User talk:Hipal/Archive 35

URBI article

Hi!

I just saw you made corrections to and commented on the URBI article (the framework, not the building company). However, I can't see them at all in the current article. Could you tell me what they were please? I'd like to not make the same mistakes again when editing. I'd also like to know if you were the one who reported the article for not meeting the general notability guideline. I tried to pay as much attention as possible to it so please let me know what I did wrong. I'd really like to improve the article by making it as objective as possible so feel free to let me know if it seems too partial, etc. You can send me advice and critics at roche@gostai.com. Thanks a lot!

Seg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.144.210.105 (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again!

I forgot to ask you if you knew how to get rid of the "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (September 2010)" mention at the beginning of the URBI article? If yes, could you tell me please? I really tried to make noteworthy changes that make the article more objective. Please contact me at: roche@gostai.com Thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.144.210.105 (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm looking into it. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of edits

Why are you undoing all of my edits? I'm sure some are debatable like everything but I put a lot of work into this and you are assuming "battle" where none exists. These deserve the respect of looking at each individual case not mass-removing all of them.201.116.29.243 (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't undo all of your edits. No mass-removal was done.

I left an edit summary for each of your edits that I did undo. All the problems were already brought up at the ANI report I started. "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so."

Please follow up at ANI. The feuding needs to stop. Hopefully, we can avoid a repeat of the past problems with feuding in those articles. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what ANI is, and I'm not feuding with anyone. I am an equal-opportunity editor and I think all of these pages have a ton of spam201.116.29.243 (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. It just looked like you did at first. Perhaps my language is intemperate, but I am sick of the same spam showing up over and over. I did try to add sourced material to some of the pages that didn't look self-written, but I agree that most of what I did was removing stuff. I will try to be clearer in the future, English is not my first language.201.116.29.243 (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Your subsequent edits have been much better. The topics you're editing have regular problems, so follow the suggestions at WP:DR if the situation worsens. I had hoped the ANI would bring more attention to the articles, but that doesn't appear to have happened. --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK so I removed the 'notable member of seduction community' again from a couple of the pages. i wanted to tell you so we don't go back in circles. if you disagree i won't fight you. i just think that if as you say notability is not clear (I agree!) that we should say on wikipedia that they are notable. there are a few seduction people who are genuinely notable, mystery, nick savoy, neil strauss, MAYBE owen cook or ross jeffries (i dont agree but there is an argument and i won't touch those for now) and those notable people have pages not in dispute. the rest I think should be removed from notable members of seduction community until wikipedia members agree that they are even notable enough for an article.201.116.29.243 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the problems we've had with these articles, I think we'll need to follow WP:NPOV more closely than this. Let's see how it goes. If there are problems, WP:NPOVN would be a good place to get others' perspectives on when to use the seduction community template. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there something going on?

Hi, please see my talk page, whichis because I went to their talk page and told them to cut it out. If need be, feel free to email me but it's gameday again (hopefully our team does better this time than the last time I said I was going to watch the football game.). Whatever you do, do not respond to this editor who is poking and being uncivil to you. You did the right thing by removing it from your talk page. Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the game started off really good, we got a touchdown immediately. As a matter of fact, the first half wasn't bad. The second half, esp. the last quarter, well, to put it bluntly we got are butts kicked. What a disappointing game that was, again. Oh well, there's always next year, hopefully with a new coach.  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Fitness Links for 20 Metre shuttle and Harvard Step Tests

Ron, why are you deleting these links that I have inserted. They are very relevant and provide procedures for performing the test and assessment. The links are not commercial in anyway and are a free service to internet uers. I notice there are links to "topendsports" which is a commercial interest. Clearly you have your priorities all wrong, or have not taken the time to follow the link.

Alex

Thanks for following up with me. Have you reviewed WP:EL and WP:SPAM as mentioned on your talk page? If you feel the links meet both, then please follow up on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

re:business directory page...

doesn't matter much to me "what" is on this page, but a real picky sort might note that if the page is "about" Business Directories, shouldn't perhaps there "be" some of same shown?

as you will note, I've tried to add the ones from my own bookmarks, and they've been labelled as SPAM (incorrectly I'd add) and removed.

which is fine...could I ask then that someone "higher" up in the wikipedia food chain figure out what "to" show here as examples of same....

seems pretty elementary to me, ie that the page should be about biz directories and then show some...but I'm not sure that all see this as appropriate...

can you let me know on this...this is one of my first attempts at "helping" wikipedia be "better" and if this is not the way to do same, then let me know...maybe I "see" this online boon to knowledge seekers differently from others...and I might as well learn this right at the outset than to waste my own and others time too!

