User talk:Hipal/Archive 1

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

Accessibility links

Hi Ronz. I'm new to wikipedia and following repeated deletion of my contributions, now unsure about what constitutes a valid link, and why my links and other info keep getting removed from the Accessibility page. The information I paste up is for the benefit of the disabled computer user. The organisation that I refer to is a non profit making organisation dedicated to helping the disabled to access ICT. A bit like the RNIB but aimed at a wider audience. They work closely with major players in the IT industry and the media to extend the help available to the disabled. Why does this constitute 'blatant self promotion'. I see references to companies making assistive technology, yet this is not deemed as advertising. I'm confused. (The above comment from Abilitynet08:40, 2 October 2006)

WP:EL WP:SPAM and WP:NOT set out the guidelines pretty clearly. My rule of thumb is how much the link contributes to the specific article. If you're trying to help disabled computer users, first note that an encyclopedia is not where a disabled computer user should be going to find organizations that help such people. Instead, you could contribute information to articles that such people would be interested in. --Ronz 15:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Maya link

Hello Ronz. I'm not clear why the Understanding Maya link was removed from Maya (software) external links section, but the Highend3d, Digital Tutors, Simply Maya, and Gnomon Workshop links remain. It seems to me they all there for readers who want more info on learning the software, and of course to increase traffic to the sites :)  JOTAPEH

I wouldn't doubt that more links could be removed --Ronz 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visocica article

Hi Ronz. Thanks for adding the May 8th date to the Visocica article. Have you got a link that we could use to reference the conference stuff?  JEREMY 13:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original press release included the date. Copies of the full release are on various discussion boards now that. Alun Salt's article, Bosnian Pyramids: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Atlantis, has the full press release and in the External Links section of the Bosnian pyramids article. --Ronz 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to have originated on a blocked website titled "Stop Osmanagich NOW!" (peticija dot white dot prohosting dot com/us.htm) which is not a good sign because we can't correctly cite it. I note that we don't seem to have included the Osmanagich team's response, which even "Stop Osmanagich NOW!" does, and that doesn't make us look very good. I'll investigate the spam block to see if it's legit before doing anything else, though.  JEREMY 17:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a response from Osmanagich's team, it's about as well documented as anything else. It could be confirmed through FENA or the researchers if necessary. The response is irrelevant to it being cited as an alternative interpretation. --Ronz 17:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the site unblocked, so we can reference it now.  JEREMY 11:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Octagon speaks

Ronz, what the *&^% are you talking about on my talk page? Doctor Octagon 11:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your spam on Interaction design, including a link to Herbert Elwood Gilliland III's page with his resume. --Ronz 16:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Octagon vandalism to your userpage

You're very welcome. Best, Gwernol 14:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Please refrain from personal attacks, as you did against me in Talk:Bones_for_Life. You claim to be an editor of several years, so I don't feel any further explanation is necessary. --Ronz 00:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project much? You've insulted everyone, including two new users. It's hard to believe you want to improve the article while you actively argue for it's deletion elsewhere. Either withdraw your AfD or stop making comments on the article improvement discussion. This is simple common sense. Best wishes. 58.178.194.85 00:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these people you call "everyone" and why can't they contact me directly? I'm sorry you have such trouble believing things. Not my problem, but you seem to want to make it so. I'm willing to discuss any and all accusations. I apologise when I feel it's warrented. Others appear unable to do likewise.

This is simple common sense.

How so? I think the article should be deleted, but I'm willing to help editors resolve the problems with it. Still, I think what I wrote from the beginning: the article should be deleted and a new one should be written using valid sources. --Ronz 00:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is you're not helping the editors (KineticScientist and DBOLTSON). You're repetively insulting them, calling them sockpuppets, spammers, and haranguing them with the threat of article deletion. On top of that you are misinforming them about wikipedia rules and making veiled threats about what will happen if they don't listen to you. They've tried to be friendly to you and you've insulted them more. I sincerely believe you haven't noticed your insults to them and it's a major oversight on your part. Best wishes. Anon. 58.178.194.85 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's futile to get you to stop attacking me, though I do appreciate this dialog at least. Sorry that you feel I'm not helping them. Perhaps you can do so instead, and do so without attacking me in the process. I apologized for suggesting that they might be sockpuppets. DBOLTSON's original article was spam. I feel that the replacement article he made fits the criteria for deletion. You appear to be personalizing much of this, and accuse me of the same. Where's a threat, veiled or otherwise, other than the deletion process itself? Meanwhile four editors have personally attacked me. You're the only one that has made any effort to discuss the matters at all (which I do appreciate). I wish that I could believe you're unaware of your own insults toward me. How about you not telling me that you think that is another major oversight on my part too? --Ronz 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for entering a dialogue with me also. Best wishes. Anon. 58.178.194.85 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alert

While I can see the obvious reason for your concern, and seeing a few dubious edits, I have also checked a number of the other edits you mention and find them to be quite legitimate. As such, I'm going to have to assume good faith with regards to the users contrib history so far. Good call though :) Crimsone 05:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Design Wiki Topics

Roz, we are interested as to why you deleted a link to NextD article in Design Research? Also, you have made changes to othe design documents and was wondering your interest in the subject (Design Methods 20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It's been a personal and professional interest of mine for some time now, though I'm coming to it from a human factors perspective. As for Design Research, I've already commented there. To elaborate, it's a stub that has no sources that needs more content. --Ronz 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I have reviewed a few more edits and it seems as if you delete outside links, especially to NextD Journal. Is there a specific reason why you delete these in particular (Design Methods 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes there are very specific reasons: See WP:SPAM, especially WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. --Ronz 15:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Visualisation

Ronz, you edited the article on KV by removing what you call "link spam" (...) Forget my complaints, I just read your justification in the articles discussion section and add my feedback there.

