Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:36, 9 December 2006

Accessibility links

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

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

Understanding Maya link

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

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

Design and Management

Why do you keep deleting my link to my organizations website? My org is affiliated with a higher institution Parsons School of Design and is completely legit. Have a look yourself. We do not make money, we are just trying to unify the d and m community. Thank you. (unsigned by 149.31.67.93 on 16:50, 13 November 2006)

See the Talk:Design_management page, where I explained my edits. --Ronz 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, unfortunately I've noticed that you've removed the link to my Blog: Vol. 2: design-management.de. Actually there are two reasons why the link shall remain: 1.) I'm an internationally recognized lecturer for all major international Design Management programmes across the globe for more than 8 years. I even co-developed a Masters Degree programme in Design Management in the Netherlands. As a result of regular student requests for information about design, management and business issues around design management I've founded the blog in 2003. So far it is the single comprehensive resource on the topic of design management worldwide (beside the Design Management Institute itself) which is regularly updated. 2.) Even though the domain (*.de) suggests that this is a German blog the content is entirely written in English. Accordingly please keep my blog listed as is. Thanks for this! -> Ralf Beuker (Misplaced Pages User Name: Rbeuker): Editor of Vol. 2: design-management.de -> http://www.design-management.de Rbeuker 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Visocica article

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

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

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

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

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

Doctor Octagon speaks

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

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

Doctor Octagon vandalism to your userpage

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

Personal Attacks

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

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

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

• This is simple common sense.

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

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

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

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

Wikiquette alert

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

Changes to Design Wiki Topics

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

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

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

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

Knowledge Visualisation

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

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

Bosnian pyramids

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

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

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

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

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

Bosnian Pyramids EL

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

(Above was added by Neximuss on 28 Sept)

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

Stephen Barrett EL

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

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

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

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

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

online? if want to talk plz come to

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

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

Perfection is hard to achieve :)

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

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

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

Wiki187

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

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

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

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

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

User:SoLongBaby

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

Who are his socks? Fredil 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Customer experience management

Thanks for the merge to Customer experience management. Did you see my comment on the talk page? I'd like to hear your perspective. --Ronz 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I don't know much about the subject. I ran across CEM organization while clearing out the backlog at WikiProject Wikify. Looking at the individual pages, I don't think that they are strong enough to stand on their own - they don't have enough context, and I think the content contained in them would be better served on the main Customer experience management page. I would support any attempts to merge all of them into one article.TredWel 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it Link spam?

On 6 December 2006 you removed Cornell Human Factors and Ergonomics Research Group from the external links section of the article on Ergonomics. Why is that linkspam? It seems to me that it is appropriate to the article - and it does not push a commercial firm, etc. Pzavon 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. My mistake. I should have written "per WP:EL" and made a note on the talk page. I'll rectify. --Ronz 04:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

you said on my page ". . . we're not going to list each and every ergonomics-related research group." and I have no argument with that. However, that particular web page seems to be an excellent collection of support, description, and guidance material about ergonomics, and is provided by what I understand to be one of the top groups in ergonomics. Pzavon 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Humor

Glad to be of service :-) Shot info 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re thanks

Thanks for the quick semi-protection of Color blindness‎!--Ronz 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Welkies. Anytime. -- Szvest 16:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice try

You have made some good suggestions here, but I fear that you are asking an impossiblity. If there is anyone who can get Misplaced Pages's servers to crash, you have met that person, who is probably the most prolific Usenet user and who has no inhibitions. There are also very strong issues related to WP:COI, WP:TEND, and WP:DE, and the legal controversies are not over, so that person would do well to stay away from editing here at all, but will probably not do it voluntarily.

I have witnessed, but not participated in, this user's Usenet discussions, and it's the worst type of behavior I have ever witnessed, and that's saying quite a bit (I have frequented chiropractic discussion groups where threats and foul language are the order of the day, and they are water compared to this user). Now it's being brought here, with outright lies and innuendos about myself, and if I attempt to defend myself, it will just add more fuel to her fire. She is already continually leaving her website URL all over the place in her comments, and lots of extraneous information not related to article content, in violation of the rules governing use of talk pages, as well as attacks on other editors like myself and Barrett. No one has removed it yet.... -- Fyslee 22:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Spurious AfD

Your input is urgently needed on a spurious AfD . -- Fyslee 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)