User talk:Hipal/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

desk-trainer.com page

Hi Ronz, I don't have a lot of time to spend on Wikipedia, but I see you have accused me of vandalism, and I want to let you know that is certainly not the intent. I am a web designer and spend all day on the computer and I was having wrist pains, so I started to research carpal tunnel syndrome and solutions. I started on Wikipedia and then expanded from there. I happened across this desk-trainer.com site and did some of their exercises and it really helped a lot. Then I signed up and did more and my wrist pain went away. So, I thought I would like to share this and tried to write a company profile like I see so many other companies have on the Wikipedia site. If my tone and style was not that good, it was mainly because I am not associated with that company except as a fan, so I don't have all the background and stuff.

Now, they have a new site called carpaltunnelinformation.com which offers free exercises and I think this is WAY better than the Workrave software you guys list on the carpal tunnel syndrome information page on Wikipedia. I would like to add carpaltunnelinformation.com as a link or a reference or something because it is totally free and in my experience way better than Workrave on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpal_tunnel_syndrome, but I would imagine you will just flame me again.

I thought the idea of Wikipedia was the collective shared knowledge of the community, and I did do a little research besides my own experience - which is why I wrote the piece about the company. Then I found out that the exercises were created by this woman who has a really detailed site www.anatbanielmethod.com that explains the validity of the method - which is itself an outgrowth of the Feldenkrais Method which is also listed in Wikipedia. So, it certainly seems legit to me. I don't have forever to spend on this, but I thought I would make one more communication about it because it seems to me a lot of people could benefit from trying these free exercises, and I can't see any downside.

Am I missing something? Anyway, thanks for listening. VFRKen Chico, CA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vfrken (talk • contribs) 10:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain in detail on your talk page. It looks like I have you a uw-v2 warning when I meant a uw-s2. Both are vandalism warnings, but the s2 is specific to spamming, which you had already been warned about and you've repeatedly done after being warned and after your previous edits had been removed as spam. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Hey, thanks for all the feedback. Believe it or not, I did spend a fair amount of time trying to read up on how to use the system before I posted anything, but as you well know, this is an amazingly complex set of rules and procedures to the newbie. If you have a chance to respond, I guess my question would be, is there no way to share this info that I found so helpful and valuable unless it is in some kind of research report? I keep seeing the link to the Workrave software on the Carpal tunnel syndrome page as an example... And it is a really basic little thing that maybe is of some help, but I have had a much better experience with these free exercises at that other site carpaltunnelinformation.com and I thought the idea was that if it was posted other people would be able to check it out and perhaps someone else would have more time to research it further and contribute to it. For example, I did do a bit more research on the desk-trainer.com site and it is based on the work of anatbanielmethod.com and her site is loaded with info, videos, testimonials from MD's, etc. So, I was hoping some of her practitioners would be able to flesh out the content on that desk-trainer page because I don't have the time or the knowledge to do all that. My idea was to try to start the dialog because I am actually an engineer by training - and skeptical by nature - but I did enough research to convince myself there was some real legit science behind these things. But, I also have to make a living which means I am unable to spend too much time trying to share something I thought was a good thing. So, that was a really long question... which condenses to... is there any "approved" way to share a resource like the free exercises page which I think has the potential to help a lot of folks? Thanks for your time.vfrken, chico, ca (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, Wikipedia can be quite complicated. I'm glad you're willing to hang on despite all that you've encountered so far.
IMHO, the best way is to start a discussion on a single article talk page, then work from there. You've contributed most to Carpal tunnel syndrome‎, so Talk:Carpal tunnel syndrome would be a good place to start. You'll see that there is a great deal of discussion there already, and you might want to at least skim it before you start discussing your concerns. It looks like a well-managed article, judging by the to-do list. --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking/interference