Thanks for the note. We'll continue at Knowledge_visualization. --Ronz 15:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian pyramids

I have made a second attempt at NPOVising the lead; what do you think? I am unfamiliar with the whole issue of this Foundation. Can you outline briefly who they are, what their POV is and what they have tried doing on Wikipedia? Thanks. Batmanand | Talk 09:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine; they just sound like the usual POV warriors. I clearly do not know as much about the issue as you do, so I will step back from this dispute. If you need help in the future, though, with people to help counter this Foundation, leave me a message on my Talk page and I will weigh in with some edits and my opinions if support is needed. Good luck! Batmanand | Talk 14:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about it. The articles all have serious problems from my perspective. I'm not sure if any of these proposals will help. --Ronz 02:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Pyramids EL

Hello, Ronz, I added a link into bosnian pyramids and you edited it and wrote that is spam. I think you are very wrong. The link is submitted just once and has real good content.

(Above was added by Neximuss on 28 Sept)

And the link was added to the top of the list, and you added it, as 89.146.132.199 to four other articles where it didn't apply. I suggest you read WP:EL. --Ronz 21:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barrett EL

Ronz, as per WP:EL links are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services... are not allowed in WP. In this particluar case the link was just a list of books with a mention at the top : Click *** to order the books at Amazon.com. As for the rest I simply re-arranged the order so that Barrett mains web site is on top since you has place your links above his and other prominent critics of his. NATTO 20:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz. That particular link did not provide any real information about Stephen Barrett other that listing some books and offering a way for readers to buy them..... NATTO 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has a brief bio of Barrett and is called "The Stephen Barrett Room". I thought it was notable, especially in light that the External links were at the time 7critical, one not. --Ronz 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding external links that meet WP:EL policy is fine as long as they add to the information already in article and are relevant. Simply because a page is named "The Stephen Barrett Room" does not mean that it does any of the above. It also clearly is used to sell products, i.e books. NATTO 22:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The horse is dead, Jim ;) --Ronz 23:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

online? if want to talk plz come to

yahoo messenger fraternity_disposal@yahoo.co.in (Above added by Umeshghosh on 18 October 2006)

Please address the questions here. Where online did you find the information? --Ronz 19:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection is hard to achieve :)

Hi Ronz! The first short version of FlossBrite was Non-notable and unencyclopedic, the improvement of the article that was requested become to detailed and look at your opinion like advertisement. I don't want to advertise. Please define the advertisement elements in the article to help remove them. Thanks.

By the way, I see you watch the dental floss article and have probably more experience. What you think SoLongBaby and Serenedipity2006 editing in dental floss are like sock puppet activity or not? Thanks. Feel 02:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start a discussion on FlossBrite on the talk page. As for SoLongBaby and Serenedipity2006, I'd first address on the dental floss talk page their concerns with the portions in question being spam and copyvio. --Ronz 03:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki187

Man you must be having rules to separate bad guys from good guys - that’s understandable because you didn’t want to wiki to get exploited by spammers......But don’t deify logics ....the links I have posted are totally relevant and you have deleted them .

I am pretty much open for discussion but their should be some positve response from your side hnnn. --Wiki187 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit by Wiki187 on 17:58, 20 November 2006 moved from my user page)

I don't appreciate the accusations nor the threats. You're repeatedly refused to discuss the issues, and now you make threats? I suggest you read wiki policy WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:SOCK, and WP:CIVIL before you are banned. --Ronz 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks at least for toning down your comments. --Ronz 20:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SoLongBaby

Check the edit summary of my removal. He/she hasn't vandalized for three hours since the entry was at WP:AIV. Apparently the user decided to vandalize after the entry had been removed. Fr ed il 23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are his socks? Fr ed il 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

In the interest of good faith and civility, I am asking you nicely to stop littering my talk page with warnings. They are unwarranted and I am equating them with a personal attack, which according to Wikipedia vandalism policies, I am free to remove. Aren't we trying to act civil here? Clearly, you see that I don't like those false warnings on my page. Why do you persist at trying to annoy me with this? Let's move on. Levine2112 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki policy is so clear on this that they even have a template for it. Sorry that you disagree with my actions. --Ronz 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of personal attacks on a talk page is a legitimate practice on Wikipedia. With that said, let's not dwell on this. Just stop the attacks, stick to the civil comments, and let's keep on truckin'. Levine2112 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki policy is crystal clear. Maybe you should try to change it. --Ronz 19:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then for more clarity, I suggest you read this policy from Wikipedia:Vandalism -

Talk page vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion.

I added bold for emphasis. I'm am not trying to change policy; just follow it. That's what I ever strive to do here. And I know you do to. Anyhow, can we move on now? Otherwise, I fear that we shall never acheive our intended purposes here. It will look as though we are getting ahead, but we shall actually be mired down in bickering... Much like poor Achilles trying to catch up to that tortoise, but never quite making up the distance. You know the paradox. Levine2112 19:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't personal attacks. There are warning templates. If you seriously think they are personal attacks, I suggest you seek some sort of third-party resolution. --Ronz 20:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that we wouldn't have to take it that far. I would hope that we can come to our own resolution. If we are civil, why shouldn't we? So can we move on or will we fall victim to Zeno's paradox... no motion forward, never reaching the end of a pointless race? Levine2112 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]