User talk:Hipal: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:39, 8 June 2009 editCrohnie (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers12,673 edits →You're being talked about: Don't know how the box showed up,didn't show in preview, hmm← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:08, 8 June 2009 edit undoJéské Couriano (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers40,115 edits →Arbitration: new sectionNext edit →
Line 1,207:		Line 1,207:

	::::No problem, I understand busy. Just remember this is just another day at Misplaced Pages, and this too shall pass. Drop by if you get some free time. I haven't seen you around lately. Take care, --]] 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)		::::No problem, I understand busy. Just remember this is just another day at Misplaced Pages, and this too shall pass. Drop by if you get some free time. I haven't seen you around lately. Take care, --]] 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

			== Arbitration ==

			You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] 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,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->

Revision as of 20:08, 8 June 2009

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

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages 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.

Hipal is busy and is going to be on Misplaced Pages in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Your report at AN3

Hey. :) Could you please mark clearly in your report what content you did add with this edit to your report so that the reviewing admin can see that this information was not available to me when I commented on that report. Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Sorry about that. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for clarifying. — Aitias // discussion 01:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bates method dispute

Ronz, I am puzzled by your response to my last post on the Bates method talk page. Those remarks were intended to be, on balance, conciliatory. Please explain. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm sorry you're so puzzled. I think, "Comment on content, not on contributors" is pretty clear. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I'm really starting to feel optimistic about this again. It would be very helpful now if you would do at least one of the two things recently suggested at User_talk:SamuelTheGhost#Talk:Bates_method_4. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

comparison of email programs

What do you want to have "cleanuped" and with refs? every particular supported feature? I will try to add, but i don't know what do you want! mabdul 0=* 19:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to Comparison of e-mail clients I noticed that there is linkspam in the "Creator" column. Go ahead and remove them if you like, otherwise I'll get around to it myself later. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, I will remove the external links (i think that this is the bad you noticed). you also added the clenaup-template in the comparison of layout engines (standard) articles. what is wrong there? mabdul 0=* 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of layout engines (Non-standard HTML)? There are external links within the article body that are probably unformatted references. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I corrected following comparisons now:

is this correct as it should be? mabdul 0=* 22:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The non-standard reference format had me concerned, but at a second glance it's probably a good compromise. --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Big misunderstanding on both our parts. I was confused by the non-standard references, their poor formatting, and incomplete citation information, while you were confused by what I was referring to when discussing them. I think I've fixed it. --Ronz (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah OK, now I will made this correct in future times. You were confusing me really. I know that some article need to get a whole cleanup (the e-mail will get; the browser sync will hopefully also)mabdul 0=* 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey just popping in

Hi Ronz, just thought I would pop in and say hello and wish you a Happy & Healthy 2009! Our editing hasn't crossed paths lately but I still like to keep in contact ocassionally. :) I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You too! --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi (2)

Hi there Ronz and thanks for your kind message, I appreciated it.

Please can you explain the criterion for inclusion/exclusion on this specific article, or point me to the specific page amongst the ones you sent I should be looking at?

It seemed to me that the article is about a list of mind mapping software, not just about notable ones?

Thanks

Yours, faweekee

P.S. Happy New Year

Faweekee (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You've found the article talk page already, that's the main page for discussion on this. WP:WTAF is the essay I meant to link to in my edit summary. WP:LIST is the specific guideline for lists. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Chatterbots page

I've added a link to chatbots.org that you've removed, I found this site more complete (multilangual, international, sorted, described and commented by developers), therefor I still feel this should be part of the page! Boristoet (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've added it. Let's see what happens. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit for "Naveen Jain" wiki page

Ronz, Why do you keep deleting the references to hiring of Arun Sarin that naveen hired to replace himself. Arun Sarin as the CEO of Infospace acquired Go2Net that led to the crash of infospace stock price and related lawsuits. All the lawsuit for the period from early 2000 to 2001 which was the time period when Arun Sarin was its CEO. Please email me at wikiexpertedit@gmail.com if you have any suggestion on how to incorporate this information on this page. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See the article talk page, where I've discussed the matter in detail, hoping you just might notice after your repeated requests to have a discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Theory of Constraints

Ronz,

I corrected your posting of the Five Focusing Steps of TOC. I must be frank, it appears as you just made those up. Those steps are dramatically dissimilar to those defined by TOC-ICO and by Eli in The Goal.

It would be nice if you removed your incorrected steps. These are the basic steps of TOC and should be respected.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arogowannabe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't have any idea what you're referring to. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Doh

Only just spotted this User talk:Shot info/RfA Review Recommend Phase. Sorry that I haven't seemed to have replied, so I'll just say thanks and sorry for the delay! Shot info (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

NP. Happy new year! --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and quick question.

Thanks Ronz, I'm new here. Would this be a good source: http://mindmappingsoftwareblog.com/software-vs-hand-drawn-maps/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.5.121.161 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Blogs usually aren't reliable sources. Who's Chuck Frey? --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Understanding conflict of interest - Peanut Allergy article

Hi Ronz,

I received your message today, thanks. As a new contributor, it cleared me up on some things, namely, why my suggested link (to my own page) would be denied.

No problem.

However, I do have a concern. The link to my page that was there on Misplaced Pages's "Peanut Allergy" article for a couple of weeks seems to have been deleted within the last 48 hours, which is the same time I received a flare from a reviewer who happens to be the author of one of the other links on the same page. Is it possible he is in conflict of interest? Was he involved in the removal of my suggested link?

I have, by the way, written a polite e-mail back to that person, substantiating the claims found on my site (and in the book it refers to) that he has disputed without having checked the footnotes.

Sorry to trouble you with this, but grateful for your help.

Billy Adam
billyadamg@gmail.comWikiabilly (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Interesting situation. Let me take a look at what happened... --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link, along with many others in that article. No one else was involved. It's an article that I watch but haven't looked at closely in a long time. The article tends to attract bad links, but I hadn't looked through them in a long time. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

follow-up on the Peanut Allergy page

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for checking the situation. What you say makes sense.

As a person with peanut allergy and author of one of the few adult trade books about it on the market, is there an ethically appropriate way to contribute to this page? For example, if I added a reference not only to my book but also to the other main books (The Complete Peanut Allergy Handbook and The Peanut Allergy Answer Book)? Or, if a third party added these?

At present, the page's three external links don't seem to represent the major organizations or peer-reviewed authors in the field. If you have a chance to look, I believe to have included a complete, impartial list on my site at www.paplus.net/bibliography.htm and www.paplus.net/links.htm.

I'm grateful for your consideration. All the best,

Billy AdamWikiabilly (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Given your expertise on the topic, I think you could be a very valuable editor. Be sure to read through WP:COI carefully. The article is fairly well referenced and written at this point. Someone with your background could probably help identify and resolve anything that is unbalanced or could use expansion. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

my contributino to the peanut allergy situation

Avoid foods that often contain peanuts Peanuts are common, and avoiding foods that contain them can be a challenge. The following foods often contain peanuts:

   * Ground or mixed nuts
   * Baked goods, such as cookies and pastries
   * Ice cream and frozen desserts
   * Energy bars
   * Cereals and granola
   * Grain breads
   * Marzipan (a molding confection made of nuts, egg whites and sugar)

Less obvious foods may contain peanut proteins. Some examples include:

   * Nougat
   * Salad dressings
   * Chocolate candies, nut butters (such as almond butter) and sunflower seeds are sometimes processed with equipment also used for peanuts
   * Cultural foods including African, Chinese, Indonesian, Mexican, Thai and Vietnamese dishes often contain peanuts
   * Foods sold in bakeries and ice-cream shops may come in contact with peanuts
   * Arachis oil, another name for peanut oil

Personally, I find nougat to be fairly destructive with regards to peanut allergies. My alter ego, Dr Arrupe Gupta who has spent much time on Misplaced Pages in the past, is horribly allergic to peanuts, but fortunately I am not. The above information came from the Mayo Clinic (a reliable source RONZ!!) and you can get more information on how to deal with your allergy there. I would also suggest going to your local CVS and picking up a saline solution and dousing your nose in it. Surprisingly, this can be effective in comabting peanut allergies. Go figure! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.244.157 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A properly sourced discussion of the prevalence in food of peanuts and peanut proteins looks like a good area for expansion. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

link removed from Performance Analysis

Hi,

I added a link to a screencast (movie from a computer screen) to the 'External Links' section of the "Performance Analysis" article because that movie provides great information about performance and software profiling/analysis. This is at least as informative as the current link to a Microsoft tool and provides a nice alternative to the commercial content in the Microsoft movie.

Please explain why the link I added was removed in favor of keeping the existing link to a spammy video from Microsoft. That video doesn't even exist anymore. So regardless of whether we include the Zoom link, the MS link needs to be removed.

Thanks, Fay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.53.253 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of something else, just removing your repeated spammed links. See your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested edit for Peanut Allergy page

Hi Ronz,

Thanks again for your responses, including the referral to the WP COI page. I've read it and reflect on what we talked about. I would like to use my experience to provide to the public a fairly complete, short, and impartial collection of links on this controversial topic. Can you have a look at the following, and let me know what you think? At the end, in italics, I explain my criteria. Thanks for your time. One question - are you involved in peanut allergy research, or Misplaced Pages admin?

Billy Adam

Books and articles

The Complete Peanut Allergy Handbook, by Dr. Scott H. Sicherer, with Terry Malloy
The Peanut Allergy Answer Book, by Dr. Michael C. Young
The Sprouted Peanut Vaccine and Other Stories, by Billy Adam Gottlieb
Peanut allergy: where do we stand?, by Dr. John Weisnagel
Peanut allergy: an overview, by Saleh Al-Muhsen, Ann E. Clarke, and Rhoda S. Kagan

] ]

The external links are to national and international organizations providing information to the public, in English, as opposed to research groups. The books are the three extant adult trade titles by scientists. The articles are examples of full scientific texts, as opposed to abstracts, available on the internet. I removed the medicinenet.com article, previously listed on the page, because no author is given and it’s not a particular leader in the field. Wikiabilly (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I added them to the talk page. The article really doesn't need more external links, but these look useful as possible references. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I was conducting some research on flaming and trolling. No hard feelings hopefully. 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're supposed "research" involved sock puppetry, edit-warring, multiple WP:BLP violations, and harassing the editors that intervened in your improper editing. Sorry if I find your explanation of this being an "experiment" when you're faced with a further block as being just a bit too convenient, and downright unethical. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

rewrite: MOND Tech.

Hello Ronz,

Let me first wish you all the best for 2009 - I started the year by rewriting entirely the article http://en.wikipedia.org/MOND_Technologies following your labelling as "lacking references, notability & being an advertisement". I hope you will reconsider this statement.

Regards, adoligno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoligno (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Peanut Allergy article, external links

Hi Ronz,

I read your reply. This time I disagree. The three links that are there are not, in my survey, the best of what's available, nor representative of its range. How did they get chosen? Who decides they get to stick?

It seems the balanced thing to do would be either to remove them all, leaving only the references, or expand them into a new set of links, as I have written up for your talk page. What do you think? Thanks for your consideration.

Billy AdamWikiabilly (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well-written, well referenced articles need few, if any, external links. I don't see strong reasons for any for this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

Ronz is correct here. I recommend that user Wikiabilly discuss his views on these matters on Talk:Peanut allergy. Misplaced Pages:External links guideline should provide further insight. — Athaenara ✉ 02:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz and Athaenara,

Thanks for your input. I took some time to think about it and review other Misplaced Pages pages. I still feel the Peanut Allergy page needs to be updated, to better serve the community, and ask your collaboration in finding a way to do this, that respects all concerned.

