User talk:Hipal: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:55, 28 January 2010

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Welcome to the Wikipedia user discussion page for Ronz.
To leave a message on this page, click here.

*In order to make conversations go smoothly, please follow WP:TALK and WP:AGF when contributing to my talk page. Comments that don't may be immediately deleted.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( -- ~~~~ )
Thanks for taking the time to read this.

reliable sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External Links - Analytic Hierarchy Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kneeling chair page

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

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

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

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

Free or Open Source Information Extraction Software

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

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

RE: Comparison of wiki farms

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

Greek shops

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

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

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

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

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

Menachem Mendel Schneerson

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Gene Savoy article

Dear Ronz,

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

Thanks for discussing this with me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question on removed external links in Latent semantic analysis

Hi Ronz,

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

Thanks for the comment.

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

Thank you for the reply.

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

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

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

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

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

Third molar

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

With regards,

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

Thanks for discussing this with me.

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

Hypnosis

Hello Ronz,

Thank you for your message.

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

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

Thank you for your time,

Best Regards,

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

Thanks for the message, Adrian.

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

Outsourcing

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

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

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

Trying to understand

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

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

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

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

Regards,

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

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Jeff V. Merkey

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jeff V. Merkey. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff V. Merkey. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Links: GangaTalao

Hi Ronz...

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

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

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

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

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

Request toreadmit DataRush link

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

Thanks,

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

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

CUP Controversy

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Pain management

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Pain management. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pain management. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samples

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry you were confused by the new, unrelated discussion.

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

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

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

Proper venue

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

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

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

Hi Ronz

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

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

Please advise

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

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

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

stadium-arcadium.com

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

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

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

Allergy undoing

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

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

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

reverting

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

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

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

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

JTAG Reference

Hi Ronz

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

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

Regards

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

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

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

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

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

Amazing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback

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

Astronominov 16:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino cuisine

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

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

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

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

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

EL Deletions for "Angel investor"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

spam help @ texas ratios

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

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

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

Why nuscho.com link should be included

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

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

Information extraction

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

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

About the Khloe Kardashian article

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

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

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

Can you explain your editing?

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

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

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

Judge Maria Lopez article

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

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

Talkback

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

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

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

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

Gamemaniac

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

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

General Architecture for Text Engineering

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

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

Sandra Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Chicken riggies

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chicken riggies. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken riggies. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The health benefits of walnuts

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

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

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

What gives with Tom Bergeron's page??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion declined: National Youth Rights Day

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

BMC Software

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

Beer in Mexico

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

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

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

Wikilinking, overlinking, and utility

Hi Ronz. Seasons' greetings! WP:LINKING voices a guideline about excessive Wikilinks.[3] As a webmaster for large knowledgebases, I gravitate toward more pragmatic concerns.[4] Which is to say that in this edit[5], the links aren't according to MOS, but maybe more to the point, wouldn't be used. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Don;t worry

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

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

Badagnani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's pragmatism more than optimism.

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

Just popping by

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

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

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

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

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

Notability for Solidworks

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Matt Chamberlain

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

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

Thank you for your message, Ronz.

Thank you for your message, Ronz, which was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you again -

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

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

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

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

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

Spam

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reversion against information on your edits

I noticed now that you had said

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

and saw the reversion.

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

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

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

Avoidance and 1RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marc Sinden puffery

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

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

strangeapparatus.com

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

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

Spam links

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

FYI

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

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

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

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

Entschuldigung

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

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

Moving to ArbCom, unfortunately

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Badagnani and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

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

Removal of cchr.org.uk links

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

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

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

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

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

Mya_Thwin

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

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

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

Memory Foam

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

Thanks for the message. As I pointed out in my edit summary [6], www.viscoelasticmatresstopper.net is not a reliable source. It's not even a valid link. You meant to add www.viscoelasticmattresstopper.net , which has been repeatedly added to the article by others, even though it's not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Why remove dot.cloud book citation at cloud computing page

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

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

Blatant vandal?

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

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

Trolling

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

Thank you Ronz

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

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

Thank you very much :)

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

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

Learning wiki

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

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

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

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

--- Dear Ronz,

Thank you for your reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lady Annabel Goldsmith

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

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

House of Carrillo

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

Yes, those are problematic without the full citation.

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

.

Hello Hipal.

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

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

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

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

Adenosine deaminase deficiency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@ Line 865: / Line 865: @@
 ::::That's a position you can take, but you're going up against [[WP:NOTLINK]]. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz#top|talk]]) 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 :::::See [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Addition_of_links_to_National_Institutes_of_Health_GeneReviews|AN/I discussion]]. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
-== please stop vandalizing my work ==
-I already explained to you that the information I added is already listed in the category section. --[[User:Torckey|Torckey]] ([[User talk:Torckey|talk]]) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)