User talk:Hipal/Archive 33

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

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the page protection. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments made regarding this at Wikipedia_talk:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#Regarding_page_protection_and_edit_warring Triona (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did u remove the following text?

'Nevertheless, there are numerous scientific studies that suggest there is a basis for concern that continuous or frequent long-term exposure to WiFi electromagnetic fields (EMFs) could have adverse health effects.[1] A number of schools and universities have limited wireless connectivity based on the “precautionary principle” and opted for fiber-optic network. An example of such institutions is Lakehead University [2]'

esp as it had links? (personal comment removed --Ronz (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

jalusbrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalusbrian (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I already left you a note. You didn't give references. Perhaps you meant to and forgot? --Ronz (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

that page had references.Also why is there no reference to the work of prof Olle Johannson??? A leadig figure in this subject. see the list i sent to you...readily available online... Jalusbrian (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

why has none of this been added to the wiki page?

1. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20070518_wifi_panorama.asp 2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/6683969.stm 3. any of the published work of Olle Johannson,whose name doesnt even appear! 4. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp

Its clear that wiki page has been edited to promote the bogus idea that wifi is safe...That suggests eiter industry moles or techofiles...which are you?

jalusbrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalusbrian (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page so others can more easily join in the discussion. I probably won't have time to respond until late today or early tomorrow. --Ronz (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the article Chepakovich valuation model

Ronz,
The model (though not referenced as the Chepakovich valuation model, but with identification of Alexander Chepakovich as it author) is discussed in the following references:
Peter J. Sander, Janet Haley, Value Investing For Dummies, 2008, ISBN 9780470232224, p. 213.
Amine Bouchentouf, Brian Dolan, Joe Duarte, Mark Galant, Ann C. Logue, Paul Mladjenovic, Kerry Pechter, Barbara Rockefeller, Peter J. Sander, Russell Wild, High-Powered Investing All-In-One For Dummies, 2008, ISBN 9780470186268, pp. 596-597.
Best regards,
Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Investor123 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Open source health software

Hi you've deleted a number of entries from here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_healthcare_software can you explain why? A few I've spot-checked seem like valid entries. thanks--Karl.brown (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't explain other than mention WP:WTAF in an edit summary. I'm following up on other editors' work on removing the non-notable entries. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but as someone who works in the field, some of those you removed were indeed notable (like Vista). What is your criteria? I think a redlink is not sufficient (better to just remove the redlink, and keep the link out). This page is a very valuable source of info for me on many of the important FOSS health projects.--Karl.brown (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's notable, then start an article on it. I'll help. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Shoemaking

I am a master shoemaker doesn't it count to be a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcellHUN (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

While we need experts like yourself to help improve Wikipedia, information in articles needs to be verifiable from published sources. You obviously have valuable knowledge. It's just a matter of finding sources to support the information you add and change. You can get help at Editor assistance/Requests or by asking on the article talk page at Talk:Shoemaking. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

List of open source healthcare software

Hi Ronz,

Re my revision 382333494, sorry about that! First wikipedia edit ever for me. Could you suggest some guidelines for me to read?

Thank you in advance

Medinfocogsci (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not an Administrator

Thanks for your recent feedback about work I was doing on a page.

I notice the "warning" on the top of your messages telling me that you are not an "Administrator".

Please tell me what your role is.

Thank you. --Stephen Baggaley 01:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairfieldstation (talk • contribs)

I do a lot of editing, mostly article policing and maintenance. I have the not-an-admin notice at the top too keep the requests for help down and make it clear that I don't block editors or take other administrator-only actions.

If you need any help with Wikipedia, I can at least point you in the right direction. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Open source medical and the FreeMedForms project

Hi Ronz. I don't really understand why you removed the FreeMedForms and FreeDiams projects from List_of_open_source_healthcare_software. Both are medical software, open source and supported by a community of devs and medical doctors. Sources can be found on the Google code server or from its SVN. All apps from the FreeMedForms project are released in BSD License (this should change to GPL3 soon). For your information, FreeDiams is fully supported by the Debian-Med team. The FreeMedForms project is supported by OpenSuse Medical and (soon to be) by Fedora Medical. You can find lots of informations on the main web site; [the license page can be read from here]

If I missed something, please fell free to contact me on our mailing list.

