopt Jclemens' WP:CRYBLP, which I wasn't aware of.
In the meantime, at the BLPN discussion, I've deferred to the consensus that BruceGrubb's comments to FTN and RSN regarding Barrett shouldn't have been removed, and I've withdrawn from the discussion.
If there's anything else that needs immediate response, let me know and I'll try to get to it. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
My impression is that although some of the people involved in this have gotten very frustrated, few if any would see driving you permanently away from Wikipedia as a good outcome. I don't even know if there is a great deal you need to change in your approach to editing; the main thing that comes out here is that you need to never again be so obstinate in rejecting a clear consensus of other editors, even in matters that are important to you. In the meantime, in the expectation that you will follow through on the things you wrote above (with the exception of retiring, which is not desireable), I see no need to impose any sanction at this time. Looie496 (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! If I do return, I will most certainly will follow through with a mentor or a similar arrangement. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
My Wikipedia email hasn't been working
I don't know for how long, it's been going on, but I've only received one message in the past week. I've not received a single one of the tests to myself or copies of messages I've sent others. I've changed my email, and at least my tests and copies are coming through now. Nothing yet from anyone else. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I've received a few emails through the new email account and have responded to them. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I found content that violates the Wikipedia COI and self-promotion policies -- or is it?
Greetings Ronz --
I am contacting you because of our recent interactions regarding a warning against COI content.
I personally believe in the mission and integrity of Wikipedia, so I'm hoping to learn from the apparent contradictions I've been witnessing recently -- specifically how this understandable COI issue is enforced for me, but not for another similar user (or class of users). I hope to improve my contributions here, so am seeking understanding of the COI issue and it's enforcement. I'm grateful for any help or advice you can provide on this issue.
After your warning about COI issues in my contributions, I started re-reading the COI policies on wikipedia to improve the quality and integrity of my contributions. During this review, I checked my watchlist, and noticed various contributions I made were understandably removed by you due to possible COI conflicts. To understand this removal process better, I checked if others with experience in the customer experience management industry who had made contributions which violated the COI policy on Wikipedia had their COI contributions removed under the same process.
I quickly found an analogous user who violated the COI policy in many of his or her contributions. The user has been warned repeatedly about COI on their talk page, yet a large set of that users COI contributions still remain unchanged. Apparently the user, whose COI contributions were, imho, more extensive than mine, didn't have his or her COI contributions removed (like mine were). Could you help me understand why the many COI contributions from that user remain untouched, while the contributions I was told violated the COI policy were almost immediately removed?
Note that there's existing warnings against COI from Bazzer_palm on his or her user talk page, but his or her contributions have been removed. I find this confounding, since Buzzer_palm and I seem to contribute on similar pages, yet my contributions were removed after a COI warning while this user's COI contributions were not removed after a series of similar warnings. I guess what I'm trying to understand is why I had policies enforced against me, while another didn't have the same policies enforced against them for their COI contributions.
Thanks for your helping me better understand the COI policy and it's enforcement. I honestly want to contribute only the best and most reliable additions I can, which align with the mission and community of Wikipedia. Understanding how I can contribute tacit knowledge I have gleaned from my experience, while not violating the COI policy is very important to me, so that I can contribute the best I can here. Thanks for your helping me understand this apparent contradiction, and for your work maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia.
Hi Glen. Thanks for the comment. I'm sorry, but I won't be able to help you beyond directing you to WT:COI, where you can discuss the interpretion and application of WP:COI, and WP:COIN, where COI-related disputes are reported and discussed. I recommend WP:COIN. Looks like there may be cleanup to do with his editing, but if not they can answer your questions. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed the following are socks of one another:
