User talk:Hipal/Archive 7

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Formal dispute resolution request for AGK

Hi Anthony. In response to your comments ([1], [2], [3]), I've made three attempts at getting you to elaborate and explain yourself, [4] [5]

Copy of my email to AGK below, dated Wed, 23 May 2007:

"To be frank, no he doesn't; the only experiences I've had with Ronz is

claims of Bad Faith that wither on the vine when substantial evidence

to prove his claims are requested"

Asking yet again, please give me an example. I find your accusations against me extremely disturbing given that you've never commented on such things before, nor involved yourself in any way.

(Apologies if you get another email similar to this. I'm again having trouble emailing you.)

You've threatened me with taking your viewpoints to AFI, but never followed through.

I'm asking you to follow through now, in whatever manner you see appropriate. Minimally, explain yourself. Perhaps you were just frustrated and wrote things you shouldn't. Perhaps you think you notified me of such events earlier and I somehow missed them.

I find your comments entirely inappropriate for a case that you were mediating. Further, I find it ironic that you've not backed your claims, which is the same criticism you've made of me.

"you never do back them Ronz" Obviously, you made this claim out of rage, since you quickly change your mind:

"the only experiences I've had with Ronz is claims of Bad Faith that wither on the vine when substantial evidence to prove his claims are requested" Certainly, you've never made any such requests, so the rest is just doubletalk as far as I'm concerned. --Ronz 16:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No response? That's fine. I'll consider the whole incident the result of your rage and frustration. This is the end of it. --Ronz 17:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My silence is my security; please don't misinterpret my lack of comment to have an underlying motive - it really runs no deeper than ignoring you ~ Anthøny 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. It's still just doubletalk. You don't want to back your attacks on me. Fine. Then don't critisize others of doing the same. You've given fuel to a fire, and I'm one of the few that is willing to work to put it out. -- Ronz  20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I regret having to leave so much time between these replies - I've been busy off-Wiki. I heed your words, Ronz, but frankly I don't see any validity in them. "Put the fire out" - perhaps you should address your own issues regarding civility and ability to work with others, before criticizing others.
Please don't bother to contact me again, whilst your attitude is like this; I have no desire to communicate with you (in addition, I'll be away for 3 weeks on holiday).
Regards,
Anthøny 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should find something better to do with your time then, if you're so unwilling to follow WP:DR and WP:CIVIL. The fire got hot and nasty, and you've given an editor support to harass others. I'll continue to contact you whenever I want. I'm trying to solve problems here, find others to assist me, and support Wikipedia. You've gotten in my way of doing all those things, repeatedly, and assisted others doing far, far worse than you.
Perhaps you should take your own warnings to heart. Perhaps you should learn to WP:CHILLOUT. --Ronz 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Rereading all this, your comments, intentionally or not, are coming across more as harassment than anything resembling attempts at dispute resolution. You're actually hindering my attempts to deal better with others, and are guilty of the very criticisms you make of me. I think the best I can do is what I mentioned at the start, assume that "Perhaps you were just frustrated and wrote things you shouldn't." --Ronz 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind if I ask a couple of questions?

I have been doing a lot of reading these days and understanding things a little better about the policies here but there are so many to read and I can't seem to find a definite answer to this one question I have. I have been doing a lot of vandal reverts and spam if I see them. Now my question is does WP:3R apply to vandalism? I mean there are a couple of articles that have been targets big time and are being reverted and warnings have been put up and even blocks as accused socks. So if it a vandal using multiple IP's or anon accounts putting in the same nonsense that others too are reverting, does the 3R rule apply to the article?

Also, when does nonsense finally stop being discussed so that the articles can move forward again? Can an article be edited about other things that don't have anything to do with a dispute be added without commentary on the talk page? I am finding a lot of disputes going on where I go and actually it seems like there is no end in sight. Right now I am trying to stay out of disputes because it was becoming to stressing and to be honest, too confusing to me with what is being said. I am watching though and through this watching and reading too, I am learning to understand how to be a better Wikipedian I think. I just don't have any emotional ties to any of the articles I go to except of course the Crohn's article and I haven't really gone there yet do to the obvious feelings I have about this. I have been invited to come and help with the article as long as I can accept others changes if they disagree with me which I don't have a problem with. So I might spend some time this week since I have nothing real important next week.

Thanks for your advice again, I hope you don't mind. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 15:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some exceptions to the 3RR that are worth referring to when you're in doubt, especially for certain types of vandalism: Wp:3rr#Exceptions. In general, I try not to make more than 2 reverts a day, and I know that many experienced editors have a personal rule of only one per day. Instead, I encourage the editors involved to discuss the problems on the article talk page, commenting on their personal talk pages if necessary.
I also tend to give 3RR warnings fairly liberally - if someone has made a couple of reverts over a couple of days without contributing to the talk page, especially if the edit summaries aren't descriptive or civil, I'll give them a warning. I think it's better to use these warnings for edit warring than for three reverts in a day.
If editors will not discuss the problems, or if the discussions are uncivil and disruptive to resolving the dispute, it's a good idea to remind editors of WP:DR and WP:TALK, especially if there are new or inexperienced editors. If things still are out of hand, I start a discussion on the article talk page where I suggest page protection WP:PROT. If the page protection discussion goes poorly, then I propose page protection on WP:RFPP, using the discussion as evidence.
"Can an article be edited about other things that don't have anything to do with a dispute be added without commentary on the talk page?" Definitely. It's a good idea to do so if there's a need to demonstrate proper use of edit summaries, or to find other areas were the editors can work together and agree on changes.
"Right now I am trying to stay out of disputes because it was becoming to stressing and to be honest, too confusing to me with what is being said." That's a very good idea. There's lots of editing to do elsewhere, so why get stressed trying to work with editors that you won't enjoy working with?
Does this explain much? -- Ronz  16:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have copied your response to my talk page for easier access to look into what you have shown me. I'll let you know but you have been great showing me where to go to find information in policies. Thanks very much,----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 17:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to get back to you about this, yes you did help me with my questions, thank you. I am going to put the links on my user page so that I can refer back to them when needed. I have troubles remember things, which if you take notice of my contributions you will see I delete a post I made here about something and couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong. So I deleted and went to my sandbox to figure it all out in my head, what can I say 'major brain fart' couldn't remember how to do external links. Needless to say this kind of stuff, forgetting, is very frustrating but I am still trying to chug away, but now I am putting things up on my pages to help refresh forgotten things. I don't know how you put up with me but you are great and I really appreciate it. I'd give you one of those barnstars that I see, but I have yet to figure out how to make one. So all I can do is say thank you from the bottom of my heart! Thank you! ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

sixsigmafirst

Is there a way to stop that spammer from coming back? --SueHay 02:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You can make a WP:AIAV report. -- Ronz  02:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't work if they've stopped for now. It makes an awful lot of revert work, doesn't it? --SueHay 02:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Some admins will look at recent history even if they've stopped. There's probably no need though. I'm putting together a spam report, which will look at other editors's spamming of the same link. -- Ronz  02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Spam report: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#sixsigmafirst.com. There are almost definitely more editors involved, but I don't know if their contributions are spam or not. -- Ronz  02:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I didn't know how the spam patrol worked before now. It's interesting that sixsigma.com has just enough info related to some Wiki topics that some honest editors COULD cite it, though I wouldn't call it a good source. How do you find out which is spam? --SueHay 03:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a judgement call. When an editor adds nothing but a specific link 192.158.61.142 did, it's an easy call to make. One reason for making the reports is for others to help confirm who are the spammers. -- Ronz  03:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Ronz, for explaining. And thanks for keeping Wiki clean! :) --SueHay 03:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! You too! -- Ronz  03:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Illyrians

Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind. It’s just hard to resist to vandalisms. Helladios 05:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It's pretty likely they're sock puppets too. Very frustrating. -- Ronz  05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr. CAB Clemetson, MD

He (Fyslee) is constantly watches over pages on Wikipedia dealing with vitamin C and any form of unconventional medicine. In March 2007 an internal Wiki link was placed on Dr. Clemetson's page entitled List of articles related to quackery listing Dr. Clemeton as a quack; this page and related pages have since been removed. In addition to "Fyslee", "Shot info" seems to travel in the same circles as "Fyslee." The Biography of Dr. Clemetson is no different than the Biography of Albert Einstein and has been praised for the format and content by Dr. Clemetson's children. I just see this as continued harassment by "Fyslee" and his co-horts concerning vitamin C and Shaken Baby. Thank you for your intervention and assistance. The Stroll 20:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL, WP:AFG, WP:OWN. -- Ronz  20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