???

Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by JVRudnick (talk • contribs) 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. Looks like you've been harassed a bit over your editing. Give me some time to look into all the details...

Someone should have let you know about WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. External links to examples fail WP:EL and WP:SPAM. If there are business directories with their own Wikipedia articles, then those could be mentioned. Alternatively, find a reliable source that could be used as a reference for the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Since you originally tagged it... Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 29#Marshal_Walker. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fascinating. --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Re your message: I wandered offline for awhile and I see things got stranger when I did. Everything looks settled now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for following up. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of a burrito

If you are interested in commenting, there is AfD for Timeline of a burrito article. My suggestion is to have individuals without frequent comments on the Talk page to form a proposal for the merger text (merge with burrito) with any valuable info from the timeline article. I think you might be good as one of those individuals. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 06:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Yes, I've been following the Afd. It seems to be going well, as does the merge work on Burrito. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Quertle edits

Hey Ronz, Saw you deleted some edits I made to add Quertle to relevant pages. Not sure why you did this. For example, on the PubMed site, I find Quertle to be as good as any of the other alternatives listed. Was it how I worded the entry? As a new editor, I'd appreciate your feedback. Researchadvocate (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)researchadvocate

Thanks for following up. Have you read the information on your talk page? It's the entry itself, not your wording that's the problem. WP:SPAM, and WP:EL are the most relevant policies/guidelines.

Yes, I noticed the problems at PubMed as well. I've cleaned it up. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the guideline links. So, adding the information without the link to the external site would be OK? Or is it better to create a Quertle page (there isn't one now), and then link to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchadvocate (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're trying to make sense the policies and guidelines. It's pretty overwhelming, but a worthwhile investment when first editing Wikipedia.

Without the link, other policies/guidelines apply that give more latitude. WP:V and WP:NPOV are the most important.

In general, you can't go too far wrong if you start with independent, reliable sources that verify the information you want to add. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you, but in the interest of making sure I learn to be a good editor, would you mind looking at my revised addition to the PubMed page. I want to do this right. Tnx. Researchadvocate (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)researchadvoate

No bother at all. If even a fraction of new editors would take the time that you have, Wikipedia would be much better.

Looks pretty good to me. --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Faith Popcorn Entry

--Chagedorn1 (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Hi Ronz: I am unsure why you reverted the Faith Popcorn wikipedia entry to the previous, and extremely negatively biased one. For example, the headlines re helping Philip Morris promote smoking have no basis in any of the sources provided by the previous editor -- Ms. Popcorn's participation in their media stragegy was not "verifiable." I left the original sources from the previous entry in case anyone would want to look at them. I did not want to take out anything negative, but merely to make the entry a more balanced picture of a 36 year career in marketing. From looking at the discussion, it seems as though other posters mentioned the negative bias but nothing was every changed or deleted, but you have deleted my entire post (which, since it was my first one, was hard to do :) I thought I had significantly improved the previous entry without removing anything critical, as well as providing additional information and links. Is there somewhere I can find my original entry if I want to correct it after you let me know what is wrong? Thank you, as I said this is my first entry and I am simply trying to figure out how to do this. Best, Curt Hagedorn

Thanks for following up with me.

If you'll look, you'll see I removed the Philip Morris information from the article.

The information you added is is all still available for access here.

Faith Popcorn is a poor article for new editors to work on. It is subject to WP:BLP which requires highest adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It's poorly written, poorly sourced, and tends to attract editors with very strong points of view on what to add to the article who are inexperienced with writing to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

Yes, I was reluctant to remove all the work you did to the article. There are a number of ways to work on it further. I highly recommend working with the copy that I made for you in your userspace: User:Chagedorn1/Faith_Popcorn, which has its own discussion page. I'll help you with it, and will help find others to assist as well.

There are many other ways we can approach this. WP:DR describes most of them. WP:THIRD would be a very fast way to get another viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Organizational ergonomics

I don't know anything about copyrights there. Right you are; somehow I missed seeing the reference. Less haste and more coffee will be my remedy... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you were correct, it wasn't sourced. When I went searching for a ref, I noticed it had been copied from IEA. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Analytic Hierarchy Processes - References