I can see the merit in keeping the External Links short. In that case, extra care must be taken that they be representative of existing literature, and allow the reader the go further than what the Misplaced Pages page itself can provide. This is why I suggest referencing the three existing scientific books devoted to peanut allergy. (Originally, I also suggested including a couple of articles, but this was in deference to the status quo, not because they meet the criteria.)

My book is one of the three. I don't feel it should be omitted simply because I am proposing to also be involved in editing the Misplaced Pages page. I put it last, however, in recognition of this and because the other two are more established. Their authors and I are specialists in the field. We have devoted years of our lives to helping people with this severe health problem. Of course we want our books to be read, and the sites I reference (our respective publishers) do offer them for sale. However, mine is a non-profit initiative, and I'd be surprised if the other two are making much if any money on theirs.

To these I would add the most important public-service allergy organization in each of six English-speaking countries where they exist (US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa), plus the World Allergy Organization which can inform readers about other countries. In this way, any visitor to the Misplaced Pages page will have someone they can call or write to find resources in their community.

Perhaps the books could go under a subheading General References, after the References, while the organizations would be in the External Links. This follows the form of Misplaced Pages articles like Cancer.

Please let me know what you think. Also, I do ask again for Ronz to present the experience that you feel places you well to decide what happens with the peanut allergy page. Thanks to both of you for your consideration.Wikiabilly (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We should take this to Talk:Peanut allergy. List the specifics as examples too, if you could. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done.Wikiabilly (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

It seems we haven’t gotten any response to the posting of suggested changes, on the Talk:PeanutAllergy page.

I’m writing to ask your formal permission to edit the page, as proposed, trusting that

I have exercised extreme caution, as demanded by WP COI rules;
Public input has been solicited, and time given for response;
There is minimal room for COI, since the book links proposed are comprehensive, not selected (all 3 of 3 books out there), what room there may be should be eliminated by placing mine last;
The book and group links do something good for the public that the current selection does not: direct them to the only sources more completely informative than the WP Peanut Allergy article, and to their closest local service group;
I have not found a rationale for how the existing links got chosen, in terms of the research that went into them or the credentials of the author;
Given my education and experience studying this matter, I am in a position to verify that the proposed information is comprehensive and representative.

Please let me know either way, if you have an objection or approve. Thanks for your consideration.Wikiabilly (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey don't worry about it, I was only playing. Thanks for your help. I always generally add a specific link anyway, in fact when you contacted me originally I was actually in the middle of starting a batch of stubs with the direct maplandia link!! You must have stumbled across the lot I did without a direct link. All the best The Bald One 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Wallace (author)

I replied on my talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded again on talk page. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded again. In short, I'll try to find some other sources to add to that so its not a one-source article. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, why are you questioning the notability of Wallace? He's a published novelist whose book Big Fish was turned into a film by Tim Burton.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got the article watched, so I'm not worried about it being deleted. As I said, I think the article first needs some references to show that WP:BIO has been met. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've revised the article and added a number of other references. I didn't write the original article, but I was familiar with Wallace. But as I did this work, I was surprised that there are no other in-depth interviews with him out there. In my view, that's another plus for Schneider's interview. Anyway, I hope you will consider removing those tags now. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. I guess you didn't notice that I removed them while you were working on it. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, missed that. Thanks. BTW, this Schneider thing is a mess. Check out my comments here. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

I'm not really entirely sure exactly what the complete processes are, or how to initiate a checkuser. StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In short, checkuser is a pain unless you are an admin with checkuser rights. We can make the request, but in my experience they are slow in responding to checkuser requests and often deny them unless there is a burning need.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. And this is going to be one heck of a checkuser request. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And they admins who run checkuser may feel that we've solved the issue with the XLinkBot. But I'll support any checkuser on this if that helps. I also e-mailed you something a moment ago. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know I'm not going crazy on all this. I told Steven if he wanted to remove the links, I won't argue any more--I don't have a lot of time to spend on Misplaced Pages, and I hate to waste it arguing on stuff like this. But I told him that with the bot in place, from this point on editors were free to add these links without being accused of being SPAs b/c they likely won't be SPAs. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also looked like Steven and I worked things out. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

COI

I sincerely appologize about the COI. I would however like to leave a picture up on the "label dispenser" page. THe only thing i feel i edited that would be a COI is the link to the website, everything else is plain fact. I invented the semi-automatic label dispenser in 1973 with my partner Allen O'Glander under Cmmercial Mailing Accessories INC, my name is Richard Shannon. I really do have good infromation about the equipment if you would let me re-insert the picture, i can show the original machine, and also what it is today. The page was orphaned and that IS a shame, since this machine is connected to every industry that manufacturs. This machine is used all over the world, from mom/pop places to Mattel, Goodyear, Revlon etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemonikc (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll discuss on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bates method

Since you restored the warning banner on Bates method, I will reiterate my suggestion that you copy the article to your userspace and bring that version into line with your interpretation of the policies. That should be a fairly straightforward project, since it would in all likelihood consist mostly of deletions, and in your userspace no one else could interfere. If you then link to it from Talk:Bates method, that would make clear why the tags are there. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your suggestion. If you recall, I've done it once with this article before, and felt it was mostly time wasted. I will not make the same mistake again. Such projects should be done collaboratively, or not at all.

If you've read my comments about what needs to be done, you'll realize that I think all the article sources need to be reviewed in the context to what points of view they present and how those points of view are weighed within those sources. After that, the article should be changed as necessary to properly present these points of view with the proper weight as determined by the review of the sources.

I pointed out close to a year ago that this work was necessary to resolve the pov problems that have been problematic with the article since it was first created. I also pointed out that the longer this work was put off, the harder it would be to resolve.

Thanks for the very civil comment though. My only suggestion is not to assume what another editor's solution might be. Even if I hadn't already outlined what the solution was, it's not very helpful. Instead, you might state the same thing in the form of a question, or qualify it. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, in my opinion it did help a lot; much of the article was then trimmed and condensed, and many references to secondary sources were added to sections you flagged as lacking such. However, that was merely an outline, which is not what I am suggesting now. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to what you think needs to be done, recall that I listed the major secondary sources in October. Not sure how to go about it beyond that. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

On Talk:Bates method I've begun the discussion which you've suggested above, as I understand you. My attitude had been that if you felt it should be done, you should be the one to get it started, but your comment here made me realize that you believe (though mistakenly in my opinion) that your previous efforts regarding the article have been wasted. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read my comment again, you'll see that I wrote, "it was mostly time wasted." --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So is this what you wanted done? Where do we go from here? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm extremely impressed with the work you've done there. I'm trying to set aside some time to assist, but I want to first get this mess organized to the point where a complete sockpuppet report and checkuser request can be written.

In the meantime, the one easy thing I wanted to start is identifying the expertise/reliability of the authors in question, which is especially imporant for WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Identifying their expertise is I think easier than estimating their reliability, since the latter can be rather subjective. But I agree it's the right question to be asking. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote "expertise/reliability" to cover any cases (perhaps the Time article) where we might have trouble identifying the author's own expertise, so instead would rely upon the reliability of the publication and its editing process. I don't know what the case is, but it's very different if the Time article was written by a science editor than say a war correspondent. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI report made concerning you

As a courtesy I am telling you of this:

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ronz --Timeshifter (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that! --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The outcome appears to be that my actions were inappropriate and that Timeshifter was using the AfD page inappropriately for personal attacks. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ref advantages

hi ronz, i left you a message on my talk page -- Kku (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2009

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Online chat quotes

Hi Ronz,

Could you explain why you think quote databases are not a significant cultural feature of online chat? It's well known that much of online culture is in-jokes and memes. These come from: 1. High visibility BBSes, newsgroups, and more recently imageboards; 2. Link sharing/social bookmarking; 3. Quotes databases.

Could you suggest a better place to put these items, which I feel are not large enough topics for their own article, but are certainly not trivia (i.e. lists of miscellanous facts)? I would have put the section on IRC subculture, but the quotes are not limited to IRC. Perhaps the problem is that a lot of IRC subculture should be in Online chat subculture, on which there is plenty of verifiable research.

You'll see I created a discussion about this at when I first added the section. Please reply there with any views, otherwise I hope you don't mind if I revert your edit.

For a sense of notability, see

--MarkSteward (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sorry that I didn't notice your discussion about it. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SPAM?

Hi Ronz,

Can you let me know which link I provided you consider SPAM? Thanks,Htomfields (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Spamming

Sorry, I'm new to making edits. I see your point. Thanks for the advise.Htomfields (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Myopia Myth suggestions you made

Hello I am not a member of the International Myopia Prevention Association and I appologize if some of my links apears to be writen by the same person. After suggestions made by relative and friends of mine on the theorie of Donald Rehm, I did countless hour of research on the internet. I have also discussed this dispute with both an Optomerist and an opthamologist. They both agreed Donald's Theory is a valid theory and the past and on going study done on reading glasses's effect on myopia progression is good science and good preventative medical research. This article merely serves to paint a clear picture of the both sides on this dispute so people can learn from wikipedia what the dispute is all about. However, I admit the possiblity that the experts I have talked to may be exceptional in their views. please help me improve this article so you are satisfied with it's quality by pointing out what aspects of my article is "biased" and what sources I have are problematic. I am willing to make all necessary corrections so readers know the sources are reliable. An issue with such polarized sides must be looked at with an experienced eye. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junsun (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I left you some more information on your talk page to give you some background with the issues in creating such an article in your situation.

I'll respond further once I'm done with the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ronz The article have under went a lot of change in a few short hours since I last made any changes. I have really tried to make the article match the stardards of wikipedia you have helped enforce. But I feel this topic needs to be covered even if it may not be "100% verifiable" since even the American Optometric Association agrees with Donald Rehm on the likely link between close work and myopia progression. I think the American Optometric Association (AOA) that upholds the profession of eyecare is about as expert as any source on eye health topic out there. I really think you should allow the existence of an artivle on a theory that has withstood 30 years of skepticism and is partly uphelp by the AOA. The Dr. Francis Young research has being published in New York Times, which is a credible source. Perhaps you will be a little more tolerant on the idea of creating an article and let other editors contribute beside me edit in instead of deleting it which just takes away the opportunity we have to give IMPA a hard neutral look. The site counter has registered over 300 thousand visitors to International Myopia Prevention Association's website, and for those visitors, I feel wikipedia must have an approapriate unbiased article so they can see what Doanld Rehm is saying is plain light. I am willing to adopt a hands off position at this time and allow others to restructure and "unbias" this article if only they can have the time. Junsun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junsun (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think you've understood much of the multiple problems identified in your contributions to the article. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. If information is not verifiable, it can be removed. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on Schneider links

I'm trying to figure out why your deleted all of the conversations around the Schneider spam issue here. I see that you were archiving items on the page, which makes sense, but you should either archive the Schneider discussion all together or leave it as is on the page. To remove all the discussion from the page while leaving the links to articles makes it look like this is a spam issue that hasn't been resolved. However, I though we had found a way to keep people from spamming these links and were simply waiting for a check user before deeming any particular edits as spam. I also think your edit to the discussion implies that sites like The Moderate Voice are engaging in spam, which is incorrect. I have edited the item to address these concerns, but if you'd prefer to simply reinsert the previous discussion that would work for me.

As I mentioned in the original discussion, if it makes people happy let us go ahead and remove all the "spam" edits everyone was complaining about. But with the XLinkBot now in place, doing that also means if a new editor reinserts these links or other references to Schneider's articles, then the assumption has to be these are good faith edits and not spam. Would you agree with this approach? Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot archived it. I restored it temporarily in order to copy the information I was working on still.

I don't think it has been resolved. A checkuser is definitely needed, and I wanted to put together a list of users to include. At this point, the problem looks so vast that I'm going to settle with working with what I've found so far.

I'm not waiting for a checkuser when the spamming is blatant. Someone is obviously just going through the articles that were part of this dispute in the past and restoring the disputed information, using the same means as before to do this: through the creation of new accounts. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that, as I've said, Schneider has a lot of readers. It's hard to tell which were good faith edits and which were spam attempts. I should also note that during this discussion I reinserted many of those links because I felt the evidence was not there that they were all spam. To simply remove a link to one of Schneider's articles by calling it spam is not right b/c it may have been a good faith effort. It seems to me that too many editors seem to want to do a Scheider witchhunt by calling any link or reference to his reviews spam. But I have inserted a number of these reviews and references, and I am most certainly not spamming Misplaced Pages. best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm removing the links that I think are blatant attempts to spam the information. If you want to discuss individual cases, I'd be happy to join the discussion and avoid further action on similar cases while the discussion is underway. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, go ahead and remove all the links. I personally don't care about any particular link to Schneider's reviews. The reason I originally became involved in this issue is because a few editors started removing links and references to Schneider that I had placed in articles, calling these spam. I was irritated that people did this without assuming good faith or seeing who had actually made said edits. As long as people don't try to state that any reference or link to Schneider is spam--which would be wrong and faulty reasoning--I'm not going to trouble myself with this anymore. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I see we left messages at the same time. I'm also tired of the whole issue, which is why I said to go ahead and remove the links. I have no objection unless there is an attempt to label anything Schneider as spam.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm just going to try to wrap up with the articles I've listed so far. There are many more, but I've at least have a good sampling for the checkuser. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You've convinced me that Schneider or someone else spammed his links across Misplaced Pages, although I also see some legit edits that are being removed b/c they are being called spam. So where do we go from here? There are editors like myself who find value in some of Schneider's reviews, essays, and interviews. Does this mean we can't use links or references to that stuff? I thought the XLinkBot had fixed this issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to be careful with what I'm removing. At this point, I'm trying to write up summaries of the editors I've found for the sockpuppet report and checkuser.

When is Schneider's opinion worth noting? I'm not sure. Adding back a spammed link without discussion, even when you're not a sockpuppet of a previously blocked editor, isn't a good way to convince anyone that the information is useful. I think it's worth discussing his merit as a film critic and as a literary critic. I'd think a strong argument could be made for linking his film reviews for movies that have no more notable reviewers. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Any idea where such discussions should occur? --Ronz (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think he has a lot of merit as a critic. In addition, you are correct that if a more notable critic can't be found for a particular movie article, a link to Schneider's reviews are very valid. But at this point, it's hard to decide what's worth keeping b/c of that whole "fruit of the poisoned tree" argument. I mean, there has been so much spam around this issue that when I try to say that Schneider has merit, people don't listen. Anyway, I've been removing a number of the spam links to clear the deck of all this, so to speak. Maybe when this cools off I'll go through some of these articles and see what links and info truly add value.

BTW, were you referring to me adding back in spam links without discussion?--SouthernNights (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As for a discussion on Schneider's worth as a critic, that is not something that should take place on Misplaced Pages. If he fits our guidelines for notability--which I say he does--then he's good. If for some reason he's not notable, then we wouldn't use him. But a debate on his "worth as a critic" seems like dangerous ground for Misplaced Pages.--SouthernNights (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry. No, I wasn't referring to you. I hadn't even noticed that you were revisiting this. --Ronz (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Life Extension Foundation edits

Dear Ronz,

Thank you for looking over my additions to the Life Extension Foundation entry on Misplaced Pages. I see that you deleted an external link as "promotional", however LEF.ORG is where you can find out more information about memberships, read the Life Extension magazine, find the Foundation's scientific achievements, among other resources.

I feel that the external link I added to LEF.ORG is not of promotional nature. It complements the entry on Misplaced Pages about the Foundation and directs users to the Foundation's face - the Buyers Club.

Please let me know if you agree with keeping the link to LEF.ORG and I can edit it back.

Best,

TD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiagodoherty (talk • contribs) 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Notepadpage and links related to my-health-software.com

Thank you! I noticed it on one of my watched pages (Hibiscus tea), and luckily for Misplaced Pages, I was in the correct mood for a long, semi-brainless series of edits. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz

My site is all about struts tutorials, so I thought a link in this page will be appropriate. Sure i will go through the guidelines before adding any links.

Thanks

regards, Eswar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreekEswar (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll reply on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schneider links

Hi Ronz. I saw your post over at WT:SPI#Huge, repeat sockpuppet situation. If that were submitted as a checkuser case it would be huge. The problem for checkusers might be knowing which editors could be considered abusive. Could the XLinkBot do something useful? (I haven't read through all the reports on the Schneider situation). EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, we've got four of the domains listed with XLinkBot. I'm currently going through the others to see what could be done.

Having gone through the history of the problem, it's clear that editors have learned how to avoid being identified as spammers. The majority of accounts make less than a dozen edits total, usually on a single day or to a single article. Basically, these people are just discarding accounts regularly to avoid detection.

Another solution is just to identify the accounts used for edits that we're unsure about, and run checkusers on them. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give examples of some accounts that you think have worked deceptively? I'm trying to separate the sheep from the goats, so to speak. (There must be *some* good-faith editors who just think that a Dan Schneider review illustrates the topic). EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Some examples:

Luigibob (talk · contribs) is an editor that I kept on the list as a good faith editor for comparison purposes.

Mctoomer (talk · contribs) and Mitziohara (talk · contribs) are blatant spammers.

Aerogelo (talk · contribs) is obviously an experienced editor.

Erinsisle (talk · contribs) made two of his three reverts of links with no edit summaries, when every other edit has an edit summary.

The problems look even more suspicious when you look at article histories. 8½ is a fairly typical example. A Schneider link is first added by a spammer, 4.230.147.95 (talk · contribs) in this case, then was removed during the Aug/Sep'08 cleanup . Along comes another spammer, 68.93.132.113 (talk · contribs), adding the same essay hosted on a different domain. It gets immediately removed as being spammy, but gets restored by yet another SPA, Babuul00 (talk · contribs), who's editing patterns are nearly identical to previously blocked editors. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently, I think multiple approaches would help:

Increasing the number of domains that XLinkBot is using.
Getting some of the accounts blocked for their own spamming alone.
Requesting comments from the editors that added the links in good faith.

--Ronz (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder about blacklisting some more links. It seems that cosmoetica.com is already blacklisted. What about noripcord.com? I see that we have an article on No Ripcord, but it is weakly sourced and might be a candidate for deletion. Some of the IPs above are from Austin, Texas. Is there a list of the domains you have submitted to XLinkBot? EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

XLinkBot currently has altfg.com, blogcritics.org, cosmoetica.com, and noripcord.com. Looks like cosmoetica wasn't necessary. I've only started looking at them, but there are probably a half dozen more that should be considered for listing from all the domains found so far. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The number of dubious accounts is vast, yet the number of domains is small. It could make more sense to start scrutinizing the domains, and see which ones we can do without. I see that you listed 21 domains at WT:WPSPAM#Domains. It would make sense to start going through those. Do you already have a half-dozen to recommend? EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Half-dozen is a guesstimate. A few of the domains are barely linked at all. Some are to fairly questionable sites. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of FreeMind

An article that you have been involved in editing, FreeMind, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/FreeMind. Thank you. Boatsdesk (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bates method

no, i will not remove my comment, and i was merely saying that i look forward to your contructive edits. in turn, i don't see how merely replying that you are going to readd the tags - without addressing any of the concerns raised in my original post - is anything more than unilateral belligerence. To see who's right, why not see if anyone else readds the tag thinking there is a neutrality or undue weight issue? -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 18:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I'll remove it then. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss my editing, or give me suggestions on how to do it better, please do so here. However, if you're going to justify your actions by assuming mine are cases of "unilateral belligerence", then I suggest you take a break or work on something completely unrelated. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the boilerplate message about WP:NPA - i was actually aware of this guideline, but did not mean my comment as a personal attack on you, it was a criticism of your edits. at any rate, i thought we had already talked about my comment, my readding the comment was from from personal belief that talk page comments should not deleted in any case other than those at WP:OUTING - which i referenced in the edit history. obviously, you took unintended offense to my comment, so i struck it out as an act of retraction. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 00:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The portion not struck out was still inappropriate. I feel that personal attacks should be removed, especially when the page in question has a history of such problems. By your own admission, you've assumed bad faith and attacked another editor. Continue this way, and you'll get yourself blocked. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

James Joyce

A good idea re. deleting book reviews. As a published James Joyce scholar, I'm excited about cleaning up and developing the James Joyce entry on wikipedia. HiromiHyoshida (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Nice to have someone of your expertise contributing.

The high-quality ones should be considered for the articles on the books themselves. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Socks

When you narrow it down to particular users, make a request vie the normal method (not the "quick check") under whoever you suspect the puppet master to be. —— nix eagle 20:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Hi Ronz. The following is only intended as friendly advice, so please don't take it as anything else. Your interactions with other users might go a whole lot better a lot more often if you don't mention WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, etc. so often. Perhaps you should try not mentioning them at all for a while, at least in situations where you are already involved. If I had saved the first reply I typed to your recent AGF message on my talk page, things likely would have gotten very ugly. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Obviously, some editors would rather just pretend that any behavior is appropriate here. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sent email

I sent you an email on a private matter. As for the CJ article, feel free to remove the info if you feel it doesn't add to the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Kinesis Myofascial Integration ‎

Good catch. Looks like I must have been viewing an earlier revision and completely messed it up. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. That makes sense. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Recreating wiki page

Hi Ronz,

I previously created a wiki page covering information on a computer program called iMindMap. It was removed from wikipedia due to Wiki's advertisement laws. As I am not intentionally attempting to advertise and do not want this to happen again any information that you can provide preventing my text or imagery from doing so will be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Rhodri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodri Harries (talk • contribs) 09:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rhodri. Thanks for the note. I'm happy to help. If you can find a few independent, reliable sources first, it will be easy to create an article that won't be deleted again. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Selfpub removal, Steven M. Greer

Hi, I'm wondering what the basis is for the removal of "self published" references on Steven M. Greer, here and here. My reading of Misplaced Pages:SELFPUB#Using_self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves, suggests that such references are acceptable: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. They're not being used to advance extraordinary claims, merely that Greer is the founder of these organizations. Could you enlighten me? I'm not entirely familiar with BLP, refs and so on. Phil153 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My concerns are SELFPUB #1, #2, #6; WP:SOAP; and WP:UNDUE. Find some reliable, independent sources instead and it would resolve all these problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CAPTCHA section removal

Ronz-

You removed the section I made on the CAPTCHA page, citing WP:TRIV. I believe it falls under WP:IPC, though certainly the distinction between the two is often the subject of debate. Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Xkcd&limit=100&namespace=0&hideredirs=1 and explain how my edit is substantively different than the majority of those listed there. Please note that the list includes technical as well as less serious articles.

Thanks Ellensn (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Without a secondary source, I think it should be kept out. The article has a lot of problems with editors adding information sourced only by primary sources, usually for what appears to be promotional purposes. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that it is substantively different from many of the other articles in this list to which I provided a link. Would you prefer that I place a reference to this in the body of the article under the section 'Characteristics'?

"Although a checkbox "check here if you are not a bot" might serve to distinguish between humans and computers, it is not a CAPTCHA because it relies on the fact that an attacker has not spent effort to break that specific form." ...to which I could add... "The popular webcomic xkcd included a spoof along these lines that instructs 'bots' to honestly state if they have emotion."

Ellensn (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you'll look at the article talk page, you'll see that a solution has already been offered for these cases: find a independent, reliable source for the information. Otherwise, we're violating WP:V, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SOAP. If you disagree, I think it would be best to get a third party involved. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion - I agree that this information appears to be trivia not directly related to the article, and, as such, is not required. It does not appear to illuminate the concept any further than the article already does. If it could be incorporated into the main text of the article, with a citation in a secondary source as to its importance, that would be perfectly acceptable, although it seems unlikely in this instance. On the other hand, I also agree with Ellensn that this does not appear substantially different from many of the other references to xkcd in the list he provides. In my opinion, however, many of these other references should probably also be deleted as tangential, or forming parts of indiscriminate lists. Anaxial (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. That was pretty quick and painless. Ellensn (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I had never looked at the WP:IPC talk page. Apparently xkcd is an exceptional case. I didn't realise into what I was getting myself! Cheers. Ellensn (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I think you've found the motto of all Misplaced Pages editors, "I didn't realise into what I was getting myself!" --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Paralegal

While an obvious COI exists here, I think the relevant parts of this reverted edit should be placed back into the article. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Good call. I'd prefer it be sourced and trimmed. Ignoring the spamming and coi, there are still WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTHOWTO issues. I'll give it a shot. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi Ronz,

Would you be able advise me on how to tag an article? e.g If a user would search for my article (Buzan's iMindMap)by typying an alternative name such as iMindMap, it would recognise the relation between the two and provide a link to the page.

Any help would be much appreciated,

Many thanks,

Rhodri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodri Harries (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rhodri! Mostly, you'll just want to create new articles that WP:REDIRECT to the current article. In complicated cases, you may need to disambiguate between multiple current articles. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Link removal - Imposition

Hello Ronz, I recently added a link to the Misplaced Pages entry for Imposition that points to my online Imposition service. You removed the link, I restored it, then you removed it again.

Can you please provide justification for this move? My website is free to all users, and provides a real-world demonstration of how a printer's imposition works, as well as allowing users to try it for themselves.

My website does not ask for any money, nor does it have any advertising.

A user that may have been told that their file needs imposition before printing may look to Misplaced Pages for information, but aren't they better served by being referred to a free online resource that enables them to actually do the imposition as well?

I can't speak for the other links on this page, but I am at a loss as to why you would remove the link to my site.

Can you please explain, or remove your objections to this link.

Regards, brrayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brrayne (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me directly. You may have missed it, but I already pointed out WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. Basically, Misplaced Pages is not a forum to promote such services. See also WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, I did not miss it. I do not believe my site link contravenes any of these rules, hence my note to you. My site is not spam, is free to use and is of great relevance to the topic in question. If mine was a site that explained the process of imposition, you would not have an objection. Is your objection that my site demonstrates this process rather than explaining it? I just did a search for Unix time and have found a link to a "Unix Time Generator". This is a website that calculates the current Unix time. By your guidelines, this site should be removed too, correct? Misplaced Pages is littered with external links to sites that demonstrate the topic in question. Why has mine been singled-out?

Brrayne (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest further dispute resolution that involves others. WP:THIRD or WP:COIN would be good places to start. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Responding in more detail: Because the site is your own, there are WP:COI and WP:SPAM problems. Because the site is a service for creating impositions, there are WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK problems. Because it requires registration, there are EL and SPAM problems.

If the site just explained the process, did so in more detail than the current article, and wasn't your own site, it would be helpful given the current state of the article.

Yes, Unix time has multiple external links that are problematic. Thanks for pointing this out! --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

References on Stick Candy

Hi Ronz, I just wanted to let you know that I removed the reference list in the middle of the talk page for Stick candy. If you add any references below a reference list (as I have), they do not show up, even if you add a second reflist at the bottom. I am going to remove it again with an explanation on the talk page (I briefly did so in my edit summary, I must have been unclear).--kelapstick (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's probably the best solution given that some editors might not know that it would need to be moved if they add any references below it. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI I have asked a question about using pages like this as reliable sources at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Stick candy--kelapstick (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll explain the tags unrelated to WP:RS and WP:V on the article talk page, since you have concerns about those as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern was the excessiveness of the tags, a simple "citation needed" would have been sufficient, three tags was a little excessive. In the interest of keeping my question neutral (and I hope I did) I left out my personal opinions on the issue, and the tags.--kelapstick (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Had to laugh

Hey Ronz, first let me say that I do admire your anti-spam efforts. That's a noble goal for the site. Now, I just had to laugh (literally out-loud) at the recent turn of events at stick candy. Well played, I must say. I was kinda watching from time to time, and seeing things get so close to 3R, and was wondering who was gonna get "the block" lowered. I still think you're interpreting some of the WP:RS and WP:V things a little too strictly, the wording is such that it (along with the well loved, oft quoted, IAR and Bold links) allows exceptions to the rules. But, that's not really what I came here for. I do admire your long tenure here, and your many valuable contributions - so please don't take this the wrong way. I think you came down a little too hard on CoM (ChildofMidnight.. or whatever). (S)he's a very new editor here, and I think what you dropped on her talk page comes very close to "WP:Bite". I mean really, Stick Candy? It's not like a hotly contested BLP, political, or religious issue. I see she came back pretty hard and all, but maybe you landed a little hard too? Huh? A little over the top? Maybe...just a little? Again - I have to say, I really admired that tag and page protect move - shows real skill and knowledge of the community and how it works. Don't let the little things get you too worked up - it's only a website after all. There's no reason we can't all work together to contribute to the community. Well, that's all really, ... have a good one ;) — Ched (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. I'd hoped that ChildofMidnight would respond better. When she didn't, I decided page protection would be a better solution than requesting a block for such an inexperienced editor.

When it comes to spamming, I think the only solution is to interpret the relevant policies and guidelines strictly. We need to be careful with what exceptions are allowed. See User_talk:Ronz#Link_removal_-_Imposition for the flip side - a good faith attempt to add a link that's inappropriate for multiple reasons by an editor looking for exceptions that he'd like to apply to his own efforts. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Kelapstick's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Fifth Beatle (Film)

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blocked IP 195.227.12.254 and my contributions

Dear Ronz,

I was very much surprised when contributing to the Misplaced Pages article “e-Health” resulting in a warning and message from you, saying that it is not possible any more to contribute to Misplaced Pages from this IP address.

I fully understand your concern of avoiding spam on Misplaced Pages, but we think that, after consulting the rules for external links, our links are fully legitimate. The pages we set links to are research projects publicly funded by the European Commission, e.g. www.ebusiness-watch.org or www.good-ehealth.org. They have no commercial interest whatsoever. I found that the link to the e-Business Watch Website on Wiki articles such as “e-Business” or “electronic commerce” has a high topical fit and offers extensive additional information, case studies and free data sets for researchers and others who are interested in the topic. All information on this site has to be fully unbiased, as it is an official site of the European Commission. The same is true for the e-Health link.

However, as I am rather new to Misplaced Pages and do want to fully comply with its guidelines it would be very helpful to get some further guidance on our current status (mine and of the blocked IP 195.227.12.254) and how to avoid further problems. In general it would be very helpful to be warned before contributing not after spending a couple of time with adding to Misplaced Pages.

So please be so kind to give me some advice how I can further contribute to wikipedia without receiving “conflict messages”? What kind of blocking did you conduct on our IP? Are we now on the spamlist?

Many thanks and looking forward to your answer with best regards

Nomob (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. To clarify a few points first:

No one has been blocked.

No one is being prevented from contributing to Misplaced Pages.

I'm not aware of any of the sites you mention being added to any spamlist.

That said, I hope this is just a matter of getting to know the relevant policies and guidelines already linked on your talk page. I'm happy to help explain them in detail and answer any questions you may have on them. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: comments on Badagnani's talk page

I think this edit and its edit summary are over the top . The page is protected with your tags in place. I suggest you let things cool down a bit. In fact, I think it would be a helpful act of goodwill to refactor your comment from that editor's page. He certainly has a gruff style at times, but there's nothing overtly uncivil about his comments. Best to just let those comments go and not fan the flames. That's my 2 cents anyway. I would also point out that your own actions regarding this situation have been aggresive at times (the edit I mentioned being a case in point). Everyone involved seems to mean well, and I don't think there's any need to heighten the conflict. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yes, I've been aggressive. I've also gone to great lengths to move on and come to agreements with others.

I hope you are starting to see my perspective on all this now. This whole situation is an absolutely absurd case of ignoring multiple Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and ignoring multiple dispute resolution attempts. Have you ever read WP:OWN? I'm making it very, very clear what the next steps will be if this consistently improper behavior continues.

That said, I'm always open to suggestions on how to make my comments better. If you look, you'll see that I've changed them quite a bit already. What to you think is especially problematic and how do you suggest I change it? --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would just suggest not templating anyone, not even new people, who are making good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Leave a personal note. Confrontation is almost always met with confrontation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. At the time of your starting this discussion, there was no template. Obviously, I had already thought of this and had done it. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as policy and this dispute in particular goes, I disagree with your interpretations and description of the situation. That being said, as long as you follow policy you're welcome to pursue any dispute resolution processes you think are appropriate. My personal opinion is that you will have more fun and success pursuing other endeavors, at least until the block ends. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Disagree all you want. If you want your disagreeing to matter in any way, then take some time to explain yourself, or ask questions. --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to repeat what I mentioned before, I suggest removing any antagonistic comments from the talk page in question. You're welcome to thank that user for their contributions to the encyclopedia, or let them know that you checked out their work and respect their substantial contributions to Misplaced Pages, but I don't think there is anything to be gained by templating them, criticizing them, or pursuing administrative review of their actions. That's my opinion of course, and you're free to do as you see fit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to understand what it is that you consider "antagonistic." It appears that you found Athaenara's comments to be "antagonistic" but not Badagnani's. I don't see any reason to try to fathom what it is you mean when it appears to be opposed to any reasonable interpretation of WP:CIVIL.

I asked for specifics. I wish you had given some. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Athaenara was offering a 3rd Opinion, and I cited those guidelines in the relevant discussion. Several editors have suggested to you ways in which you are being antagonistic. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish, but I think you will have more fun and success collaborating with other editors rather than taking them on in confrontation. Feel free to archive this discussion at your discretion. I'm not trying to make any kind of point and I don't have any hard feelings. People disagree on here all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Athaenara made a perfectly civil comment, which you did your best to dismiss while questioning her civility. I think you need to stop lecturing on subjects where you don't take the time to understand the issues, history, policies, or guidelines. Ask questions, or clarify your perspective instead. You've been here three months, and you're quickly on your way to administrative review. No wonder you're against my attempts to get Badagnani to behave properly. You're afraid of being called out on your own, similar problems! --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Aberdeen Group

This is not a spam change. I know Aberdeen very well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.60.130 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what a "spam change" is or why it's relevant to the editing in Aberdeen Group. Independent, secondary sources are preferred to self-published, primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

blacklist

Hey Ronz, you know anything about blacklist server problems tonight? — Ched (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a clue. What's going on? --Ronz (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a glitch somewhere. Maybe a new server they racked last week? Not sure, saw whole bunch of ??? at the WP:WHITELIST talk, and even help desk - asked on mIRC, they said it was being worked on. Thought maybe you dumped a bunch of blog sites at them ... LOL. ;)— Ched (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

List of PDF software

Hi Ronz,

I am user FEQ and added an entry to the page (20th February) "List of PDF software" for the JPedal PDF developer libraries. Examining the history of this page I find that this entry was removed with your edit.

Why? This developer library is the only 100% Java library that is available under a GPL licence.

The page says "list of PDF software". It doesn't say list of PDF software that you like, or only free software. Our developer library is available in both GPL (free) and commercial varieties as are many of the other links that remain. What is your objection to this listing? Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedic listing. The current list falls far short of this.

Adobe (commercial site) is listed on this page so I find it hard to fathom why my listing is not allowed.

Thank you

FEQ FEQ (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Misplaced Pages is not a directory. While we allow lists, the entries in these lists need to meet some basic inclusion criteria. Editors are encouraged to write the article first, or demonstrate that the entry is important enough to list by providing an independent, reliable source about the software. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

universal design

newbie here wondering about a link removal. On the page, universal design, I added an external link. You (I think) removed it and I saw the following:

(diff) (hist) . . Universal design‎; 19:24 . . (-1,273) . . Ronz (Talk | contribs) (→External links: quick cleanup per WP:EL & WP:NOT#LINK)

How do I understand the comment? Was the link rejected as not suitable or was the entry incorrect?

Many thanks in advance for your reply.

Konrad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konnie2009 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'd tagged the external links section for cleanup back in December 2006. If you look on the talk page, you'll see that I left the tag because I was concerned that too many of the links were too far off topic. Your addition motivated me to do some more cleanup with an eye to links being too far off topic. WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK are the relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Returnil

Edit summary:"......... promotional links"? Exactly which links are promotional? I think I kept it pretty much NPOV. TechOutsider (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

"Issues can be reported here. Known issues are listed here."

"Signup for the beta edition and testing is available here. "

These sentences and links promote these websites. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS

Hey Ronz, would you take a look at this when you get a chance. I removed citing wp:rs since the site failed WoT, SiteAdvisor, and Browser warnings as a safe site. I've run across this before where spam sites, and ones that are considered dangerous to computer are listed. Do I need to cite any particular section of RS, or is WP:RS good enough. (if you reply here, could you drop me a talkback tag) Thanks — Ched (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's off topic to the subject of the article, and linkspam. I cleaned it up a bit more. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. New Misplaced Pages commercial:

Troubled by spam?"

"See Ronz - "da Man"!"

LOL ;) — Ched ~ 01:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and assumptions

Ronz, I am interested in hearing your opinion regarding the example I cited at Talk:Bates method. Why should we assume adherence to copyright on the part of Stephen Barrett, but not Meir Schneider? Or should we de-link Barrett's reproduction of Pollack's chapter from the references? PSWG1920 (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please respect consensus. ~~If you have problems with other articles, the talk pages for those articles are the appropriate place for those discussions.~~ --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the talk page discussion I linked to, you'll see that the example I cited is from the Bates method article! PSWG1920 (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. As I already pointed out, "If you want to discuss basic copyright laws in order to make exceptions for WP:ELNEVER, then continue the discussions there. If you want to understand basic copyright laws and their application to more general situations, do so on the appropriate policy talk page. If you just want to learn about basic copyright laws, read the appropriate policy and article pages, then ask questions on the appropriate policy talk page." --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile

PSWG1920 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for removing the tags Seeyou placed. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

NP. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Ronz answered on my talkpage

Ronz can you re-add the tags and answer on the talkpage. They are currently missing and are very important. If you want to really help improving the article. Seeyou (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

List of PDF software - again

Hi Ronz, I looked at this page today and discovered a link again to Qoppa software (commercial software). When I have placed links to JPedal software (commercial and free software)they are removed. Yet Qoppa seems to survive. Your reasons for removing my link remains a mystery to me. You pointed me towards guidlines which were vague to say the least. For a company to be included as a link what needs to be done? Does an article need to be written about the company (I'm happy to provide one)?

Adobe remain on this page. They are commercial software vendors. They use the JPedal developer libraries (link you removed) for displaying pdf's in their ColdFusion product range. The JPedal libraries come in both commercial and free varieties, unlike qoppa. JPedal provides source code - Adobe doesn't.

A list of pdf software is always going to be contentious, but you can't pick and choose who remains on the page - that is subjective. A user viewing this page would be expecting a reasonably comprehensive list (as you would expect from an encyclopedia). This is not the case here. The software you list is not all free software. It is not the best performing software. So what is it? Some of the companies listed have "free software" but need paid support comtracts to use them. The page title says List of PDF software. I am not trying to be difficult here - if I was I'd just be reinstating my links several times a day - something I think is a waste of both my time and yours. But as things stand, you seem to be discriminating in your allowed edits.

Can you please give me some clarification of your decision here please?

Thank you FEQ (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An article about the product, not just the company. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Faerie Path

Hey - trying to figure out why you removed a link to the author's myspace. Currently the publisher has very little information concerning the book and upcoming books and the author has no other website or source of information. I feel that it is a relevant link and the only source of news concerning that book and others in the series. It is fairly standard practice to link to the author's website on a book page. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. The article is about the book, not the author. Best to focus on WP:BK issues first. Otherwise those articles should be trimmed down to stub articles, or even deleted. If the author's myspace page is that important for the articles, then something is very wrong with the articles. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

- Hey. I understand the distinction between information about the book and information about the author, but I still feel the myspace page is a relevant link. The reason is that his myspace page is not a general social networking page for the author. It is his way of setting up a webpage at no cost to himself where he can give information about the books and answer questions. Infact, HarperCollins, the publisher, has it listed as his official webpage. http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/31097/Frewin_Jones/index.aspx .--TParis00ap (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How about starting an article about Jones and including the link there? Such links don't belong anywhere else. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

- - I've thought about that in the past, but there just isnt enough information about him and he isn't notable enough for an article. I may dig around a little and see what I can come up with though.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Start with a stub. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wolfberry

Thank you! Apothecia (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

more wp:rs questions.

http://measuringworth.com/

spam or good? — Ched ~ /_© 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just that link itself should probably never be used except if there were an article about that website itself. As for the data and calculators on the website, I think they could be useful, though it would probably be worth discussing on WP:RSN or WP:ORN depending upon the use. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani RFC

Right now from my point of view, it's just a bit too early to start an RFC regarding his behavior. I haven't checked many of his edits though, but if you feel he's done enough disruption to the project, then go ahead and make one yourself. I don't really have enough reasons/arguments to support an RFC right now. ;) Eugene2x► 21:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

NP. As I already pointed out, I just ignore him, and let him know it and why. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike Martin (Politician)

Ronz,

You have edited my page by deleting references that are listed in the article. I am writing this to you directly before I ask for a dispute resolution. I figure we can discuss this to come up with a fix between the two of us.

I am, as you might have already determined, Mike Martin. I created the article back when Wiki was going good. Someone had attempted to write it, but it was thrown out because it had no references. I wrote the details based on news reports and my own biography and made it as objective as possible. It has stood up to harsh scrutinity for years. One of my references has been hit more than 1,000 times as a result of it being included in the article. That was my biographical account of the incident that made me worthy of even being mentioned in Wiki. You have deleted that reference by claiming the author wasn't verifiable. Either you didn't check the reference site and the fact that I show in the referenced site that I am indeed the author, or you have become part of this big push in Wiki to eleminate all outside references, regardless of their support of the main article.

Here are my justifications for including my references on my biographical short story and the article on Creation Science:

1. The short story biography is referenced in the main body of the article. 2. The short story is my rebuttal of facts listed in the article (that I wrote objectively). 3. My one bill, Creation Science, is mentioned in the article and a reference web page was included, giving my reasons for filing the bill.

I find it strange that you took out those two references because you claim the author cannot be verified, yet you left in chat pages of web sites with no validation of authors. I say there are better attempts of identifying me as the author in the sites you deleted than in the ones you left.

I ask that you review your last deletions of my site and return the article to what it originally was.

Waynemart - Mike Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynemart (talk • contribs) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Have you read the conflict of interest notice I placed on your talk page yet? I suggest your next step be WP:COIN, but you can choose whatever WP:DR method you'd like.

There have been multiple discussions about fanstory.com links, with the general consensus being that those links are never appropriate for Misplaced Pages.

Thanks for mentioning your concerns with the remaining references in the article. I'll look into the situation and do my best to correct it or at least identify the problems for others to address. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI:

--A. B. 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani RFC (again)

I've decided to post one here. Are you able to find other users who have been in a dispute with him? I really am not too sure. Eugene2x► 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The RfCU only needs two editors. From what I've read on his talk page, there are many more. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bully stick

When reverting you left the "penis" mention in the article. Was this a mistake or is that really what they are made of? Them From Space 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I was able to find, it's true. The only sources I could find were retail sites though. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Eww ok. Kinda figures that the spammers would want it referred to as a tendon. Them From Space 16:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I redirected it to a better article. It was redundant, promotional, and attracting lots of vandalism. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

3D CAPTCHA addition to CAPTCHA article

Hi Ronz, saw your discussion with some other users regarding the addition of a new type of CAPTCHA based on 3D renderings, and your (valid) response about the article not being written and verified by 3rd parties. I myself have come up with a similar technology, also based on 3D renderings, which was noticed by CNET (twice, once with the idea, the other time with the implementation). You can see the article here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10204300-1.html Would this suffice the addition of 3D captchas to the CAPTCHA definition? Thanks in advance. Marquinho (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Since this is your own technology, WP:COI applies. The solution is to discuss this in detail on the article talk page first, and being very cautious about adding the material to the article without other editors supporting the additions. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Thanks for the suggestion. Will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquinho (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Liqueurs

Hi. Please see Talk:List of liqueurs#Reversions. Thanks. -GTBacchus 21:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Availablity for Mediation on TM article

I will be applying for formal mediation shortly. Please let me know within the next two days if you will be available for mediation or not. This does not mean you accept the mediation, but just that I can include your name as party to the mediation. Thanks. I realize you said you would not be available for much discussion but wanted to include you as a party to the mediation if you're interested.(olive (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Good idea. I don't have much to contribute other than my interpretation and experience with NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on my user page, Ronz. I doubt anything else will work. We'll see.(olive (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Glad I could help. I'll try to pitch in more when I have the time. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

From Viriditas' talk page

Ronz, hi. Regarding your note at Viriditas' page... I appreciate the work you've done, but I'm concerned that your methods might be exacerbating some aspects of the problem. Would you be willing to chat about strategies for working with this editor? I think we might have an easier time with Badagnani if he feels less persecuted. In that vein, do you think we could lay off on less important issues, such as the ice-cream picture, and really work on more important edits, such as the commercial link additions? Please let me know what you think. -GTBacchus 18:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Looks like we're thinking alike here.