Eric Maeker, MD (France)
Creator and administrator of the FreeMedForms project.

--88.160.29.72 (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have created a wikipedia article on FreeMedForms and added the internal link on the page.

--Eric Maeker, MD (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It may have been a bit premature to do so. You should work fast to find independent, reliable sources demonstrating that it is notable, before the article is deleted. I did a quick search and found nothing. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no ideas on how to find independent sources... for a free open source software... Can you help me ? --Eric Maeker, MD (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this is enough ?
French link 1
MedFloss
OpenSuse Medical
link 4
FreeDiams on DebianMed
French link 2 (FreeDiams reviewed by a french doctor)
--Eric Maeker, MD (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think those will be enough. I expect we'll hear if others agree fairly shortly.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL doesn't bring up anything very helpful. You could try WP:EAR to see if other editors might have suggestions.

I'd suggest finding a non-Wikipedia location to host a comprehensive list of software, making sure that it would fit Wikipedia's WP:EL guidelines for inclusion to List of open source healthcare software . If FreeMedForms is deleted, you could write a new version once there are references showing FreeMedForms is notable.

I wish I could offer you a better solution. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Help regarding pages belonging to my people

Thanks for your response.

I would love to have some advice as I strongly believe that this issue will not be solved by just me alone. My people live in extreme poverty and in continuous wars, I belong from the villages and understand what is right and wrong and can also understand the authentication of available sources online. I have been working on this page but the one admin keeps bringing it to previous page. I can also provide authentic information about my birthplace. And also I am a full time student and also work but still I have committed myself to information but it is becoming very difficult for me to catch with the pressure of admins or perhaps high chances of government sponsored admins as spreading misinformation is very common in that region. Please kindly consider helping me for the sake of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Looks like you've run some difficulties with your first edits on Wikipedia. I'm aware of some of the problems with Baloch people, though I don't recall looking extensively into them.

I suggest taking your time to understand the comments and advice you've been given on your talk page and here. As suggested, make smaller edits with descriptive edit summaries. If you're in a rush to continue what you've started, explain the situation more clearly (with specifics) on the article talk page and provide independent, reliable sources. I'd start with a few inaccuracies that are clear from highly reputable sources (major news sources or notable experts). --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot. Can you please for a moment have a look on talk of Baloch people and what I wrote on it if possible. My sources may not be other web sources but the links to other pages within wikipedia confirms what I say. It is very difficult to find information on the web about my people since they are largely deprived of these facilities. I still have family living there and I understand everything, But then I cant fight different sources alone. The page Baloch people has also led me to contribute on other pages with which I had no conflict because what I added was correct and understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talk • contribs) 01:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Dowsing is a bit of a mess

Having seen your June comment on the talk page, I just wanted to say I have looked over that article and found it quite heavy on the pro-dowsing side. The citations can appear humorous at times, e.g., the Einstein quote, about which I know a little bit. Einstein supported the debunking of this which can be consulted if you go to Michel Eugène Chevreul.

The great chemist Chevreul debunked diving rods early in the 19th century, and yet the section on debunking is a pathetic little paragraph. Einstein was referring to that work by Chevreul. Also, I removed from the article an unverified reference to Martin Luther's condemnation of the dowsing rod as being "against the first commandment": one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Hope I helped, because I see people keep pecking at that article but no one goes near the talk page. That is pandemic; no wonder articles never get done around here.

Well, thanks and sorry I made this so long.76.195.86.155 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I hope you'll consider editing Wikipedia more. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ronz

Hello Ronz, Zynthosdruid here. I was wondering why you reverted my edit on the Femininity article on September 16. If I failed to follow some rule or guideline of Wikipedia, please inform me of this and I will gladly comply with it in the future. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Zynthosdruid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zynthosdruid (talk • contribs) 23:46, 16 September 2010

See your talk page --Ronz (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Tea party movement flags

I saw your edit summaries. Maybe we should have a flag section that explains both flags and mentions when they were first used, etc. I know the Second Revolution flag was prominent during Scott Brown's campaign. He wasn't a tea party candidate but the Tea Party Patriots of Boston supported him.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to do with it, especially after reading the one reference. With more good sources, the symbol section could be expanded. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll Google up some articles. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

pediatricfeeding.spam

Definitely a problem, with at least some insertions going back even to 2007 if various link-search tools are to be believed. Might be time for WP:WPSPAM or WP:BLACKLIST. DMacks (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm writing up a detailed report. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Report at WP:AN3. Might have been better starting it at WP:SPI.