Wow, you work fast! I'm making some big changes to this article, hopefully involving an improvement in the reference list. Adding these books is a first step. (I added 'em, you removed 'em, and I've now added 'em back!) --Lou Sander (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Discussion on article talk. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I made my own post there. I recall you've made other administrative-type contributions to this article. Please let me know if you also have an interest in the subject matter of AHP -- I can easily show you the new, shorter, more-to-the-point example before I start putting it into the article. (It's hidden on a talk page right now.) --Lou Sander (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Socks

here is the page you want. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DPeterson I think. Sometimes he checks out with CU and sometimes he doesn't. It's usually advisable to ask for CU but sometimes a checkuser tries to close it if it doesn't checkout regardless of WP:DUCK. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This person appears to not like my additions. I have taken several workshops here by Dr. BW and they have been helpful. I was doing some research for my place of employment on complex trauma and found that page and noted that information on DDP was not there. As I commented, there is more evidence (one or two studies) to support DDP but none for Narrative Attachment Therapy, so if that one is listed DDP certainly should be mentioned, Yes? PranakanLegion (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we continue this on the article talk pages? Do we need to discuss the sockpuppetry concerns? --Ronz (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I did but have not had any response, let alone a reasonable one. PranakanLegion (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

He's responded now. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm on a UK not a US timescale.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not in the US either. Ronz, this fainites continues to respond with bad faith and makes personal accusations, see talk page for Complex post traumatic stress disorder where fainites says, "As stated I believe you to be a sock of a longterm sockpuppeteer and banned user who repeatedly attempts to add DDP to articles usually with inadequate or inappropriate sourcing. DDP has one old study using inadequate methodology, plus 4 year follow-up. It falls far below any wiki standard required to start including it as any kind of mainstream treatment on either this page or the Attachment-based therapy (children) page. Fainites barleyscribs 16:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)" This is bad faith. I don't understand why he acts as if he owns this page and is do vehement about DDP. My reading of the standards for inclusion in an article is that with all the citations I listed it is clearly adequate. My edit is sources and NPOV. This fainites appears to be manufacturing criteria that have nothing to do with written wiki policies. PranakanLegion (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki standards?

Can you intervene or get an appropriate person to intervene? Fainites, who seems to see you as an ally, continues to violate wiki policies about not personal attacks and seems to have a very violently biased POV (see his latest diatribe on his talk page about me). Thank you. PranakanLegion (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have filed a sockpuppet investigation request here. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPeterson. I have also advised Pranakan to go to WP:ANI if he has any complaints about me. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI User:PranakanLegion. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

list of installation software

The opinion from Reaper_Eternal is a bit vague IMO (especially in view of my later comment - not sure why it has not been signed). Specifically it does not state clear inclusion criteria (eg. what kind of third party reference establishes notability). So maybe we could summarize our views (so that others don't have to read lengthy discussion) on the discussion page and ask for other opinions? Grobelny (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Promotional message on Burglar Alarm

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for notifying me on the promotional text. I am making a revision so it can abide by the guidelines.

FPMBen (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A familiar problem in "Santa Claus" article

A few hours ago I was contacted by User:Hans Adler and informed that User:BobBubba0005 had edited a section called "Santa Tracking - Santa Websites - E-mail to/from Santa" in the Santa Claus article. Predictably enough, the section re-hashed a lot of material that used to be in the NORAD Tracks Santa article and some of it is word-for-word identical with content from NORAD Santa Wiki. The section also contains six links to the NORAD Tracks Santa article.

I edited it to remove fictional fancruft, blatant advertising and spam external and internal links. However, my edit was swiftly undone.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

NORAD Tracks Santa spamming, again? It's a Festivus miracle! ;^)

Let's follow WP:DR, knowing that we'll probably have to partial-protect the article if it continues. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ded Moroz needs further cleanup, and the other SPAs need to be warned. I'm not sure when I'll have the time. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure that I've got the strength to go through all of this again, certainly not on my own. I would say that I'd leave it until January, except that last time the real trouble was in January, February and March.

There's no longer any doubt in my mind that User:Tomsmith0002, User:BillJohnson0003, User:BobBubba0005 and User:ProSanta0001 are all the same person. BillJohnson0003 was blocked on Wikimedia Commons for being a suspected sock puppet of Tomsmith0002. Tomsmith0002 was accused of using multiple accounts for vote stacking on Wikimedia Commons and seems to be trying to do the same thing here. ProSanta0001 is already suggesting that there's an Anglo-German conspiracy of Santa haters and seems to want a link to the NORAD Santa Wiki, amongst other thigs.