———————— I did not revert the Wiki tag! I looked at the page and noticed someone had removed the tag and added some internal links. I just added a few additional internal links, since I wrote the biography. What is wrong with the page? As you can see Fyslee keeps putting the tag back that I noticed when I checked the page today. The Stroll 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that last one was you. Not that it matters. Use the talk page before making a change that has been repeatedly reverted. Hopefully, Fyslee will do the same. -- Ronz  20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Pyramids!

Dear Ronz

How can I allow Wikipedia readers to be introduced to my new pyramids construction theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garzedin (talk • contribs) 07:24, 4 June 2007

WP:COI answers your question better than I could. -- Ronz  15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I put it on the discussion for someone else to get their feet wet. There are waves of issues about this. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Can i send a WP:3RR warning to User talk:217.24.240.72 for his reverts in Illyria, Albania and History of Albania or do you have to do so as you did to me? Sorry if the question sounds silly, I'm new here amd still learning... Helladios 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi. Can I send a WP:3RR warning to User talk:217.24.240.72 for his reverts in Illyria, Albania and History of Albania or do you have to do so as you did to me? Sorry if the question sounds silly, I'm new here amd still learning... Helladios 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can do it yourself if you think appropriate. Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace contains various warnings for editors to place on their talk page, with instructions on how and when to use them. Template:Uw-3rr is the warning. -- Ronz  14:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ergonomics

I have viewed the diff and the external links I removed were links to individual societies and companies and they are in violation of WP:EL as they promote a website. Thanks --The Sunshine Man 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They why leave some links to individual societies? Why didn't you remove them all? -- Ronz  17:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Spamstar of Glory

The Spamstar of Glory
To Ronz for diligence in the tireless battle against Linkspam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks! -- Ronz  00:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Technopark, Kerala article

The external link for the start-up, called "Torque", has been included in the TIBIC section so that readers can see for themselves the type of high-end, rapidly growing firms that Technopark incubates. I feel that it helps readers understand the contribution of Technopark to the digital economy. Furthermore, the link does not point to a forum, personal page or traffic-driven website which would gain from traffic originating on the Wiki page. I am not in any affiliated to the said organisation and hence have no interest in promoting them. It would be possible to move the weblink to the External Links section, but I would like it retained in the article to create contextual reference. Thanks. - Ajaypp 09:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you want to promote it. The solution is to provide a secondary source instead. -- Ronz  16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter's behavior

I'm unable to interact with you on Wikipedia. I've tried to be extremely civil with you in pointing out your repeated behavioral problems. Short of an RFC/U, can you suggest any other intervention? -- Ronz  16:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this from my user page to yours in order to keep the thread on one page. I also used your section heading. I have your page bookmarked, so I will try to keep an eye on your user talk page. But if you are going to discuss articles, then I will respond on the article talk page. I will leave a note here directing you to my reply on the article talk page. I dislike duplication, and I prefer that others on the article talk page also be able to participate. I am ignoring your BS about "repeated behavioral problems." --Timeshifter 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion over then. I gave it a try at least. I'll seek help from other parties. -- Ronz  18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
(Harassment removed) -- Ronz  18:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious Association

Hi Ronz, You seem to be late to the party. This topic has been discussed in the talk pages many times before going back quite some time. I have asked repeatedly for proof of what the beliefs of NACM's members were as claimed by those like fyslee who seem hell bent on it's inclusion. All I ever got back was blank stares. It was removed long ago and just recently put in, so the edit war is on the part of those who are submitting original research. The burden is on them to back up their statement.

IMO, the NACM is no kind of real organization at all. They hold no elections, collect no dues, conducts no seminars, hsno meetings and keeps their membership a secret. The big red flag is that three of the four links at the end are to that of Stephen Barrett, notorius for his extremist anti-chiropractic views. You may recall that there is controversy surrounding him as he failed his boards and thus lacked certification in his own field of psychiatry, yet acted as an 'expert' in courts and was paid for his testimony. It was only after he was put on the stand that he testified under oath that he failed his boards. I believe you were involved in that discussion.