As I already pointed out, "People react badly to many things. That's the problem here." Badagnani reacts badly to perfectly acceptable editing and dispute resolution. He appears to always feel persecuted, no matter the situation. I've tried working with him. After trying multiple, different dispute resolution methods with him, my solution was to ignore anything from him that was inappropriate or disruptive, per WP:TROLL. When others had similar problems, I encouraged them to ignore him as well, and to focus on improving the articles and follow WP:DR. Unfortuately, those others escalated the situation, resulting in the RfC/U.

I'm always willing to chat about other strategies.

If you look, you'll see that I had offered multiple solutions to Ice-cream headache, the last few all being compromises. I've since moved on, though I'm going to continue to look for good opportunities where I can suggest ways to stop the gross disruptions and personal attacks that have happened since. I'm also planning on jumping in if anyone continues the previous discussions on what we want in the images there. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, trying to ignore people per WP:TROLL pretty much doesn't work. It doesn't generally make them go away, and you can't convince others to play along. I tend to take a direct intervention approach, but then again, I also tend to work with people that no other admin would give the time of day to. He's definitely not a troll, nor is he a vandal, and I hope I can persuade some of the editors surrounding him to lay off all of the personal remarks, because such statements are universally and uniformly unhelpful.

Perhaps the most helpful thing to do is to document issues on the talk pages. Any edit that goes back and forth more than one round should spawn a talk-page section, just so you can say what's wrong with the edits in a context other than the edit summary. Communication via edit summary tends to leave a lot to be desired. Also, being the first to ask the question on the talk page looks very good, and in a reputation-based system such as Misplaced Pages, that's important. In any such situations, if you need someone to weigh in at the talk page and add some comments about the edits in question, please feel free to let me know. I'm always willing to look at an edit and say what I think of it.

Thanks for hearing what I've got to say. -GTBacchus 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've had a lot of success with ignoring editors when no other dispute resolution method would work. I tend to be pretty good at starting discussions, very good at contributing to them. While it's better to make an extremely stark contrast between tendentious editors and yourself, I don't have the time to be on the lookout for all the tendentious editors out there, and then put extra time and effort into explaining even the most simple and obvious situations for whoever might be looking in, all just in order to make a case against the tendentious editors. I expect editors to know and understand basic Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, or at least discuss them when they're not. I also expect editors to learn from their past discussions. I don't think I should be lowering my expectations any further. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope that I haven't asked you to lower your expectations. Thanks again for listening. -GTBacchus 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy to discuss alternatives. I've been rather busy lately, and haven't had the usual time I'd like with Misplaced Pages. It makes this situation all the more frustrating.

I really haven't bumped into you much, and don't recall if we had similar opinions or not when we did. I am extremely impressed with your handling of this situation though. Continued suggestions more than welcome. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yummy spam

(Bad faith comment removed --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.151.108 (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yeah Ronz, you really need to stop spamming articles...when did you change your ways?</sarcasm>--kelapstick (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Spam 4 types.jpg		Four types of Spam
		For your intense efforts to reduce the Spamocity of Misplaced Pages I serve up to you four different types of (potentially edible) Spam. While I may not agree with your stance on everything I appreciate (at least most of) the work that you do here--kelapstick (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you would delete it as being promotional for canned meat! Keep up the good work.--kelapstick (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should start investigations at WP:COIN and WP:RSPAM? ;^) The humor is appreciated! --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:List of liqueurs. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. These four edits ( ) constitute four reversions, a violation of the three revert rule. Please stop. Bongomatic 03:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll report myself. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Farms

I'm guessing you did a lot of work on the WikiFarms Page. I want to let you know that I think it is great. I am looking for a Free Wiki Service that can manage WYSIWYG Tables to help run scheduling for a non-profit. Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Jared —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared999 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheree Silver

Hi, I noticed you recently edited the article Sheree Silver, which is currently undergoing Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). You're welcome to comment, if you get a chance. Spring12 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning on it. Just waiting to see what comes of the effort to identify independent, reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty much listed all I could find at the AFD discussion. I updated the article a bit just now, but don't want to take it too far cause' of the RfC underway. Thanks for the edits, though. Spring12 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your question...

...although any further discussion should take place on my talk, my immediate response is that the only diff you provided leads to this post: "Multiple people argued to keep this list in 4 AfD's. A few spam fighters can't seem to let it go. Why exactly are you here? If you don't like this list or its inclusion criteria, and are not interested in this topic, then please let those who are interested continue working. You haven't contributed anything to this article. So why are you here? It seems to be just a desire for more deletion. No, seriously, why are you here? You seem to follow Ronz around. When I bump into either of you, the other soon follows. See WP:Wikihounding and WP:TE. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)". Can you show me where any of that paragraph is either a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA? All I was asking for is a diff where something actually violated those, because none of us who patrol WQA could see it using that one. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Link Farm in Comparison of hex editors

First thanks for all your work. Unfortunately, I was very frustrated that you removed all the links on the Comparison of hex editors page. I found them convenient for going to each vendor's site.

I really don't see the problem with having links to each product's home page. As long as they all have them it is not going to boost their relative link counts in search engines. I found that WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK were irrelevant or did not really apply in this case.

A problem that your change has created is that there are now "Spam pages" (or whatever they are called as I am not that familiar with Misplaced Pages jargon) appearing so that the hex editor entry can link to a Misplaced Pages page (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/010_Editor). What would be more useful would be to remove the entirely spurious list of references on said page, which is fairly blatant link farming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.23.33 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Sorry about your frustration. Instead of spam links, you're saying we now have spam pages. Yes, that happens too. If a hex editor can be demonstrated to be notable, it deserves it's own page, with a link to the official site. If not, it doesn't. I'd rather have editors trying to determine notability of hex editors, than simply adding urls. After all, that's what Misplaced Pages is about. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You know.... doing this isn't a very good idea, at least not as far as I can tell. What do you think it'll do, make him change? It strikes me that it's more likely to just deepen his conviction that you're stalking him. How, exactly, is that helpful?

If he's edit warring, don't warn him. It won't mean anything to him, coming from you. Get someone else - either me, or another admin. Wouldn't you rather be more effective? Leaving him warnings yourself is a great way to be ineffective. -GTBacchus 13:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would give absolutely anyone the same warning who was in the same situation. I don't know what will help him. I'm now trying to minimize all the time I'm putting into his disruptions. If I had had more time, I would have written a 3RR report against him. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"I would give absolutely anyone the same warning who was in the same situation". I'm not sure that's a good idea, but you may keep your own counsel, and I'll respect that. I was just offering some friendly advice. Do let me know if I can help with any particular article situation. -GTBacchus 19:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand and respect what you're doing. As I've already mentioned, I've given Badagnani all the special treatment I'm willing to give, and feel that too much of it was a waste of time. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope I haven't asked you to give anyone special treatment! Take care. -GTBacchus 17:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It was my decision, because I was unsure (and still am unsure) if he understands others' comments in reply to his own. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Data mining - reinstating external links

Ronz, I am puzzled why you removed valid and useful external links from Misplaced Pages entry on data mining.

I don't know how much you are involved in data mining, but I have been working in this field for 20 years, and the links you removed are links to important sites which are very relevant to data mining.

For example, ACM SIGKDD is the leading professional organization for Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, that I currently chair. It is part of ACM and non-profit, and its mission is to support research and education in data mining. Why do you think it is spam to link to ACM SIGKDD ? Other external links are also to valid resources, including my site KDnuggets and other sites like AnalyticBridge.

Furthermore, all Misplaced Pages links are nofollow.

Gregory Piatetsky-Shapiro Chair, ACM SIGKDD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpswiki (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I see you've been editing Misplaced Pages for a while, but haven't edited very much during that time. I'm afraid that you've probably haven't become familiar with the policies and guidelines I've already mentioned, plus WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Could use your help/opinion

Hi Ronz, it's been awhile, hope you are well. I have a question since this isn't something I have seen before. Is this considered spamming? Since you do a lot of work on this type of thing I thought that you would be a great person to ask about this. From what I saw on some of the articles, this is being added, the photo I mean, with a paragraph about how useful it is as an alternate. My problem is that there doesn't seem to be refs included, at least when I looked at the Crohn's disease article which was the last one on the list of contributions at the time of this post. I am going to go back to the CD article and if there isn't any refs I will be removing it if no one else has. But that being said I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this for my future knowledge and help with clean up if that is needed. I have never put a warning on a users page before so I don't know if this is appropriate. The reason I don't use warning templates is mainly when I first came here they were used for attacking plus not being an administrator it really doesn't have any use. Well it does as it notifies others that there was a need for a warning. Thinking about it I should probably go and find the templates and read up on them again as I am sure they have change over time since I started here. Anyways, I am getting off track here, your opinion on these additions would be appreciated. Take care and be well, --CrohnieGal 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, User talk:Eubulides has been taking care of some of the edits from the editor above. I have checked to see if s/he is going through them all but that's ok. I just wanted to let you know because I belately noticed your notice about being here infrequently. I also asked if Eubulides would edit the Crohn's disease article with hopes to have someone bring it to FA status. I hope you are well and sorry for the babbling. Take care and talk to you soon. --CrohnieGal 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI I wasn't going to mention this but incase it continues I guess you should be aware. It is closed so no comments there are necessary. :) --CrohnieGal 14:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Good to hear from you. Hope you're well.

Yes, that editing is problematic, especially the addition of unsourced information on an alternative treatment. Looks like Eubulides has it under control. Good call.

Thanks for the ANI on that editor! --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes Eubulides does seem to be handling it and I deleted some that didn't have any refs to prove what was said. No problem about reporting to ANI. Watch out though, there was more vandalism to your user page that other editors reversed. Apparently someone is upset with you. :) Keep in touch and I will too. Nice chatting again. --CrohnieGal 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand

I understand very little of your behaviour and words, so I am very confused.
I have stayed up much later than I intended giving polite and detailed logical explanations which, for reasons that you do not explain, you have reverted and ignored.
It now being nearly 3am, I am going to bed. Perhaps when I return in about 18 hours you will have restored my edits, answered my questions, and explained yourself a little bit more clearly, and we can make some progress on this matter.
As I said, I have no conflict of interest issues in this area, and as I have considerable professional experience in the area, I am therefore able to give neutral professional advice. Hopefully you will find this helpful.
Until tomorrow. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I hope you realize that I was the one that started the discussion. My first comments were to identify the specific policies and guidelines that I referred to in my edit summaries. It would be helpful for you to respond with specifics as to why you think those specific policies and guidelines are not being violated, but that is your decision. It would help move along the discussions more quickly. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was very pleased to read your various responses. Not only do they display "good faith", but they display a willingness to jointly work towards a solution. Such an environment is always more pleasant and more productive!
(as an aside: I like seeing all sides of the conversation in the one place; this conversation seems to spread over three pages (so far ;-). I don't have a particular preference for which "one place", just "one place". As most of the issues I'm discussing in this particular segment of "the conversation" are largely between you & me, I've replied here. But as I implied, if you want to do it somewhere else, that's OK with me.)
>Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. - Me too. (Thanks for saying so.)
>I hope you realize that I was the one that started the discussion. - Well, I thought I did, but now I'm not sure what you mean! I'm assuming you mean, "I started the discussion on the article talk page"? If so, then my answer is "Yes." However, I would note that having started it, you haven't said anything further since your first entry, so I'm a bit confused about calling it a discussion, and wonder if you are referring to something else?
>It would be helpful ... . Yes, I expect it would be. However, there is lots of stuff in those policy pages; I could be here forever addressing every point, and I imagine you wouldn't be interested in most of such a response. I would find it helpful if you were specific about which bits of the policy you wished me to address. However, in any case, I expect a more productive use of my time, (and probably involving less effort on my part!), would be to create wikipages for those cases.
So, very briefly, and using generalisations: Red links tell you nothing. In the field of Computer Science, the "standard" way to find out about a company is to google its name. Usually, if the company has a web site, that is the most useful (comprehensive & reliable) source of information. Yes you must have what we Australians call your "bull@*#% detection and filtering meter" turned up to high, but often that is the only, and usually that is the best, source of information. Yes, I know that's not ideal, but in such an information poor environment, you do what's necessary.