Later today I will have another look at the "Ded Moroz" article and see what I can do about that. So far, my edits to that article have not been undone.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I should have some time to look into this later Sunday. A sockpuppetry report would probably be in order. --Ronz (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

BillJohnson0003 has been blocked indefinitely along with his five confirmed sockpuppets. I have edited the "Ded Moroz" page again to remove all references to that charcater being a reasl person. I noticed that a lot of the references were to blogs, I added the "refimprove" template but perhaps there is a more appropriate one.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Good job, and without all the drama this time. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just dropping in...

Hi there Ronz, I'm dropping by with a warm wish for a Happy, health Holiday! I hope you have a better year in 2011 than this year. Every year should be better than the previous year is what I mean. :) I hope you are well. Email me an update if you have time. Happy Holidays again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy Holidays to you as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party External links

Thanks for the tip. What should be linked 1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. The links I posted are as close as you can get to "official". --Kenatipo (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Close doesn't count here, and Freedomworks isn't close. Reverting again as you did is in violation of page sanctions. See you at AN3. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the topic, the links to collected coverage are probably useful, though I don't see the value of the Fox and CNN coverage. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - just my opinion, and to my knowledge I haven't ever edited Tea Party movement, you probably shouldn't have marked those links as "spam". It would have been far better to discuss them on the article talk page instead. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer not to embarrass editors so.

I'd appreciate it if you would stick closer to WP:TALK and WP:AGF [1], especially while ducking the real issues: the article is under 1rr sanctions, no editor can edit the page without being given a notice about these sanctions, and the editor made multiple reverts. --Ronz (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe you could appropriate {{badlink}}? Right now it's a little-used redirect to {{dead link}}. In the meantime, {{External links}} and a discussion is probably the way to go. Kelly ^hi! 01:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We think alike. I saw that one and thought it might have too many incorrect connotations. Now you got me rethinking it. I settled for {{External links-inline}}. I'll work on it later. --Ronz (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Been a while since I made a cleanup template - I think the last one was {{Non-free}}. Simpler and more memorable the better - I think you should go with {{badlink}}. Kelly ^hi! 07:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I got distracted looking at how to separate the template documentation from the template itself. Easy enough to move the template and add redirects as needed. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Could use your expertise...

Hi Ronz, there is a discussion at this talk page. Obviously it needs to be moved to a different location. I suggested WP:EL. Anyways, we are trying to finally get enough editors to discuss whether findagrave.com is allowed in articles, it's now being said that it's ok for it to go into external links. I think putting imbd.com also should be discussed at the same time since the same reasoning is being used. I don't know where these discussion were held to say that they can be used in EL which is the reason I have no other difs for you. We really could use someone with your expertise of spam and the (in)appropriateness of items in EL. If you know where the discussion should take place or know of others who can help with this please ask them to come and discuss. Thanks for your time and I hope you have time to help with this too. Happy holidays, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a good one that I've wondered about myself. I bet there are past discussions. Let me look. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I responded concerning findagrave. My general rule of thumb is that the better the article is, the better the external links need to be. If an external link doesn't provide relevant, additional material of similar quality as that sourced in the article, then the link doesn't belong. Unless I missed something, I don't see anyone suggesting findagrave provides such material in this case.

This applies to the others as well, including imbd as you point out. Skimming through them, it's not apparent what additional material they offer. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Water Purification Edits