So lacking anything concrete from those forcing it's inclusion, it remains OR and should be left out of the article.

Thanks Steth 03:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Place it in article talk rather than edit warring. -- Ronz  03:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you told the others to do the same? Steth 03:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So you know

I remove vandlism to your user page written by someone called the stroll. You can find it in the history. I hope I did right removing this. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 10:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it was a misplaced comment. -- Ronz  15:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr. CAB Clemetson, MD, CAB Clemetson, MD C. Alan B. Clemetson

Ilena on Barretts's talk page in January 2007 identified "Fyslee" as the web master for Barrett and the Quackbusters. He is constantly watches over pages on Wikipedia dealing with vitamin C and any form of unconvential medicine. In March 2007 an internal Wiki link was placed on Dr. Clemetson's page entitled List of articles related to quackery listing Dr. Clemeton as a quack; this page and related pages have since been removed. In addition to "Fyslee", "Shot info" seems to travel in the same circles as "Fyslee." The Biography of Dr. Clemetson is no different than the Biography of Albert Einstein and has been praised for the format and content by Dr. Clemetson's children. I just see this as continued harassmentby "Fyslee" and his co-horts concerning vitamin C and Shaken Baby. Thank you for your intervention and assistance. The Stroll 20:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And Ilena mis-identified me as being Barrett himself. She has less than zero credibility in my book.
I'll take a look at the article. -- Ronz  15:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the ip is you. -- Ronz  15:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please except the Barnstar

en:Image:Random_Acts_of_Kindness_Barnstar.png I think you deserve this for your random act of kindness to me. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! This will be hard to live up to, but I'll do my best. -- Ronz  20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No it won't, you gone way beyond and have been very kind to me and have taught me more than I could learn on my own. Keep up the excellent work. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry i will not do this again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.33.12 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 June 2007

Then please stop with the blog links as well. -- Ronz  15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Illyrians again

Thanks. Maybe my expressions were too free, but it's not easy to stay cool when "some Mickey Mouse followers are claiming that Mickey Mouse is a real person when it's obvious that it is just a cartoon" and 2/3 of talk page is only about it. I'll come out with sources from now on, even a highly controversial topic is in question. It wouldn't be easyZenanarh 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It's an extremely controversial topic, so best to get everyone to focus on sources. -- Ronz  22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Drum Major Institute Page

Ronz, Please advise as to how to improve this page. You've tagged it multiple times, and it has been revised each time. We are not sure how to proceed further without having you tag the page again. We are aware of the conflict of interest policy, and have tried our best to revise the page in the most objective manner possible, but feel the page needs to exist and, obviously, the best way to do that is have someone on staff create it. We feel the page is presenting the Institute's beliefs, but not promoting their stance. Thank you...

Drum Major Institute 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)The Drum Major Institute

Thanks for the comment. I understand your concerns. The best approach is to find appropriate sources for the article and suggest they be used on the articles' talk pages. -- Ronz  15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

edit war

Hi, you recently left a message on Dj Bungis talk page following a statement I had made about Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina (and the corresponding section in the Bosnia and Herzegovina article). I'm not sure if you were referring to me or to him. Which was it? Do you have any suggestion for how to proceed? CheersOsli73 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It was for DJ Bungi, so I've clarified that. He's been repeating the same edits, unsorced and highly pov, over and over without any participation in the talk. -- Ronz  18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cydonia

Hi Ronz. Thanks for sorting out Cydonia Mensae for me. I'd hit the three revert limit so thought I'd better stop in case the anon tried to Wiki-lawyer me. I think the anon is using (at least) two IP addresses (home, work?) - the changes introduced last night and this morning were the same, and (admittedly very weak) IP-tracing points to a London location. I suspect we won't have seen the last of him/her, so if you've the time you might like to pop back tomorrow too. I certainly will be! Cheers, --Plumbago 16:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon Cydonia Mensae while trying to figure out how to treat 193.203.82.194's edits to pyramid. Glad I could help. -- Ronz  17:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Article states that "after detailed analysis NASA stated that Face on Mars is natural formation".