The linkspam from my perspective is a very simple, gross violation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. Reformatting these as references doesn't change this at all, nor does your restoring them without addressing any of my concerns. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

>The linkspam from my perspective is a very simple, gross violation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. - Well, from your pov, it probably is. But carrying on from my comments above, from the situation of reality, "You take what you can get". When it comes down to expediency and practicality, you have to make compromises and compensations. If you want to be pedantic and purist, in this field you usually come away empty handed, which is neither informative nor useful.
>Reformatting these as references doesn't change this at all, nor does your restoring them without addressing any of my concerns. - Well yes, you are quite correct, but as I've tried to explain, there are also other factors involved.

I hope you found that at least some of the above was useful. If not, please ask some specific questions, and I will attempt to address them. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just got your message. I'm hopeful that a good nights rest will allow us to settle this quickly and amicably. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Me too! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I hope this is all just a misunderstanding. You're tired, I'm very busy. I most likely will not have the time to address your concerns before you return. I hope you can be a bit more patient if that is the case. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can be patient. I would not say it is my strongest skill. But my experience is that there are very few things that are so urgent & important that they can't wait at least a little while. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now the hardest bit: Please note that my posting that you reverted was not intended to be an attack or intended to be just my personal views. I expressed those points in first person language because I was writing them, but they were (are) my interpretation of the general norms of the subsections of societies in which you & I are currently interacting. As such, my interpretation is that your response to the elected representative of the professionals in the Data Mining and KDD areas was not appropriate. I would appreciate it if you reread and considered my words in that light. I was attempting to AGF. Perhaps I failed miserably, but that was what I was attempting.

Well it's rather closer to midnight than I would prefer, so that's all from me for tonight. If I don't speak to you before, enjoy the Autumn/Spring equinox festivities. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help repeated

Hi. is being repeatedly vandalized. Just look at the provocative comments left in edits. I have attended many of Jeff's seminars and comments are ridiculous. Thx. -- Amanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.211 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It looks like the problems have been worked out. If there's anything you're still concerned with, please let me know what specifically. WP:BLP applies here, which means anything controversial or disputed should be sourced with the highest quality references. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

John Zachman and the Zachman Framework

Hi Ronz,

I allready have noticed some time ago, you have been protecting both articles for over a year from the attempts of the Zachman organization and associates to censor both articles, untill four months ago, I kind of took over.

Now I noticed you have put a lot of effort in it, and so do I, but the attacks keep coming. Phogg2 again, as if nothing ever happened, starts removing the illustration of the John Zachman article. It almost looks like he is just toying with is.

Now I wonder if you could give me your advice here, how to proceed. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at what's going on. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Has Phogg2, or anyone else admitted to working for Zachman? Have any ip's been identified as being Zachman's? If so, then this should be taken to WP:COIN. Otherwise, I think it would be best to update the talk page discussion so it's clear what's going on. Then WP:THIRD or WP:EAR would be good next steps. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep those options in mind. The situation is quite complicated, and since you know some of it, I am glad you can comment.

Phogg2 has made it quite clear, that he is in contact with John Zachman, and he is not happy with that.... Now I am not happy about the situation either. But their attempts to censor both articles is against everything I stand for.... But, maybe I have a solution here. I will propose it on the talk:John Zachman page, soon. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ronz and Mdd. I happened to see this discussion. Phogg2 has been cooperative in the past, and I exchanged some email with him. I don't fully understand his recent removal of the diagram from the John Zachman article, but discussion with him ought to be tried, in my opinion, before going to any noticeboards. We should find out if Zachman can assert a copyright claim on the VA diagram. If not, it is up to regular editors to decide if the VA diagram is useful in the article. One option would be to tell Phogg2 that we need to receive a copyright claim from JZ himself via OTRS if he thinks he owns the copyright to the VA diagram. I think this edit by Phogg2 is hard to justify: Image deleted. Not merely my personal opinion. Zachman International disagrees with its use as well. I think we should respect their wishes. This is a confusing mixture of possible rationales, none of which fit with our policy very well. I think I'll ask him on his Talk page about this. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Advertising for Lean Dynamics

Please do not delete section of lean manufacturing page that cites "lean dynamics"--removal of this will render the description incomplete and therefore misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabiw1 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the lean manufacturing article adds an 8th form of "waste" based on one book--so I'm surprised to see your comment that multiple reputable books and articles cited here do not constitute independent, reliable sources... could you please explain the standard based on this discrepancy?Nabiw1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC).

I haven't looked into it in depth. Books can be written by anyone and be of any quality. I'm asking for others' help in determining what reliable sources we have. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gamelan AfD

Done (and all the others as well!). Black Kite 20:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you know?

...about WP:DTTR? The reason behind it is that it tends not to do anything worthwhile. You know he won't hear it coming from you; you've probably just steeled his resolve against you. You should throw a curve ball occasionally, y'know?

Note that this is not a template - I'm talking to you for real. -GTBacchus 00:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm extremely familiar with DTTR, and strongly against it. I feel that editors should be treated equally and that templates should be used to present consistent and fair responses to the issues for which they are intended. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And you think that because... it leads to good effects? Which ones? -GTBacchus 00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Documenting issues. Showing that editors have been made aware of problems in a consistent an fair manner. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I see. I disagree with that approach, but I see. I'd rather do something that has more of a chance of resolving the dispute than do something that simply documents that it happened, but I (honestly, not ironically) recognize that I'm unusual in this regard. -GTBacchus 01:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only way to resolve this is to ban or block him, so I'm just documenting some of the continuing problems. He behavior is getting worse, not better. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it? Which article(s) are we talking about? I mean, I don't think I'll have any sway with him, but I can maybe get other admins to take a look. -GTBacchus 01:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

He's no longer making edit summaries, but simply reverting edits he doesn't like in David Oei.

In Cellophane noodles he doesn't care that one supposed reference is a press release, while the other is blocked because it has hosted malicious software. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... has anyone made a report? -GTBacchus 01:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A report on what? --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

His current tendentious editing, without edit summaries. If it hasn't already been brought to some appropriate noticeboard, I'm willing to take it there.

Also, I replied to your post on my talk page. Cheers. -GTBacchus 02:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

He and GraYoshi2x have been reverting each other on multiple articles. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've posted at WP:ANI#Edit warring, if anyone cares. Hope you don't mind that I mentioned your name as someone who knows something about the situation. I suspect I'm done for the night, anyway. -GTBacchus 02:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, for notifying the parties for me. Silly of me to forget. OTOH, Badagnani has made it clear I'm not welcome on his talk page, so... -GTBacchus 15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but those formatting edits he made were quite sensible. Comments at the same indent level as those directly above them make for more difficult reading. I think a little bit of refactoring for readability is desirable. -GTBacchus 16:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't that he may or may not be trying to make a sensible edit, but that he's not communicating his intentions and edit-warring over it. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but in a case where the edit makes sense, I think it's advisable to let it slide. You've got plenty of ammo without standing on ceremony over two colons. -GTBacchus 17:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I pointed out, all I'm doing is documenting the problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And all I'm doing is make suggestions that I think are good ones. -GTBacchus 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see a problem. He just edit-warred. I documented it. Thanks for the suggestion. I have no intention to take any more action on this specific event. If he edit wars over something that I once again think is no problem, I will likely document that event as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we understand each other. -GTBacchus 17:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lockbumping.org

Just letting you know I already recommended it for blacklisting... See here: Subverted (talk • contribs) 03:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Gamelan

I would really appreciate if you could expand the explanation for the notability tag at the gamelan outside Indonesia article please - at the article talk page - it would be appreciated -

where NPOV comes into it
where N comes into it
where OR comes in

I realise that you might have a particular issue with articles - but it is not clear from what you have written at the AFD List Afd exactly what is going on Satu Suro 15:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. Gimme a few minutes. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Done! --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

a4m established

you have listed a4m as established in 1993. can you reference that date with any article of any kind. the organization is celebrating there 17th annual conference in April of 2009. if 2009-17= 1992. you have the data wrong and should up date it to be accurate. I am asking that you cite your reference proving the date of establishment. you should also include whom the company was founded by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.134.3 (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume the NY Times article verifies that. 2009-17+1=1993. I'm assuming at the first annual conference, they were not a year old. --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Neural network software / Neural Network - (rv spameed)

Hello Ronz,

You have deleted my external link addition to this two pages : Neural network software / Neural Network I'm sorry to put these links and that you considered them like spams. I think it's pretty good that there's kind of "regulation system" on wikipedia.

I understand that maybe you don't have time to look more in details my website www.neuralfc.com. The fact is that I'm not trying to sell or advertise for something. I'm a student in a French engineering school and I try to contribute to the community by proposing a totally free software (Excel Macro actually) that uses Neural Networks. These wikipedia articles helped me to build it, so I assumed it wasn't a problem if I let people know about my software through Misplaced Pages.

I hope you can better understand my behaviour with this small explaination. Many thanks.

Ludovic D.

Thanks for your note. What the articles need are reliable sources to verify the information in them and to expand the articles further. Unfortunately, it is a problem when editors try to use Misplaced Pages to notify others about software and products, especially their own. The most relevant policies and guidelines are WP:SPAM and WP:COI, which go into much more detail about these issues. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam concerns

Hi, I am not trying to spam. I am adding links to the Fales library in an attempt to facilitate interested parties to more information. There is no commercial interest in this. Fales library is an open library to researchers. Thanks, I hope this clears it up. Kelsievans (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Kelsi

Thanks for responding. We've had problems like this in the past, which is in part why I've asked for help. My concerns are not that there are commercial interests, but that your editing fits WP:SPAMMER, sometimes going beyond just adding links but instead adding new section in article that are little more than promotions for the library. Let's see what others say. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam

Oh ok, I will try to contribute information as well. I want to help people know about the individuals as well. I can also remove the section titles if that helps.Kelsievans (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Kelsi

Deleting my comments on gamelan ensembles AfD

Would you mind explaining yourself? — Gwalla | Talk 05:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If I did, it was unintentional. Let me check what it is you're talking about. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Maybe I had been reading the previous copy, then edited it without first renewing the page? Sorry. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Talking with you

Sorry about not responding sooner. I would like to talk to you about these things, but I have very limited time I can spend on Misplaced Pages and for the past few weeks it has all been taken up with fighting these sort of battles. That in itself is my biggest concern about the orthodoxy that you and others have been showing in policing guidelines. I'd be happy to discuss this with you in more detail when things settle down. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I look forward to when you have time to talk rather than battle. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

LinkFarm

RE: your post, "official site links formatted as references violate WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK", I am not seeing any place in policy pages that support your statement that "Official site links formatted as references violate" anything.

List of guide dog schools is a moderately well formatted list that fits well within the style guide line of WP:List. In my reading of WP:SELFPUB (which is part of a policy not a style guideline) Primary references serving solely to support the existence of an establishment are acceptable. As you know as indicated by the first sentence under the editing window all Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and content of lists are not an exception to verifiability policy.