Please note my comment on the Vfrken main page. Anthon01 (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I moved it to the appropriate page. Please stop wikistalking me. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I've responded, pointing out that you are mistaken. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ronz, how about we collaborate here? I was trying to be helpful. From what I could gather this editor never received a welcome message. The history of his talk page shows a rebuke by you without a welcome message. Please consider WP:BITE in dealing with newcomers. A review of Vfrken edits shows that he is a new editor whose very first talk page contacts were rebukes with minimal help. For all we know this editor may become a regular editor to WP. I think he should have been treated with more tolerance as per WP:BITE.
From wikistalking: If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter." This is not what I intended. Please consider AGF. Anthon01 (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Stop harassing me.
You are wrong. Here's a lesson for you:
The editor was given an appropriate warning for the creation of the now deleted article. There was no biting involved, though the editor could have chosen a Level 1 warning instead of a Level 2. That warning was given 09:13, 20 February 2007. I didn't give the warning. Perhaps you should take your complaints to the editor involved?
I gave this editor a further warning for repeating the same inappropriate behavior on 18:21, 16 November 2007. The warning I gave him is written specifically for this purpose. I accidentally gave a uw-v2 rather than a uw-s2, but both are for repeat violators. I've corrected the warning prior to your involvement.
Your involvement in this situation is harassment, pure and simple. You stalked me when you were uninvolved, and named me, ignoring the other editor completely. Further, you escalated the situation by introducing WP:BITE while ignoring my offer to find an appropriate venue for discussion of the situation.
Please stop the harassment. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if this offended you. I am only trying to help here. Where and when did you make this offer to find a more appropriate venue? Anthon01 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Please demonstrate you're actually trying to help by taking some proper action. Refactoring would be a good start. Rereading what I wrote that you already responded to will answer your question. --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What this appears to have been is a simple mistake on Ronz's part, having accidentally used uw-v2 instead of uw-s2. However, when a user is attempting to assist in a situation, it is best to assume good faith, instead of assuming that they're stalking you. Anthon01 appears to be trying to help, and is trying to make sure we didn't bite a newcomer. Stalking and harassment pertains to things such as persistantly reverting another user's edits, leaving unfriendly remarks on another user talk page, or things of that effect. Instead of telling a user to stop wikistalking you, it is more civil to politely ask them why they did what they did. Maser (Talk!) 06:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Bullshit. Anthon01 had no business contributing there, and I'm in multiple current discussions with him about his harassing. He named me specifically, when it was the other editor who, if anyone, made a very minor mistake. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
He didn't appear to have made a personal attack against you, and using your name in something that actually appears to be in defence of you isn't a violation of WP:TALK. I suggest you both just relax and work on articles, this conflict isn't helping anything. The newcomer knows it was only a mistake, he knows better than to add promotional information to Wikipedia now, and the problem was resolved. Maser (Talk!) 04:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Bullshit. --Ronz (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really saying you're wrong, I'm saying you should both drop it. The conflict you're in is due to a misunderstanding, a couple of mistakes, and is rooted in alleged incivility. I honestly think that, regardless of whoever started this debate, conflict will help nothing, and in the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong. The problem itself was that a new user may have felt bitten - he no longer feels that way and is now ready to start editing constructively. You both should just steer clear of each other and edit. Maser (Talk!) 04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Bullshit. See User:Ronz. Anthon01 is working his way to a block as a disruptive editor. I have, and will continue to point out when and how he's doing so when he disrupts articles I'm working on. You're asking me to steer clear of him when he's actively wikistalking me?!? Bullshit! --Ronz (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you should assume good faith. His ultimate intention was to help a newcomer, and he likely did not try to make you look like the person who did wrong. I'm sure he wasn't trying to harass you. Maser (Talk!) 04:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean I ignore what someone has done. I'm tiring of your ignoring the facts, and focusing on me. Please drop it. You're bordering on harassing yourself, by repeating your arguments while ignoring mine. --Ronz (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not focusing specifically on you, and I am sorry if it feels that way. I've left notes on his talk page as well, telling him to try and avoid interaction with you for a while. The issue appears to be resolving itself anyways, hopefully. It's unlikely he'll bother you again. Maser (Talk!) 04:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please question whether you're assuming bad faith on my part before responding further. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith with you, I think you made a mistake. Maser (Talk!) 04:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Lots of mistakes all around, most being ignored. The choices on which to follow up upon are telling, hence my asking you to question whether you're assuming bad faith. --Ronz (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! [1] I didn't accuse you of assuming bad faith, but asked you to think about it. I think you're trying to help, but are focusing on the individuals rather than on the actual discussions. --Ronz (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

linkspam?

Hi -- I noticed that you removed my link to northxsouth.com from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Outsourcing_Companies

And the reason you gave was "linkspam, not notable" ... can you explain to me what that means? Isn't that table a list of outsourcing companies and isn't what I added a legit outsourcing company? So why would it be removed?

Thank you for your attention, Ryan Bagueros

Addendum - I noticed that you took away a lot of my additions! And I really don't get it, why aren't these legitimate additions to wikipedia that I've made? I look forward to your response -- I'll be the first to admit that I am a total beginner with adding/editing to wikipedia but I use it a lot and I don't understand what's wrong with my contributions. Ryanbagueros (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanbagueros (talk • contribs) 02:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll reply on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I'm confused by two things. First, you indicated that you removed the company from the list because the list criteria includes having an article already on Wikipedia. However, that criteria wasn't there when I added the link. You added that criteria and then removed my link.

Second, there are a number of companies on that list that do not have an article already on Wikipedia, yet you didn't remove those.

I believe what I added is valid. Can you clear this up?

Addendum - I've gone through and read everything about what "LinkSpam" is on Wikipedia and I still believe the external link I added is valid. The page is a table of external links to outsourcing companies -- so it'll be difficult to maintain such a list without outward-bound links to commercial entities. I would like to add the link back in as I believe it meets the appropriate criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanbagueros (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanbagueros (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's standard inclusion criteria. See WP:LIST.
I removed two entries, then described why. Sorry that I didn't remove all the others. I've done that now.
I think it would be best to discuss the rest on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Linkfarming on White_Pages

Thanks for your feedback on my talk page, and for adding the linkfarm tag to White_Pages - didn't know that was available. I'm kinda inexperienced on Wikipedia. Question: you suggested "stubbing" the article to end the edit warring, which I'd like to do. Any good examples you'd recommend? Thanks --Plausible_deniability (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to do it myself. Stubbing means to trim back an article to a WP:STUB, including adding Template:Stub. In the case of White Pages I'm suggesting that all the external links be removed, which would just leave the few sentences before the "By country section". The categories and foreign language links should be kept also.
Let's give it another 24 hours to see if any of the other editors respond. I'm going to copy some of this to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterStJohn#Please_consider_refactoring

Hi, I am trying to help get the two of you to be able to work together since both of you work on some of the same articles, well at least [2]. I think both of you need to work this out or at least come to some sort of peace so that editing together along with the others is doable. I hope I haven't over stepped myself on this. Please understand though that all I am trying to do is find a way for peace between the two of you since I believe you both have the same objectives, making the article a good one and within Wikipedia policies. If you want me to step out of this, just let me know (either on my talk page or via email) and there will be no hard feeling or anything. I just remember how patient and helpful you have been towards me and so I am just trying to help. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to work it out too. I welcome the help. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears he'd rather use the situation as an excuse to make further inappropriate remarks. --Ronz (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry what did I miss? I was working most of yesterday on Crohn's disease. I'm trying to make the article more readable to the average person and not so medical. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I found it and I left a message for all of you on Anthon's page. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Brevity

I've been enjoying some of your very brief (but effective) comments in contested areas. It would be good if I could learn from them. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a useful skill for content discussions, but most find it annoying when a more personal tone is expected. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

External links in guitarist articles

Hey, just wondering why you reverted the editor who added external links to several Gibson and Epiphone articles. The links are to the official product pages of the manufacturers. I would not consider that "spamming". I request that you revert yourself on those articles. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor that added then added those links has made no other contributions to Wikipedia, fitting Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. Restore any you feel are appropriate for the article per WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, official product pages rarely meet WP:EL and WP:SPAM, as they are usually too promotional and have little if any useful information than that already in the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
In this case you are incorrect. We generally keep excessively technical information off guitar articles for the very reason that gearheads can follow the external link to the manufacturer's page if they want details. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Still, it was spammed, so there should be absolutely no problem whatsoever with my removing them. Like I said, add back any you feel meet WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Notification