The reason I have removed part of this sentence (about "detailed analysis" is because I believe that Wikipedia is (and should be) stating documented facts. NASA has never conducted any scientific research on the feature in Cydonia region. In fact, it has always dismissed even the slightest possibility of it being artificial. It stated without ANY analysis during press conference after the Face was discovered in 70's that it was an "optical illusion". It also added that "on the next photo taken just hours after the first one was taken, the facial resemblance of this feature dissapeared because of different light conditions". In fact, that second photo NEVER EXISTED and NASA simply lied. All I want to achieve here is that NASA has never done anything to prove/disprove the artificiality theory, apart from stating that "it looks natural" (the Face). On the other side, many scientists (including Carlotto) produced numerous scientific papers on this subject treating it in a scientific way.

2. The Badlands Guardian Geological Feature.

It is stated that it is a "similiar feature". Since when we know that the Face is natural / artificial ? Wiki is about facts, so I believe this comparison is not appropriate at all. Similarly, if I was to include sentence: "A similar feature on Earth is the Sphinx, which resembles a human head wearing a headress" - surely it would have caused anger. Because it is not similiar, nothing is similiar to the Face as we know nothing about its origin.

3. "Today, it (The Face)is generally understood to be an optical illusion.

Generally understood by whom? NASA, of course and millinons of other people. Equally it is generally understood that the Face is artificial - by many credible scientists and millions of other people as well. By adding "generally understood by mainstream science" I am simply stating the fact. Also by adding sentence about other scientists believing it is artificial - I simply make it more ballanced. Since when NASA is Earths "oracle" on Mars? Whatever NASA says goes (as I can clearly see in this article about the Face. ). This is bias behaviour and calling non-NASA-believers "pseudoscientists" shows it all very clearly, that article is one-sided.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.98.106 (talk • contribs)

Please read and follow WP:NPOV and WP:3RR. -- Ronz  14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding Smithsonian links to Wikipedia

Ronz, I'm a staff person at the Smithsonian and after reading an article about how the University of Washington was adding "external links" to Wikipedia that link back to authoritative library generated resources (see the article in DLIB: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may07/lally/05lally.html). I asked my volunteer to start adding appropriate links to wikipedia articles (for instance, the article on crinoids links to our Smithsonian publication on crinoids and the Jules Verne article to a collection of images from 19th Verne publications).

This seemed like an acceptable use (non-commercial, promoting authoritative scholarly resources, etc.) but perhaps we went astray somewhere?

We have stopped adding external links at this point, but any clarification on why we were perceived as spamming would be helpful.

Thanks for your assistance. You can contact me directly (kalfatovicm@si.edu) if you wish.

Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.111.254.11 (talk • contribs)

See WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL. It's probably best to advise your volunteers to only propose the links be added, but discussing them on the articles' talk pages. --Ronz 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Martin. I just noticed this and have a comment for you. Please get an account. You will be taken more seriously here and have more rights and abilities if you edit using a registered account. Otherwise good luck. -- Fyslee/talk 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter's 3RR Warning

I have not come close to 3RR. I would move your comment from my user talk page to here, and try to have a dialog, but you would probably just delete it again, and call your own comments (and my reply) to be harassment. --Timeshifter 21:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I made a mistake, which I will try to fix here. Originally: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] --Ronz 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

--Ronz 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I will have our discussion here. To keep it in one place. I will watchlist your user talk page for awhile. 3RR applies in a 24 hour period. Not over a week. See WP:3RR. --Timeshifter 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring" --Ronz 21:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for not contesting your reversions though. --Ronz 21:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they are your reversions back to a non-consensus version. We agreed to one URL per entry. That is the beauty of footnote links. No matter how many internal footnote links one uses, there remains only a SINGLE footnote URL per entry. --Timeshifter 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but no one agrees with you. Further, you're unable to describe why the links are there as they are, or otherwise address my questions about the links. Repeatedly insulting others while you repeat the same irrelevant arguments over and over is not addressing any of the concerns of any of the other editors either. --Ronz 21:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, you're trying to change the topic. You're in violation of 3RR. Please stop reverting the article to the non-consensus version that you prefer but are unable to support with civil and rational comments. --Ronz 21:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. --Timeshifter 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No. You'll have to respect wiki policy or be blocked. --Ronz 22:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Web conferencing