I think the link might be useful in some poorly-referenced articles. I initially left it in Feeding tube because of the sources.

First, I'd like to get the disruptive editing to stop, with another block if need be. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Logic

Why don't you at least give logic to what you are doing........ stop taking out useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.89.244 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 24 September 2010

I expect you'll be blocked soon. If not, you'll need to address the problems identified on your talk page and in the AN3 report. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You're now blocked. You're still able to edit your talk page. It would be helpful if you discussed the situation there. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

polymer clay

Yes, I am new to Wikipedia...I only found out yesterday I was referenced in the article on polymer clay. And yes, in my ignorance of the rules I added a link to my website because others had kindly listed me in the article as a museum "recognized" polymer clay artist and I have a gallery of work spanning decades and displaying the evolution of polymer clay techniques that can be viewed on my website. So correct my mistake, and thank you for doing so! But, in my opinion, you went overboard when you deleted the whole paragraph naming me and similarly recognized peers who developed this form of art. (This is a rare thing: an entirely new form of fine art developed in modern times, with the pioneers still hard at work. Think about that.) Instead of simply deleting my added link, you deleted the entire paragraph of context (definitely not authored or posted by me yesterday) which was unnecessary:

"Polymer art jewelry is now part of the permanent collections of the Museum of Art and Design in New York, the Museum of FIne Arts in Boston, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Racine Museum, and others. A partial list of these recognized artists includes Kathleen Dustin, Steven Ford and David Forlano (who work together) Tory Hughes, and Elise Winters. Early artists' names and careers, as well as a history of the development of polymer clay as a legitimate artists' medium can be found at Polymer Art Archive, a scholarly on-line journal and professional curatorial resource for the field, begun by Winters."

Whoever wrote that paragraph was being accurate and appropriate. I feel terrible that my Wikipedia beginner's mistake has led you to detract materially from someone else's appropriate article about the history of this important new medium. Please restore that paragraph to the Wikipedia article on polymer clay.

Thank you, Kathleen Dustin, MFA aka Pursemakerk469 Pursemaker469 (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that my editing upset you so. Without independent, reliable sources, the information could be removed at any time. Would you be interested in helping find references for the information? I've done a few, cursory searches and didn't find anything promising. Do you know of any in-depth press, maybe on shows or exhibits? --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Some selected bibliographical references for your consideration:

"The Use of Polyform in Bead-Making," Kathleen Dustin. Ornament, Spring 1988 (Vol. II, no. 3), pp. 16-19.

"Kathleen Dustin: The Journey Within," (cover article) Carolyn Benesh. Ornament, Summer 1997.

"17th Annual Smithsonian Craft Show," promotional poster and cover image of program, 1999.

"Kathleen Dustin: A Polymer Clay Pioneer," J. Tol Broome, Jr. The Crafts Report, April 2000, pp. 20-23.

Consider also that polymer clay pioneer Kathleen Dustin was profiled in "The Timeless Art of Crafts: The Smithsonian Craft Show 2000," by Diane M. Bolz, Smithsonian, May 2000, pp. 86-96.

Also: Excerpt from the "Artist Profile" by Belinda Clanton, from the Crafts at the Castle 2003 Program (Boston, Mass), p. 18: "Kathleen Dustin is a pioneer and one of the leading authorities in the medium of polymer clay or polyvinyl chloride, better known in the industry as PVC. She taught the first workshop [in the U.S.] on polymer clay for jewelry making and authored the first article for Ornament magazine singing its praises of versatility. With Kathleen´s infectious enthusiasm, and a growing number of artists working with the medium, polymer clay is fast becoming more and more popular. Kathleen has been working with the medium for the past 18 years...."

Many other press articles are available, both from the wearable arts trade and daily press, such as the Houston Chronicle, National Public Radio and newspapers and magazines from Paris, Helsinki, London, Kiev, Istanbul, and Moscow. For a complete list, see the Publications page of www.kathleendustin.com .