As per Wikiquette guidelines, this alert. Pete St.John (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That was my next step. You've saved me the work. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, you're ignoring the most important advice you were given from the WQA entry. You really should read WP:DR carefully, and seek some advice on how to follow it. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Coral Calcium (Consensus and Policy)

Hello fellow Wikipedian and Wikiproject member. The proposed Wikiproject: CCE (Commission for Collaborative Editing)[3] has received a request to review consensus and policy issues on coral calcium and talk:coral calcium. This notice is to inform you that coral calcium is now an active case for the CCE.

The purpose of this message is to:

  1. Request your input in discussion, which may be necessary to establish satisfactory consensus while this case remains active.
  2. Request background information on this case.
  3. Notify you that there may be serious consensus and policy issues with this article.
  4. Notify you that the CCE may be engaged in significant edits to this article over the next few weeks.

As a side-note, the CCE would like to invite you to join our ranks, I have reviewed your edits and feel that you would be a good candidate to provide On-Call editor services for us. Thank you for your time. --BETA 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Open Menu+

Why is Open Menu+ not notable? Brendenlong (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:List_of_portable_software#Unmaintainable_list --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Would it be possible to make an Open Menu+ article? Brendenlong (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, but think about WP:N as you do. If it's not notable, it will likely be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Got your message and.........

I am very calm and collected on things that I spoke of with Anthon and Antelan. I do have a couple of others backing me up right now. Here is what I posted; [4] and [5] plus this conversation.

I also find the following two threads on Anthon's page disturbing too. This one, [6] I was asked to go to this article and read it and catch up on the talk page because apparently there is a lot of controversy going on and my understanding is that there are quite a few trying to get other editors blocked or banned. I haven't gotten to it yet but I will. Then there is the next thread [7] I hope you see what I am talking about and that I am calm about all of this. I do not like the lack of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Also go to my talk page and you will see a response from Antelan about my comments to her. I guess I am tired of all the bickering and the poking of a stick to try to provoke editors into misbehaving already. Avb retired too, did you know that? He got tired of it all too. I am trying to get a hold of him to see what happened. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am just acknowledging your messages to not get baited. I've also seen you post this at others pages and want to say this is excellent advice, esp. in the environment going on lately. You be careful too. To me it seems like a tag team mentality going on which isn't cool at all. Thanks though for the reminders, it never hurts to be reminded about things. You have been really good to me and I truly appreciate that.
On a different note, I spent two days in early December in the hospital on bowel rest. Boy what fun, NOT! I was dehydrated and had serious problems with blockages and other things. Then the past week in a half I have had the joy of seeing dentists, not my favorite place but still beats the hospital. I had some major work done do to my Crohn's not allowing my body to absorb what's needed. Anyways, in about two weeks I should at least have a wonderful smile again! If you get a chance, would you check out the Crohn's disease article to make sure it's being done properly like external links, the lead, etc? I would appreciate it. I have been working on this article as much as my body is allowing and I am quite pleased with how it is turning out with the help of others. It's nice to be working with a few editors and no controversy to be seen! Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the baiting will run out it's course as long as editors are willing to help each other out when it occurs.
Glad you're getting some good care. I really admire your positive outlook.
Looks like I just stumbled on a spam/coi/advertising situation that included Crohn's disease. A. B. tracked it down and cleaned it up. I'll look at the article more carefully when I have a chance. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of outsourcing companies

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of outsourcing companies, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of outsourcing companies. Thank you. User A1 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Linkfarming on "Digital Asset Management"

Hi

I'm curious as to why you keep removing references to Picdar's Media Mogul DAM system from the Digital Asset Management page? The reason you give is that it is 'non-notable', however the only grounds I can see for that is that the system is not well known in the US. Given the international audience of the Wikipedia and Media Mogul's success outside of the that country, I feel its inclusion in the list of DAM systems is justified. As a fully fledged enterprise-scale DAM system, Media Mogul is certainly eligible to be on any page concerned with DAM, but as one of the few systems not originating from the US its presence adds balance to the entry.