Hey, fast catch! I'm currently tracking and undoing that spammer live and you still managed to undo him before I did!  :-) Good job! Coren 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL - That's a heavily spammed article. Looks like the editor has been blocked because of the name/coi issue. --Ronz 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

steven_milloy

just for the record, mastcell and others have been straightforward in using multiple reverts to suppress discussion in the past. I don't mind engaging in discussion, but if I can't discuss, it's a kind of pointless exercise. I hope that there will be equal treatment for all concerned here. Peroxisome 01:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument would be much stronger if you had discussed the issues on the article talk page yourself, rather than participating in an edit war. When in doubt, stick to discussions of policies, guidelines, and sources. --Ronz 01:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unusual university spam discussion

Hi Ronz - I see here that you plan to raise the issue of links to university archives at something called "COIN." I'm not familiar with that, can you tell me what it is and where to find it? I'd like to be able to follow this discussion. Please respond to my talk page. Thanks! --Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Carl_Hewitt

Hi, I don't remember how this got on my watchlist but I think this is way past the policies of WP:BLP, WP:COI and even more. Would you mind taking a peek at this talk page? You know how to handle things like this better than I do and you have the ability to make a proper judgement. It just looks real bad and almost like bullying that Professor Hewitt is doing to stop others inputs. You can start at the header "Material that Allan McInnes removed from the article on Prof. Hewitt" Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what happens in response to this: WP:AE#User:Prof._Hewitt --Ronz 16:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I should have let you know that I decided to go to Arthur Rubin about this. With him being an administrator I thought he would be able to tend to it quickly. I hope you are well. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

481

You have to admit, that is an impressive number. And all that just over 5 words. Oh well, remember, you need consensus to say "no consensus" and if you don't then you have a consensus :-) Shot info 01:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RfM Stephen Barrett

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent editing at Cydonia Mensae

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cydonia Mensae. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. I recognize that this was several days ago, but this dispute still seems to be unresolved. Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than making any further reversions to the article. Thanks.--Chaser - T 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the inappropriate warnings. Thanks. --Ronz 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? I warned five editors as a result of a 3RR report you filed. Everyone is getting treated equally here.--Chaser - T 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop with the inappropriate warnings. Treating everyone equally when they've done nothing wrong is inappropriate. Stop. --Ronz 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I agree that the templatized warning wasn't the best way to resolve this when you've been making better efforts than the IP to contribute on the talk page. I apologize that I tried to handle this situation quickly and hurt the possibility of handling it well. I shouldn't have done that. That said, there are no guiltless parties here. I will give my attention to steering the IPs towards the talk page. Can you agree to not call their edits vandalism in the meantime and try to follow 1RR to prevent escalation?--Chaser - T 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I regret calling it vandalism. And my apologies for coming across pretty stongly with you. I think the problem is under control. Everyone other than the ip's has been discussing the issue in talk. Like you, I just noticed that there was edit-warring and tried to help out. --Ronz 21:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Accepted. Thanks. It appears to me that there were two disagreements. The one between you, DJ Barney, sbandrews and Plumbago on the talk page and the edit-war roughly between accounts and IP addresses.--Chaser - T 22:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Am I correct that the edit-warring between IPs and accounts is still live?--Chaser - T 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Between? I was thinking that they were working together. Last I checked there was no activity from any of them. --Ronz 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Business Analysts

Ronz - I went ahead and completed the speedy request on the 'list of business analysts'. I couldn't tell if you were serious about possibly populating the list in your comments to the creator. It looked like a simple vehicle for him to slap in a spam link to his resume, and I can't imagine how much fun it would be to maintain such a list. I'm happy to restore it if you were having a change of heart. Kuru talk 01:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that the list should be populated with internal links to articles about individual business analysts. Someone said the same on the editor's talk page. I did some quick searches for such articles, but didn't find any. --Ronz 18:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

In case you didn't notice.....