Thank you. Pursemaker469 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's get these to the article talk page, where others can join the discussion more easily.

Also, you may not have noticed, but I had recommended you look over WP:COI before you contacted me. It definitely applies to you, and I don't think you should be adding images of your own work, especially in the manner that you've done. I'm going to ask for others' opinions at WP:COIN when I get a chance. If you'd like to start a discussion there first, please do. --Ronz (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

re: guitar pickup page

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for the link regarding the rules. I'm not a frequent wiki-person.

I don't know if you checked the discussion page, but this is what I wrote there:

"Hi, I added some info about Ubertar hex pickups in the multiple outputs section. I'm sorry if that seems spammy-- that's not my intention, but I do believe they deserve a mention here. If there's a more neutral way to post it, please feel free to edit. I think Axon, Roland GK series, Shadow, Bartollini and Kramer deserve mentions in this category as well. Ubertar hex pickups are the only multiple output guitar pickups currently available that are designed primarily for analog output, rather than for MIDI (though they'll work for MIDI too), and also the only ones made for seven stringed guitars. I think those aspects make them unique enough to warrant a mention. If it's not ok that I posted it myself (I make these pickups) please delete and re-post something you think is neutral and fair. Thanks."

I assume since you're editing the pickup page you are knowledgeable about guitar pickups, and hexaphonic pickups in particular, since that's what I was posting about. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at my site (http://www.ubertar.com/hexaphonic) as well as the other examples I mentioned above, and any other relevant examples, and post something that will give people information about what kinds of variations are out there as far as polyphonic pickups go. I'm not sure why the "Go team" gets a mention and not Bartollini, for example. The Kramer Ripley was used by Eddie Van Halen-- that seems notable, IMO, as an example of a hexaphonic pickup with stereo output. I also think the multiple output and multi-transducer sections of the page could be combined-- they're very closely related. There's very little information on the pickup page about multi-output and multi-transducer pickups, and I think there deserves to be more, whether there's a mention of my pickups or not. Since I can't post about this myself, and you seem to have an interest, and no conflict of interest, could you please fill out this section? Thanks. Ubertar (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw your note on the article talk page. I mostly just police the article for vandalism and spam, and I don't currently have the time for much more. I can help with the application of most policies and guidelines.

You might want to look over the WP:COI guidelines again. If you can back your edits with reliable sources and avoid direct conflicts of interest, there's a lot you can do. If I were in your situation, I'd try to get other editors to work with you from Wikipedia:WikiProject Music as well as the suggestions from WP:EAFAQ. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Question About Adding Appropriate Links

I want to preface this by saying that I'm not upset that you deleted my edit, just interested in knowing why in order to improve my own wikipedia editing.

A few months ago I added a link to the Texas Ratio page where readers could find an updated list of Texas ratios for U.S. banks (InvestingAnswers -- "Is Your Bank One of the 437 in Immediate Danger of Failure?"). You later removed it from the site. Could you explain why? I noticed that when you made your edit, you said "rv - advert - likely coi," but I have no idea what that means. The page I linked to wasn't an advertisement, and unlike the Investing Amateurs page listing Texas ratios, InvestingAnswers doesn't ask readers to purchase a subscription to anything. It also provided some good educational information as to why the Texas ratio is an important financial barometer. I thought it was an appropriate page to link to. Could you explain to me why it wasn't so I can better understand what is and isn't an appropriate link?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmargrave (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. You're referring to this series of edits by 24.153.196.173 (talk · contribs), which I explained on User talk:24.153.196.173 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Aug_1#investinganswers.com_and_streetauthority.com_again here.

Basically, we're concerned that these editors have been adding information to Wikipedia in order to promote investinganswers.com and streetauthority.com. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Design Research

Hi Ronz, I don't understand why you did the "External links: quick cleanup per WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK" on Design Research and thereby deleted some useful (it seems to me) links to relevant societies and journals. I'm afraid I don't have time to study WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK! Nigel Cross (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nigel. In a nutshell, we normally don't list relevant societies, journals, organizations, etc. In the case of this article, it's probably worth making an exception. The article needs lots of work, and we could use links that might help editors expand and verify the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. I've undone your deletions. I agree this (and Design Methods and Design Thinking and Design (sigh!)) all need lots of work.

Nigel Cross (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)