If these are not sufficient grounds, can I suggest that the Digital Asset Management page either be re-edited to talk about DAM in the abstract with no providers cited (I would propose a separate page of DAM System Providers, where issues of who is, or isn't, a 'notable' provider of DAM software can be resolved) or that the citations be changed to segregate US providers from European providers such as Celum, Picdar, and Digital Solutions (also absent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmartyn (talk • contribs) 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything has been explained. See WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LIST, Talk:Digital_asset_management#Providers_has_been_shruk_to_5_players_in_a_field_of_dozens. and Talk:Digital_asset_management#Article_was_mostly_lists_of_non-notable_entries. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Link

Please explain to me why the link I posted is spam and the others legitimate. I have read all guidelines and find your decision arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.113.88 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about it. Simply, your contributions to date, with the exception of the comment above, have been to add links to cioindex.com. See Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. Additionally, the links you've added are to pages that have a great deal promotional content while not being very strongly related to the topic of the article where you added them. See Wikipedia:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided.
I agree with you that many of the other links do not appear to be legitimate either, which is why I tagged the entire section for cleanup with the comment, "section needs cleanup per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK." --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ingredients or remedies?

I would prefer the article to be titled List of homeopathic remedies since the so-called "ingredients" are often not present. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Remedies sounds better. I've tried to find the official UK list without luck. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again...

The SPA is back. Shot info (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems this is an issue.
Gather all the spam, accounts and COI and open a Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users--Hu12 (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the time to help very much with this. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia Pyramids wiki page

Hi, I see you have removed the self-promotional ad for http://www.bosnian-pyramid.com/ I would not be surprised if the people behind this start editing this heavily. They have already complained about the page being biassed (they are died in the wool Believers). The main guy behind it is Nenad Djurdjevic who calls himself Hyperborean on his forum.

http://www.european-pyramids.net/wb/pages/about-us/co-researcher.php?lang=EN

I know both Colette Dowell and Irna, and I have to say I'm not convinced that it makes sense to ban Irna's blog and keep Colette's. Irna's blog has some really good valuable stuff on it. For instance: http://irna.lautre.net/A-correspondence-with-Dr-Barakat.html This is a discussion she has just had with the Egyptian geologist Dr Barakat and I really think it should have a mention on the Bosnian Pyramids page, but since you've already objected to a link to her site before I'm a bit hesitant. But it is solid stuff -- she sent me the correspondence a few days ago and there is information in it that I don't think has been presented on the web before at all. And she presents all of what Dr. Barakat has to say and he leans towards Osmanagic, so I don't think you could say it is completely biassed

Please let me know if I can put a link to her. Thanks Doug —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As valuable Irna's blog is to those interested in the current goings on with this colossal hoax, it will require some discussion on the article talk page. In general, blogs are to be avoided, "except those written by a recognized authority." (WP:EL). --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your main references are blogs, articles and sites of the people who are against the pyramid project (and you dont show their names) just a nicks, vert pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.169.154 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 February 2008

As you can see, I'm arguing against them. Please point them out. --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and NPOV

Would you please take a look at this edit? It comes across to me as poorly sourced and blatantly POV (especially the edits in the subsection Kosovo after the war. I've already reverted once, but I'm trying to avoid an edit war and would appreciate another set of eyes. Thanks! Dchall1 (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time to help right now. I see you're discussing the matter with the other editor, which is the best first step. You might want to try WP:EAR if you can't work things out. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Link removal

Good morning/afternoon Ronz,

I recently linked to an an initative that I am heading up to educate members of the Web community and the general public regarding predictive analytics. I noticed that you and possibly one other that I'm not able to identify (possibly an alias) removed the lnk suggesting that its promotional in nature. I am writing to you beacuse I respectfully disagree. I've spent the last 10 years in education and this initative includes indpendent sooures, educational resoources of the highest caliber and is for non commercial purposes. If you can take a minute to share with me your thoughts I'd apprciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcullifer (talk • contribs) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the other editors are just others that thinks the links were inappropriate? Have you looked through WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:COI? You haven't given me enough information to determine when this occurred. Predictive analytics is regularly spammed with inappropriate links. Best if you join the discussion on the article talk page that I started almost a year ago. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the encouragement. I decided to hold off on leaving, and kind and knowledgeable editors like you are a major reason why. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 11:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note...