I am going to leave the Barrett talk page for at least awhile. I am so disappointed with the attacks going on and the almost outing of you and AVB and whoever. I asked a question that I thought was reasonable because he/she was supposed to be a neutral editor which obviously isn't the case with giving barnstars and attacking those who do not agree with the additions being pushed. I will work on other articles. I have actually been doing quite well for a slow ranger like I am. I hope to talk to you again soon or see you around. I just got my hubby out of the hospital today too so I am quite stressed out so I don't need to be attacked. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Sorry about that. I was waffling between warning you about Metta Bubble [11]. I'm hoping one or both of them will get banned.
Thanks for all the kind words. You take care and have a nice weekend! --Ronz 20:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Crohnie Gal, don't be fooled by appearances. Some of the most vicious haters of Barrett arrive in sheep's clothing. The edit history would have forewarned you, but one can't check out everyone in that manner. Next time just ask by email. -- Fyslee/talk 20:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Would one of you please refractor or delete, if allowed, my comments that I struck out? I don't want to be any part of any of this anymore. Oh and my talk page too or can I? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but after thinking about it, I am reversing my strike outs. I don't believe I did anything wrong. I made a decision to change my strike outs. If you feel I have said something wrong, please do not hesitate to let me know. I always run away from conflict, even in real life, so this time I want to stand up for what I feel was fair and just questions given the circumstances. I trust the both of you to be honest with me and tell me if I did do anything inappropriately. If you are more comfortable emailing, please don't hesitate. Thanks for everything, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's take a look at what you wrote:

Question for Metta Bubble, you say here [12] that you are here as an uninvolved editor with this being your second revert. Now, you gave Levine a barnstar. You obviously seem to have been invited here, were you? You made that survey for others to take with you allowing yourself to refractor. I am confused, are you a neutral editor who just happened across this article or what? I would also suggest you read the arhives from past conversation since this whole thing restarted which is archieves 9 & 10 so you understand all of what has been said here over all of this time. I left myself for awhile because it is exhausting already. Thanks your for your time.

First, I think this would have been better discussed on Metta Bubble's talk page. It's about Metta Bubble's behavior, so it could come across as being uncivil in article talk.
Yes, it does appear some meatpuppetry was involved (someone inviting Metta Bubble), but this is a serious accusation. You might not even been aware of this policy, but I'm not surprised that Metta Bubble totally lost it when it looked like you were making such an accusation.
Were you aware of WP:MEAT?
(Personally, I think it was wikistalking, but I let it slide because I was trying to resolve my dispute with Metta Bubble at the time.) --Ronz 15:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I know about puppets in the terms used here. You are right about what I said though I didn't even think of this when I wrote what I did. I did apologize to Metta Bubble on his talk page. Would you refactor what you see as me calling him a puppet? I am not home and only on my son's system for a moment before I have to get back to work. But I do understand totally what you are saying here. If you would prefer me to make the correction, do you mind telling me what exactly and do a delete it or refractor or strike it out? Is refractoring deleting or something else? Sorry for all the questions, long hard week going and this week isn't looking any better!:) Thank you very much, I appreciate your honesty with me very much, that's why I came to you. I hope you are well and hopefully someday in the future I'll be able to help you;) --CrohnieGalTalk 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC) (spell check is back at my house so sorry for any errors)
Minimally, I'd strikeout as follows:

You obviously seem to have been invited here, were you? You made that survey for others to take with you allowing yourself to refractor. I am confused, are you a neutral editor who just happened across this article or what?

--Ronz 03:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Would you supply me a link please? I have deleted and struck out a lot of what I said in haste so I am having trouble locating what your are telling me above to strike out. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, done, I appreciate your help and Fyslee help correcting my post so I understand and hopefully I don't make this mistake again. I don't think I will after all this though! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You've removed the first part. Currently it says, "You made that survey for others to take with you allowing yourself to refractor. I am confused, are you a neutral editor who just happened across this article?" --Ronz 02:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the meat puppet accusation was a serious blunder, but you probably weren't aware it was wrong at the time. Now you know to steer clear of such accusations, just as I hope Metta Bubble has learned to steer clear of making COI accusations, which are also very serious and have led to site banning of the one making such charges.
An entirely different matter is the start of your question:
  • "Question for Metta Bubble, you say here [13] that you are here as an uninvolved editor with this being your second revert. Now, you gave Levine a barnstar."
Your mention of the previous "involvement" statement was appropriate. You may have gotten the impression from the edit summary that Metta Bubble was an editor with no previous "involvement" regarding any attacks on Barrett. That would be a false impression. Metta Bubble is very experienced at attacking Barrett here at Wikipedia, and definitely not "uninvolved" in the many disputes. It is likely true that Metta Bubble had not previously been "involved" in precisely "this" dispute. It is only in this specific situation where "uninvolvement" could be claimed. An examination of their edit history tells a very different story. Don't ever believe that Buddhistic claims to belief in peace and other Buddhistic ideals prevents a Buddhist from acting quite the opposite and constantly failing to AGF towards Barrett, which would be the charitable thing to do. Apparently Buddhism isn't about charity or peace, as I have incorrectly believed. Now you know the situation. -- Fyslee/talk 07:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I don't usually look at history prior to responding to someone. I thought he/she came from one of the sites that Levine posted to looking for new editor's opinions and told Metta Bubble this on his/her talk page I believe. I also said that I was the one to first suggest adding the board certification and showed where and how I suggested it and that since then I have changed my mind about it being in the article. You can look at his/her page and mine and see our exchanges. I think everything is ok. Thanks again both of you, I learned a real big lesson this time! --CrohnieGalTalk 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian pyramids