I noticed you did something to the citation's I added to the citation request on the Fluoride is also a known carcinogen statement on the water purification Wikipedia article. I saw on the revision history of water purification page that you noted take this to Water fluoridation and the original statement and citations I added had been removed form the water purification article. I spent a lot of time putting that list together and would like to know what has happened to it. I did not see the information on the Water fluoridation article and also saw that that article is blocked from editing. I am assuming that you took the information out of the water purification article and want it to go to the water fluoridation article but since the article is blocked from editing then how is that possible. Are you planning on moving the information. Please let me know. Thank YouOrangeLisa (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I'll move it to Talk:Water fluoridation for discussion there. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the list to the water fluoridation talk page. I will now double check the list and continue to add the other sources to the list. OrangeLisa (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your input but my editing days here seem to be limited which is not unexpected with the fluoride cancer topic.OrangeLisa (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Your question about what topic to put the fluoride cancer list is one that I have been pondering and the fluoride poisoning article is a good choice but it will need to be written in a way that explains what fluoride poisoning is for people to understand this. Without going in to the details about what fluoride poisoning is from reading the current fluoride poisoning article I will give a simple description. Fluoride poison's at any level that it is ingested. Fluoride in high amounts like from a fluoride dental treatment can cause death within hours.http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30815FD3D5D12728DDDA90A94D9405B898BF1D3&scp=1&sq=%24750%2C000+Given+In+Child%27s+Death+In+Fluoride+Case&st=p In the child death situation the child swallowed the fluoride dental treatment and did not rinse it out and died that is lethal fluoride poisoning. Now fluoride given in lower doses as in water fluoridation also poisons it's subjects but the results of the poisoning take longer to be realized and the symptoms manifest themselves in various ways like kidney disease, bone cancer, cancer, ect.. Fluoride has the ability to bring quick death by poisoning or slow poisoning also known as chronic poisoning over time such as in water fluoridation. The chronic poisoning over time is caused because the body stores fluoride it can not get rid in the in the bones leading to bone cancer. Also years of the kidneys having to filter fluoride from the blood causes the kidneys to be worn out leading to kidney disease. The National Kidney Foundation and CDC say not to give fluoridated water to Kidney patients now but that information is not easily available. So it does not matter how fluoride is distributed it always results in poisoning be it fast poisoning or slow poisoning. The bone cancer and and other cancers that fluoride cause as noted in the list I made have fluoride being given from water mostly. One of the hurdles to get over is that the CDC only wants to do teeth with fluoride and they do not want to look at anything else so in order to protect the water fluoridation program. Water fluoridation for the CDC is simply waste disposal and the preventing cavities is a smoke screen to protect that. Fact is lots of information is available that shows fluorides harm but everyone is so miss informed and that combined with the CDC propaganda it is impossible. It will take education on the subject and Wikipedia is a good place possibly to do that if the articles about fluoridation are done right. And thanks for your input. OrangeLisa (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already pointed out, the next step is to find sources that meet WP:MEDRS, or to classify any you already have by MEDRS criteria. One editor is already helping out by applying WP:SECONDARY first to the discussions at Talk:Water fluoridation. I've added the article to my watch list so it will be easier for me to monitor and contribute to the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Affiliate marketing update deletion

Hi Ronz - I'm new to Wikipedia so I re-reviewed the guidelines after you removed an updated I posted to the article about Affiliate Marketing. But I'm still confused about the deletion. Could you provide me a little guidance? Here's the insertion that was deleted: By 2009, two companies were offering a different kind of affiliate marketing, monetizing a publisher's content, in addition to ad space. While advertisers traditionally rely on the on-line version of display advertising for their affiliate programs, affiliate links differ because the links are embedded in website content, rather than displayed as advertising. Most affiliate links use the cost-per-action model of on-line advertising.

It's very possible that more experienced Wikipedia editors will see glaring problems. I'll take suggestions!

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buildtodaywintomorrow (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. After looking at all the contributions you had previously made, and the notice already on your talk page, your subsequent edits look like more of the same: unsourced advertising to promote Viglink. If you disagree, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution covers the different options on how to proceed. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Question - Web content ‎

Curious why you deemed the opinion I shared on the "web content" page unworthy of inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMonroeHaynes (talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ronz ~ I believe the point made in Web Content is a more than valid one, different elements of the content vs. technology topic and the new role of MySpace, AOL and others has been covered by Mashable among others. I feel this adds substance to the conversation. Please let me know if you disagree with this assertion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMonroeHaynes (talk • contribs) 23:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I think it would be best to first address your conflict of interest in adding the material, as pointed out on your talk page. WP:COIN would be the best place to do so. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't paid much attention to all the pending changes work. Looks like I've got a lot of homework to do. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! Now you'll have to start using this and tell me what it means! I don't know that I "review" other's edits. What is meant by that? Tell me when you've figured it out. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You can see it at the article Sean Combs. Basically what it happens is if an editor edits an article and doesn't have the reviewers rights under a flagged article, their edits aren't seen by the public until someone either accepts or reverts the edit. It's actually quite simple and pretty much the same as we always do when we check an edit to an article we are watching. The only difference is with an article with pending changes on it, a reviewer has to accept or deny (revert) the edit before it goes live to the reading public. Have any other questions pop to my talk page and ask away or you can ask here just mark the edit summary to my attentions so I see it. Both of you have a nice holiday, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I've seen the pending status on edits in articles, but never looked at what it actually meant. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing Science and High Tech articles

Hello Ron,

I have been very well acquainted with the history of the Web and High Tech since 1993, and with many of the personalities (Jimmy Wales is a personal friend) as well as with the many institutions that have come and gone. I have found, unfortunately, Wiki to be almost painful to read in terms of actual distinterested scholarship around some of these individuals and events. In the case of living personalities or institutions, there is either too much self-aggrandizement, or bashing from victims or competition. Half the facts are either presented or left out, with the effect of leading the reader to whatever conclusion the writer wants. So, I am going to try to cast myself into the fray and help with what appears to be a mess, starting out with some of the more controversial figures. Some of the pages, however, appear to be blocked from editing or seem to be having a lot of tampering. First, how does one edit? Secondly, how do you block the malicious tampering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&HiTechReviewer (talk • contribs) 18:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Yes, those articles tend to be very messy. WP:PROTECT covers the details on the various article protection levels that limit editing to articles. The point of these protections, besides preventing vandalism, is to get editors discuss the problems and propose solutions on the article talk pages. Start new discussions, or join existing ones, and others will be happy to change the articles with any proposals that have gained consensus.