Hi Ronz, I think you noticed that I have been trying to track retiring editors of late in my sandbox. [8] I just wanted to offer you to make any additions or changes in status to this if you are interested in doing so. If you do, just remember to sign it because the bot will get you. Apparently the way I have my sandbox set up, signatures are required. I find it most disturbing seeing so many leaving. I really am sad about Avb but not surprised to be honest, he was having problems with a few editors as I know you are aware of and he just got tired of it all. Anyways, I wanted to let you know you are more than welcomed to add your ideas and what you see if you are interested. I hope you are well. I will probably be going off line for awhile myself here, hopefully this week or next, we finally got approved on a place and will, woo hoo, be moving into our own place here soon. So, keep me updated if you would and you have time, I would appreciate it. I thank you for always being so patient and kind to me. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Corporate Branding

Hi Ronz,

After having edited the corporate branding site, I have noticed that you have taken down all my amendments. Could you help me find out what I'm doing wrong? - I'm only trying to contribute to the article.

(Majken Schultz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.45.152 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please contribute to the discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bristolian

Hi Ronz, Thank you for the welcome messages, etc. I'd just like to say that I totally agree with you about neutral point of view. I'll do my best. Bristolian46 (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let him go

No point in encouraging him. Nice to see them over trying to alter NPOV, but heck, Wiki is basically doomed - time to leave it for the POV-pushers. Shot info (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No. He freely admits his behavior is problematic. --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What I still find incredible is the lengths they'll go to defend their inappropriate behavior. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the jungle. Baegis (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm far too familiar with it than I'd like, and I don't plan on staying long. The trolls like the attention, so for the most part I leave them alone. Every once in awhile you do have to call them out, despite all the mess they make in the process. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bates method

Hi there. Want to help me move Better Eyesight Magazine to a more neutral source? I've made a start. Famousdog (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the changes I was recommending, and noticed a wikibook version of the book is available, so no need for the google books link. Looks like a lot of cleanup and organizing could be done, and we're going to need some brakes on the trivia obviously. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PROMINENCE

ScienceApologist has created this redirect to create the impression that the issue is prominence, and not undue weight. At Talk:Deadly nightshade and Talk:Rue, ScienceApologist uses redirects of his own making to change the sense of the Wikipedia policies and consensuses (sp?) to imply that the connections made to Homeopathy and/or related articles is not prominent. He has also stated that "plants are studied academically through the science of botany. This argument applies because it is about the plant and only uses of the plant that are prominent can be mentioned per WP:PROMINENCE." But his redirect goes to WP:UNDUE, which discusses presenting minority viewpoints in a way that puts them on an artificially equal plane as the more widely held view. It most certainly does not prohibit a mere mention of an associated term, even if that association is not scientific. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. His use of the redirect really has no bearing on if or why it should be deleted. Further, I think you're reading way too much into ScienceApologist's use of the link. I think a bit more good faith would go a long way here. --Ronz (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Zachman Framework

Ronz

Thank you for your comments regarding the Zf.

We have a person who continuously is trying to use the wikipedia by changing the entry to promote his marketing company. ZIFA.com and now EACOE.com

We have tried to put general interest links to related material and clean up the commercial material especially the non existent Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement which is the marketing division of Pinnacle Business Group Inc.

The January 28 changes are a direct reflection of this issue.

Removing External References with the replacement by Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement is not right.

Can you give me some ideas on how to neutralize this material ?

There are many authoriative references and citations of this material and we are trying to move that body of knowledge and references forward.

Stan Locke Managing Director Zachman Framework Associates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaframe (talk • contribs) 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. I can start looking into the situation though. What editors and what articles? --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I've found what you're talking about. Yes, I noticed this a while back. It looks a bit larger than I really have time for, but I'll start the work and get help if necessary. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipal/Archive_11&oldid=1144740214"