Could you go into more detail and supply references to specific places in policy on why you think supplying a single link to each of several separate items is a violation of Misplaced Pages expectations? (p.s. I have not been getting on line regularly so may be a couple days before I get back here) Jeepday (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message.

"Primary references serving solely to support the existence of an establishment are acceptable" Really? How so? I'd say just the reverse, that those links do not belong as references because of WP:SELFPUB #1 & #5. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How do such links not violate WP:SPAM? How does an article sourced this way not violate much of WP:NOT (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO)? --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Jeepday (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You're overlooking #1 and &5, after I pointed them out. Why? --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are having failure to communicate, You asked for a specific rationale I gave you one. I asked for specific rationale and you responded with "How does an article sourced this way not violate much of WP:NOT (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO)? ". Ignoring my request for specifics while offering responses like yours above is not a two way communication process. You have failed to support your argument, instead demanding that I refute it. There is no conversation to continue here. Jeepday (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on the issues, rather than me.

I asked for you to explain your position, by quoting what I'd like clarified, and citing my concerns related to your position.

If you would like clarification or expansion of my comments, just ask.

I'd like an answer to my question, "How does an article sourced this way not violate much of WP:NOT (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO)?" I notice that others have brought up similar concerns. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interpretations of policies and guidelines

Ronz, I have a chance to chat about this, and I see that I am not alone in my views. My main sticking point with the deletion of these sorts of lists is that it is a matter of interpretation as to where to draw the dividing line between "Spam" and "Useful link" or between "Yellow page directory" and "Useful list". For example, I worked to create List of longest suspension bridge spans which nobody has challenged as being anything other than a useful list. However, it its beginnings a large majority of the bridges did not have articles. When I nominated it for feature status, it was criticized for having too many red links so I created stubs for all the bridges (which struck me as being absurd). Most of these stubs have not changed in the last few years, and basically contain the information that can be found in the list. The list has links to the homepages for each bridge, just as the guide dog article has links to all the schools. So it is not simply the external links that are problematic. They exist everywhere. It is part of our guidelines to include a link to a corporation's website in the article about the corporation. External links are a fundamental part of the value of Misplaced Pages.

The creation of pages at Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort. Each person finds some useful piece of information and adds it. The next person can find that information and add to it. In creating the Bridge list, I started with a couple of outdated (and as it turns out inaccurate) lists that I found on the internet. I then added external links for each bridge. For someone looking to find out more about each bridge, the bridge's webpage is the most useful link that could be added. If someone were to decide to write an article about the bridge, that is where they would start. Later if some information is challenged they can find a third party source to confirm or refute the challenged information. This is how Misplaced Pages came into being. By people incrementally making things better and adding more information. It didn't just spring into existence fully formed. If you had nominated my list of bridges for deletion because it was full of external links and had a large proportion of redlinks, I might have just gotten frustrated and walked away. My point is that it is unproductive to take such a hard line and apply such a strict interpretation of the meaning of "directory" or "spam". The reality is that everyone LOVES Misplaced Pages because they can find the information they want as well as links to the things they are looking for. For this reason, I think we have to take a broad view of our guidelines and focus on the most egregious manifestations of Spam. In my view, the guidelines are written with practicalities in mind. We don't want lists that have thousands of entries because they are unmanageable. We don't want lists that can never be made comprehensive because they might give a false impression. We don't want a list of things just related to topics that we find unencyclopedic. If we have articles about guide-dog schools and can create a comprehensive list of all of them which is manageable, then what is the practical problem with having such a list? If there are links to the schools that are listed, it will help others find out information about those schools and that might result in more articles about notable schools. This all seems like a good thing to me, and in keeping with a less rigid interpretation of our guidelines, which was the norm during the first few years of Misplaced Pages.

Rigid interpretations were applied to deal with articles about living people, and I think there is good reason to become more strict about those articles. However, strict orthodoxy seems very counter productive everywhere else. It alienates users - old and new. It stimulates long drawn out talk page and AFD discussions. It dampens the spirit of collaboration. You can take the energy you are using to police these pages and apply them to something much more egregious. Pages like List of guide dog schools and List of gamelan ensembles in the United States are not going to bring down Misplaced Pages. They many not be your view of proper pages, but I respectfully request that you allow others to disagree with you, and to accept harmless things that may be a little outside your interpretation. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. Obviously, you have given a lot of thought to this.

I don't think the articles need to be deleted, if they follow the applicable policies and guidelines.

"External links are a fundamental part of the value of Misplaced Pages." No they are not, hence the many policies and guidelines related to them. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not a directory.

"However, strict orthodoxy seems very counter productive everywhere else." We disagree on that. I'm sure you'd change your mind if you thought about a bit. BLP is one exception, as you point out. So is Copyvio. So is 3RR. So is Spam. So is Vandal. So is Threat. So is V.

Again, I don't see the necessity of deleting the articles, if only we can bring them into line with the applicable policies and guidelines. The problem with List of gamelan ensembles in the United States is that is blatantly violates multiple policies and guidelines, and editors support keeping the article as is with absurd Wikilawyering and calls to ignore policies and guidelines.

Finally, it would help if you'd stop with the accusations. You appear to have made up your mind about me before any direct interaction between us on these issues, after ignoring my attempts to reach out to you. --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, I never saw your name until you showed up on the List of gamelan ensembles in the United States and took a hard and fast position about external links that you are still insisting on. I have accused you of "rigid orthodoxy", which I believe is a fair assessment of your behavior. I would be more than happy for you to prove me wrong. I came to your page, as you requested, to discuss this. Which I am still willing to do. I will agree with you that there are other policies which sometimes need to be enforced more rigidly, but there will always be shades of gray and different interpretations. If you cannot see that people may come to different conclusions than yours then you should probably focus your efforts on things that are more black and white. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot have discussions with others before making accusations of them, maybe you should take a break. I'm not going to make any attempts to prove anything to you. Get over it. If you're just going to make demands of others, you're the one causing problems. As I already pointed out to you, WP:BATTLE covers this. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Template needs help

As a contributor to this template, would you like to take a look at Template talk:Contemporary writers#Doesn't always work. Truthanado (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think I can help. Looking at the template, it looks like you have to give it the id that the contemporary writers site uses. I don't know if those id's have changed, but that would be my guess. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

your message

Just wanted to let you know that i responded (on my talk page) to teh messages you left on my talkpage.

thanks! LiptonInstituteofTea (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Project management

Hi Ronz,

I have been having a hard time managing the project management article, removing several new material because I want the article to give an overview.

Now a new editor keeps adding his brand new article Project management for Media and Entertainment to the see also section, dispite several of my removals, edit summaries, messages on his talkpage, and a general note on the article. I have removed that link three times now, but he has reverted this removal three times as well.

Could you please take a look, and give me your opinion. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Yes, Project management and the related article are frustrating. I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

External Links and Alternate Uses of Products

Hi Ronz,

AltUse.com is creating a worldwide repository of alternative uses to extend the utility of everyday products. AltUse provides alternative uses for common items, e.g. Honey, Coffee Grounds, etc. Information I added to Misplaced Pages is offered (external links for various items) to provide other uses beyond the traditional method for using a product. Examples may be viewed at http://www.AltUse.com

Would you please reconsider the links to alternative uses of products as not spam?

Thank you, Dictate (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)dictate

Given that the content is user-contributed and the site is ad-heavy, I don't think it is appropriate as an external link. As I pointed out in my edit summary, these concerns are covered by WP:ELNO #2, 5, 10. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I agree that the link is not appropriate. Specifically, it violates the following from WP:ELNO: Possibly 1, certainly 2 (all the information in the site is unverifiable), likely 4, perhaps 5, maybe 11, and also possibly 13.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 23:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett

If you go forward with AE, please add me as an endorse (if that's allowed) as I might not have access for a few days. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm hoping it won't be necessary, but that's up to the disruptive editors. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged personal attack

Okay, so I noticed your edit to my talk page warning me to not do personal attacks, and I was just wondering what that was about. I do not recall making any edits at all for several weeks, and the ones I do remember were just grammar and reverting vandalism. Could you please point out what I said that caused your warning? 98.219.132.3 (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page

I prefer keeping the discussion in one place, if that works for you. -GTBacchus 23:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Badagnani

Thx, Ronz. Definitely endorsed. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality control and genetic algorithms

Hi Ronz, could you express your opinion about the ongoing issues at the Quality control and genetic algorithms article. Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw there was a dispute there, but didn't look at the specifics. I will now. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

List of digital library projects

This is just a quick note that the a page you've commented on before List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've voiced my agreement on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Messages

Please see that I am new to Misplaced Pages, I have responded to your messages now, hopefully we can resolve the editing issues, rather than just leave them hanging, I think that most of the edits are now fine, please give me some feedback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ridley (talk • contribs) 06:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll respond on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're being talked about

See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Spamfighters_repeatedly_trying_to_delete_longstanding_popular_chart_of_wiki_farms. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I was hoping no one would take the WP:BAIT. --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've heard you be called a lot of things but a SPA is one I would never have thought of! ;) I got a good laugh from it though since I know you're editing style. Keep up the good work. :) Well it's been awhile, how is it going with you? I hope you are well. Keep in touch ocassionally, --CrohnieGal 11:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone is laughing. I suppose I should as well, along with just ignoring such nonsense. Thanks for the note. Busy. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I understand busy. Just remember this is just another day at Misplaced Pages, and this too shall pass. Drop by if you get some free time. I haven't seen you around lately. Take care, --CrohnieGal 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Seeyou 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,

Revision as of 20:08, 8 June 2009

Your report at AN3

Bates method dispute

comparison of email programs

Hey just popping in

Hi (2)

Chatterbots page

Edit for "Naveen Jain" wiki page

Theory of Constraints

Doh

Thanks, and quick question.

Understanding conflict of interest - Peanut Allergy article

follow-up on the Peanut Allergy page

my contributino to the peanut allergy situation

link removed from Performance Analysis

Suggested edit for Peanut Allergy page

External links

Books and articles

Sorry

rewrite: MOND Tech.

Peanut Allergy article, external links

Third opinion

Thanks

Checkuser

COI

WP:ANI report made concerning you

ref advantages

Online chat quotes

SPAM?

Spamming

Myopia Myth suggestions you made

Question on Schneider links

Life Extension Foundation edits

Notepadpage and links related to my-health-software.com

Thanks Ronz

Dan Schneider links

AfD nomination of FreeMind

James Joyce

Socks

Friendly advice

Sent email

Kinesis Myofascial Integration ‎

Recreating wiki page

Selfpub removal, Steven M. Greer

CAPTCHA section removal

Tagging

More about the Peanut Allergy article process

Link removal - Imposition

References on Stick Candy

Had to laugh

Blocked IP 195.227.12.254 and my contributions

Re: comments on Badagnani's talk page

Aberdeen Group

blacklist

List of PDF software

universal design

Returnil

WP:RS

Copyright and assumptions

Smile

Sorry, Ronz answered on my talkpage

List of PDF software - again

Wolfberry

more wp:rs questions.

Badagnani RFC

Mike Martin (Politician)

Badagnani RFC (again)

3D CAPTCHA addition to CAPTCHA article

Liqueurs

Availablity for Mediation on TM article

From Viriditas' talk page

Yummy spam

March 2009

Wiki Farms

Your question...

Link Farm in Comparison of hex editors

Courtesy notice

Data mining - reinstating external links

Could use your help/opinion

I don't understand