I recommend staying far from Naveen Jain until you get more familiar with editing Wikipedia. That article is quite a landmine. Best to start with an article not about a living individual, at least until you get some familiarity with the relevant policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ron for your comments. Actually, I have successfully edited quite a number of Wiki pages in the past on other unrelated individuals, but they were unsigned. I was told that it would be better if my edits were signed, so I started this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&HiTechReviewer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

List of installation software

Hi! I'am a manager of InstallSimple Solutions. We develops InstallSimple - software for creation installation packages. The past times you delete our record from a list of installation softwares.

Please do not remove our record, it's a not a link spam!

Regards, Vladislav Biryukov, manager InstallSimple Solutions info@installsimple.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladislavBiryukov (talk • contribs) 09:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. You shouldn't be adding the record at all, per WP:COI. There's a discussion on the article talk page, please join it. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Diabetic socks

The description of diabetic socks is only partially correct. Proper and effective diabetic socks should be made of synthetic fibers not all cotton and the difference between diabetic socks and standard socks is not simply a matter of labeling or marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisminion (talk • contribs) 12:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We need sources that meet WP:RS at least, WP:MEDRS preferably. There appears to be little or no regulation on such socks, which is most of the problem. Could you suggest some sources on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

More on Jain

I was going to start off with some of the former Microsoft boys and the history of early search, which I am very familiar with, and so can help put it into the right context with credible source material. Nathan Mhyrvold's page can be expanded to cover some of the controversies with IV; however, in looking at the discussion history of another former employee Naveen Jain, I see that someone else, I have no idea who, is working on this page making recent edits. However, I also see that you personally have reversed their edits, some of seem on the surface appropriate, others maybe not, but you (it lists you) reverted the copy to a far poorer state, which is not at all scholarly. I don't quite understand this. Accusations and personality quirks, etc., are not in keeping with biographical information, and I am not talking about it seeming like a resume, but it shouldn't be tabloid either. I have no personal or business connection here, but actively research and lecture on the history of high tech. So, what is going on here? THere is no edit button to contribute, and so, I am at a loss how to contribute to this page. Other pages don't appear to be so blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&HiTechReviewer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 December 2010

The article is under partial editing protection. See my reply to you above.

There's are very detailed discussions on the article talk page explaining the state of the article. Jain became rather well-known for his personality, hence it's mentioned in the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just now saw your comment above. Missed it before. However, just some thoughts, as I am a historian in this area and I do not have any business with these individuals. I do know something about academic scholarship and I have many published books under my real name. In fact, I am doing this all as part of an experiment for a talk I am giving next month at the World Economic Forum, Davos, on how we are rapidly transforming from an Age of Information into an Age of Misinformation and Disinformation based on this kind of shotty reporting. I have personally talked to Jimmy W. about this issue. Now, I am trying to actually play with it myself to see the results. Best to start off with controversial figures. That's where I will find out what's interesting.

back to bio issues (Jain):

1. Issues relating to his leaving a minor employment (in New Jersey) because of his not "adjusting to the climate" are not interesting nor worthy of mention. Trivial.

The Seattle Times reported that "InfoSpace's success was built on the hype of its charismatic founder."[1][10]  (this comment was put back in by you).. 

Was this something " success was built on the hype of his charismatic founder" that was settled in a matter of Court? If not, leave out. Not factually based, even if reported.

Best to avoid character slurs or self aggrandizing statements, such, Naveen Jain is "smarter than Bill Gates," as another paper reported. Best to stay away from character issues unless it is something that actually happened and was substantiated, such as "Chapman confessed to shooting John Lennon." BTW, many internet companies faltered at this time around the world (Jay Walker, of Priceline faired even worse). it was the dot com crash. In this article, Jain appears to be singled out, apart from the larger context of what happened generally at that time (DEN too! There you had a company falter for exceess), a large part of the internet was built on "hype," and many companies like Commtouch got pulled into the whirlpool, even though they were not based on hype. One must always provide the proper context. By leaving out half the context, or putting in a misleading context, you can lead the reader to an inaccurate interpretation of what is going on. This comment is an interpretative statement from a reporter, not a "factual" presentation of events and therefore should be deleted.