I am trying to make an important contribution with respect to how the Egyptians constructed the pyramids. The commonly accepted theory that they used enormous mud ramps to reach each level in turn is preposterous. It would require a ramp a mile long to reach the top of the largest pyramid. I have covered this in detail in my not-for-profit personal web page http://spam.fsteiger.com/Pyramid.html. This NOT spam. Yet someone keeps removing my submittal. Wikipedia should be open to new ideas. Sadly, it is not. Frank Steiger

Frank, Wikipedia expressly forbids the use of "new ideas" that are often considered original research. Wikipedia "reports" (never originates) facts and opinions that have already been (IOW they are not "new") published in verifiable and reliable sources. Please read all three of those links as they have a special meaning here, which is not the same as their general use. -- Fyslee/talk 07:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's spam. --Ronz 16:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Metta Bubble's discussions of motives

"Your accusations about my motives are unfounded, petty and vile." [14] This is definitely not the way to address others' behavior. See WP:CHILLOUT. Please consider refactoring. Thanks. --Ronz 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this to my talk page to give you another chance to consider this. Given your recent posts to AFI, it's important that you don't come across as just escalating disagreements to improper forums. --Ronz 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're unable to assume good faith of others. You made the comment above to article talk page, so I have every right to ask you to respect WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:DR, and WP:DE. Sorry that you don't like this. Take some responsibility for your behavior. --Ronz 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Hello,

Can you explain what that means please? [1] --Ronz 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already been talking with the Admin:Kuru regarding the editing guidelines. It was a misunderstanding on my part and it won't happen again. I'm new to wikipedia and did not realize adding those links were not allowed. I believe they've been taken care of by now but I will check to see if they haven't been and remove them. My apologies again.

It's to help other editors quickly identify what address you were warned about using improperly. --Ronz 16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Father of the Son of Barrett

I see that the anti-Barrett's are resurrecting one of their favourite weapons, COI. It would seem that you will have to add it to the list of policies that they are failing to follow. Shot info 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm reminded of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I'm afraid it's time for an RfC/U if Jim wants to follow through as well. --Ronz 22:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree and will respond if you start one.--CrohnieGalTalk 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Thank you for your quick work to fix conflicts and spam as noted on this page. Bearian 02:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know if I fixed anything, but I hoped helped. --Ronz 02:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Per you request

For the sake of peace, I havr struck out text which you believe is uncivil. [15]. Per your request, I would very much like further explanation why you feel this text is uncivil. Bear in mind please, that it was made in direct response to your prior comment. Therefore, please note the language which you used and be mindful of that in your response here. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.
"this is no different from any previous source that we've discounted" (what I said)
"this is much different from the previous sources which you have discounted for some reason or antoher" (how you responded)
You changed it from my indicating that more than one person discounted the previous sources, to your indicating that it was only me and that you're unsure of the reasoning. I hope no further explanation is necessary. --Ronz 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant "you" and in "you all". And yes, I am unsure of all of your reasoning. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Page removal

hello there:

I was just wondering why you removed my pages?!

thanks.

best regards. Masoudsa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masoudsa (talk • contribs) 09:02, 29 June 2007

I didn't remove any pages. I removed your links to your personal websites per WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:COI. --Ronz 17:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipal/Archive_7"