This is the same with the reporting of his wealth. He fell off the Forbes list a long time ago. He is no longer a billionaire, so the way it is stated, you still think he is in this billionaire class of wealth.

On the negative side, there is nothing about his controversies with Intelius, but perhaps that should be saved for the Intelius page.

Factual error: States that Jain settled the case for $105 million, but according to the documents, he settled for $65. Interestingly, I believe that the Securities Exchange Commission, which oversees these things, came to his defense, but this is not mentioned, which is why I believe that settlement was lower. Again, context is missing.

This whole thing still reads like a resume, perhaps because of its form and flow?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&HiTechReviewer (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Another comment on another area, the history of early search is inaccurate, because it is reported inaccurately, and referenced to a book that is highly inaccurate. However, the true facts of dates of search engines going on line can be verified via internet sources via caches on these dates. Magellan On-line Guide was the first to go on line, not the 5th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&HiTechReviewer (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the brief response. Let's take this to the article talk page so others can more easily participate, and so we're not simply repeating past discussions.

His personality was a big part of his successes and failures at InfoSpace. It's still one of the most-documented aspects of Jain regarding InfoSpace.

All the lawsuits are tough to untangle, but we've done our best to do so, and it's discussed at length on the article talk.

Yes, the New Jersey info is trivial, and the billionaire info could be presented better.

Yes, we've avoided mention of the problems at Intelius, because of the lack of good sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I am actually not a "new" editor, but I appreciate your concern. My testing of this whole process is in preparation for an important talk on crowd-sourcing/quality of information using my own experience of editing as an example. I am well versed in the history of high tech and a very well known entity, but not personally involved with these people. My concern here and now, however, is the inability of a wiki editor to correct factual errors, inferences, misinformation, and poorly sourced articles. My other concern is this biographical page appears to have a lot of "history" behind it for whatever reason, and it is therefore not being moderated properly. I would like to see the proper sourced changes made, as referenced earlier, and that this page can be properly edited and reviewed, where the changes are not arbitarily and unilaterily monitored and ignored/dismissed.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're not interested in learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines quickly, then you're going to have little or no success working on any controversial articles. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar enough, and also familiar enough to see an editor who is unfairly tampering and managing wiki. A formal complaint has now lodged to have you removed from editing Wiki further, given your inappropriate handling of this biography and trying to use the wiki rules to smoke your own prejudices. 96.247.28.120 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC) This is the sort of nonsense that I will be speaking about, and why credibility has been lost on this site. 96.247.28.120 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. You might want to review WP:BATTLE and WP:RGW before you do. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your experiment

It appears you're simply looking for confirmation of the assumptions of your "experiment" here by blaming the problems you see in Wikipedia on editors rather than attempting to understand how those problems are actually addressed.

Take a look at WP:BLP. It requires strict adherence to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V - all policies that I've brought up in our discussions. It also requires being firm about the use of high quality sources - as I've been doing with you and every other editor.

On top of the article falling under BLP, it's been disruptively edited by so many new accounts that it has been protected until January 2012. This puts you in the frustrating situation of not being able to edit the article directly, and having to learn Wikipedia policies/guidelines well enough to be able to convince other editors to make changes for you.

I don't think anyone can see how Wikipedia works if they don't take some time to learn the basic policies and guidelines enough to know which are the most flexible and when to rely upon their flexibility. --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't go in looking for "confirmations," just wanted to see how the process actually works. I am well familiar with sandbox, etc. The issue was edits that were allowed in, and other edits that were not allowed in, and the what appeared to be a double-standard for what information got through the filter. Where the strenuous objections were, and so forth. This is exactly why I picked a "controversial" figure, as I said, that's where someone like myself is liable to find things that are the most interesting... The deletions and additions that I attempted to make were not subjective, factual, and independently verifiable. If you go to the "talk" page, you will see that I took some time to find actual verifiable sources (not self-proclaimed web sites, not mirror sites, not SEO sites, which there appear to be a lot of, and not speaker bios, but contemporary source references). Affiliations on Boards such as Singularity University or the X PRIZE Foundation are standard inclusions on Wiki. They can be properly referenced and sources. They might not belong in a philanthrophic section as I pointed out, but they are appropriate. The same is true with his winning the "technology pioneer" awards... (also which I referenced). Yet, to dismiss these, but to continue to allow the climate issue (which takes up 1/3 of the description of his personal background) is strange. To keep inferences from reporters, which are not verified, and out of context, is definitely not appropriate. I don't need to make the changes personally, but I would like to see when suggestions are properly made and referenced, that the changes do take place, and are not undone, dismissed, etc. That is what undermines the process. You may feel that you are being picked on, but it isn't that at all. I am sure you are tired of it, and I can understand why. As I said, when I was searching today for credible references, it appears that a lot of information on the web comes from SEO sites, so there is a lot of junk in the system. I am not ignorant. I try to be fair, and have a reputation as a published scholar, but let us all be fair and not apply a double standard in the filter. This is the consideration I would like to see. Let's get this done, so that we both can move on to other things. Thanks.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring my concerns. I do appreciate that you're backing off from the accusations though. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not ignored your concerns, and in fact, I went to great trouble to address them by finding the right source material. This is only about edits being made. They have now been submitted. Let's see you work your magic and take care of it, so that this page can start on its way to being sorted out. Anything else is just a distraction. Please do not ignore my concerns. Thanks. I am not interested, and you perhaps either, in continuing and back and forth about this. In the end, it is about seeing that proper corrections are allowed to be made, and that it is possible to correct misinformation and disinformation. Let's stick to that process. Let me know when you have completed making the suggested edits previously described. Thanks for your consideration in this regard. This is too much arguing over trivial facts and affiliations. The edits need to be done, lets get on with it, as I can't personally make them, and you seem to be in control. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I may have time to make small, uncontentious edits if very specific proposals are made. No such proposals have been made so far.

I may have time to investigate proposals for contentious edits, especially if supported by high-quality sources. No such proposals have been made so far.

I think we'd both like another editor to come along who has more time to devote to cleaning up the article. Until some such editor does come along, I'll be spending most of my time elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Specific proposals were made on the talk page. Please check out. I am emphathetic with your time. I hope you are emphathetic with mine. You certainly can spend a lot of time responding here or deleting material. In this case, please recommend another editor to make the necessary recommended changes or let's do them, so I can go on to other articles. Otherwise, the process has failed, and it will be necessary to bump this up again, and I don't want to waste any further time on this matter (neither yours nor mine). Seriously.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the type of specific proposal I'm referring to. There is nothing like it currently under discussion.

When it comes to controversial BLPs, I think it best to have lots of discussion and very little editing to the article itself.

I know of no way to find an editor to jump in to quickly address all your concerns with the article. I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone try, at least not quickly. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Search engine

I am trying to correct a serious factual error in the history of search article. The quoted source is inaccurate, and the real information, as it contains the actual date went it went on line is from the public record (McKinley owned Magellan, which was later bought by Excite):

[DOC] EXCITE INC (Form: 10-K, Received: 03/31/1998 16:57:44) File Format: Microsoft Word The inception date is June 9, 1994 for Excite and December 7, 1993 for McKinley. .... Inc. ("McKinley"), the creator of the Magellan On-Line Guide. ...

(1) The year ended December 31, 1994 includes the results of operations from Inception to December 31, 1994. The inception date is June 9, 1994 for Excite and December 7, 1993 for McKinley. The operating results for McKinley from December 7, 1993 through December 31, 1993 were immaterial.

How does one source this info on Wiki? This shows that the Magellan On-Line guide was substantially earlier on line than the other ones listed. As the history of this area is important, it needs to be properly documented. This is a public document from the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). It states that the Magellan search engine went on line on December 7, 1993 and Excite went on line in June 9, 1994. It refers to both, as Excite purchased Magellan.

Would like to know how to reference this fact properly. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what article you're referring to. That said, the normal approach is to discuss the matter on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Article on Search engines. There is a section on the history of search and it is grossly inaccurate, and the sources are incorrect. What I referenced above is a public document put out by the SEC, and which was unknown to the authors of the referenced source material, which is why it is inaccurate. The point here is to correct an historical mistake.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Search engine. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice of AN regarding editing of Naveen Jain

Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The complaint was immediately removed. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sent you an Email

I sent you an email, via the wiki emailing service. Can you confirm if you received it or if you need it in another manner as I think it is of immediate interest to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mists out of Time (talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Got it, and I think that's enough evidence for a sockpuppet investigation. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a very hard time believing they're socks. Probably just know each other. Meatpuppetry cases are a waste of time in my experience. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

you are probably correct, but it seems that you have misunderstood my Email, I did not make a puppetry allegation. Mists out of Time (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I've refactored my ANI comment about it. Let me know if I should do more. --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)