![]() | 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. |
hi ron, my article Boon Software has been marked for deletion by yourself. Can you advice me on why it was deleted when it is somewhat similar to Nike Communications? Anyway, as mentioned on the page's talk page, i am also asking for help in how i can improve my article. appreciate that you show me the way as this is only my first article and i intend to write more on other companies from Singapore. Dleewh 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thanks ron. i have made some modifications to the article can you help me take a look and see how it looks now? appreciate your time. can i also check, if everything is ok, who would be the person that will be removing the tags? Dleewh 01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again Ronz. Your help is much appreciated. Have further modified the page to include the references you have mentioned. Please review again when possible. Dleewh 04:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
hi. sorry to bother you again. But my article has been deleted and i am still making changes. Is there any way to check who deleted it and is there a way to retrieve it? thanks Dleewh 09:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ron. Have created a subpage as per your suggestion. Do you know where i can get editors from wiki to help me review? Dleewh 00:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ron.. you have been a great help.. it looks like the deletion review endorsed the deletion :( Dleewh 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what the trouble is. I can let Warren know that he can't just copy stuff from his website (I don't agree with that policy btw), and we can have the articles reduced down. I don't have the time anymore to edit this stuff, but I think there should be some mention of the Tinkers on wiki considering their widespread popularity in the celtic music world and I don't see how the guys editing it themselves poses a COI if there aren't any other active editing parties. -- NeoVampTrunks 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the folks at Pro/E seem to be upset at you. I looked at the article and understand why you'd be concerned. Is it still this side of OK? The external links in particular seem close to excessive, though I've seem other pages that objectively seem as bad, just more amateurish ( Getting Things Done). I've run across other pages, like Scrapbooking (esp. Talk:Scrapbooking#Links under consideration) that are amateurishly commercial. I'd welcome your thoughts so I can encourage clean up without discouraging desirable contributions. DCDuring 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for taking care of the article that the anon kept translating today. It was actually Portuguese, and the anon is probably Brazilian. I also suspect that he might have been editing here because the article, which currently doesn't exist on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, cannot be created there right now, since the redlink has been protected by a Cascading Protection over there. In all likelihood, the user ended up here after not finding the article there and not being able to create it there (on pt.wiki, anons can still create new pages). I will try to sort out the situation with the Administrators on pt.wiki, and then we can refer people who would like to contribute in Portuguese there. Cheers, Redux 01:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ronz -- thanks for visiting the superfruit article. That page is new and still a WIP so I am organizing references, external links and notes to comply with the Wiki guidelines over time. I admit that, to date, I have been collating references that help establish a baseline of knowledge about this new food and beverage category. Any specific suggestions? Take care. -- Paul144 00:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What external links need to be removed? Mahanga Talk 05:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ronz. I agree with you that there are enough references to keep this article. However, I'm afraid your new BLPN report will linger fruitlessly unless you want to add some new reasoning there. Also I *do* think there is COI editing present (since some of us told the FreeSWITCH forum members they had a COI). If the 'Controversy' section were dropped due to BLP, then the struggle with the COI editors would probably quiesce, and we might close the COI report. EdJohnston 15:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, the information on the auction of the disc in question (The Doors 'Soft Parade') seems to be first person and valid to me. It was sold by Steve Hoffman to one of his forum members. I do not see a dispute over these facts. The disc (Signed by Mr. Hoffman)and price paid for it are not refuted by Mr. Hoffman, especially when you consider that this is a post from Mr. Hoffman's own forum. I did some reading at his site, and in fact Mr. Hoffman takes a dim view to violation of copyright laws and the sale of bootleg material. This of course makes his actions indeed controversial. Consider for a moment the industry in which he works.
Foultip (
talk) 18:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ronz, we noticed that a biography had been started on our president, Ken Evoy. We registered a username to accurately reflect who we are and to add objective information to this biography. There was an objection about the username at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SiteSell_Corporate
What do you recommend? Do we keep the name? Change it? Or should we not contribute to this at all? It strikes us that we would be a useful source of objective information for this biography? SiteSell Corporate 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete the link to the ChangeWaves blog from the article on Futures Studies? There is no other link to consistently updated futures-oriented blog in the list of external links, and this blog provides frequently updated futures thought. It is not violating any of the external links policies and it is not spam. While the blog is connected to a for-profit corporation, the blog's contents are definitely relevant to this wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.97.244 ( talk) 19:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added some comments at Talk:Steve Hoffman. Corvus cornix 02:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Here you go. -- Emc² • contact me 15:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ronz. I liked your comment on WP:DNFTT, but would appreciate some input as to what your opinion would be on what should be refactored in my posts. Please respond at my talkpage. Thanks! ScienceApologist 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ronz,
Thanks for removing external link from my entry for NotJustBrowsing. The reason I added NotJustBrowsing entry with external link was not to increase google ranking, advertising or promotion. Since this browser is a new concept in browsing and is pioneer of multiple of functionalities and there is no independent review or independent article yet written for it. The only information that is available on this browser is on its website and so the external link is appropriate. Otherwise just a word "NotJustBrowsing" as an entry in the list of browsers will trigger a user search and that will lead to that external link.
Will an article in Wikipedia on this browser by its author not come under self promotion? or spam?
Ebbee 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ronz. It is a difficult situation. I checked wikipedia for 'browsing types' and there was nothing on that topic too. Now you see 3 out of 4 distinct browsing types (tabbed, linear, multiple, tailored) are present in NotJustBrowsing. A new type of contents syndication (Very Simple Syndication) is also introduced in NotJustBrowsing. Nobody seriously reviewed it in last almost three years. May be IT community do not comment on something as deviant as NotJustBrowsing.
Anyway, 1710 visitors were referred to notjustbrowsing.com from external link from wikipedia in last 5 months (since I added first time in "list of web browsers"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebbee ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I apologize for not having any idea how to use this, but I'm a reporter from the Las Vegas Sun. I'm writing a story that has to do with the Wikipedia article on creativity you've edited several times, and I was hoping you would perhaps speak to me about it. You can find me at [email protected].
Thanks - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charhsu ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Ronz,
I noticed that you have deleted certain external links on the network simulation page. I feel that these links are required since they let people know which are the best simulators in the world. Unfortunately, there is no other place on the web which has these details.
Coming to the policy on external links, these are not meant for advertising purposes, since I would like to retain links to the best 5 in the world. No special treatment is being given to any one !.
Also, please note that these links have gained acceptance as important sources of information, given that they have been on here for the past 2 years.
Let me know your thoughts on the matter
- Waldstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldstein ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I admit it, while I use wiki for lots of research, I have never edited it. So, I don't get the "external" links. I see vendors with pages of "information" that are on their websites, reference their products, etc. What is different about our page? Is it not enough "information" - or why was the eSign Portal, which is being used in several law schools, etc. "spam"? I'm confused, and thought maybe you could explain it. We are a leader in this industry, have been expert witness in ediscovery/electronic contract cases etc. so we *know* esignatures and digital signatures - so our knowledge is real world. Maybe the website is not done appropriately so that it reflects that information.
If one vendor can place what is tantamount to an ad in the external links, (Silanis, ARX, Youzon) then all should be able to as well (Orion, CIC, INtegrisign...the industry is busy)....and I'll be happy to conform if I only knew how. Thank you! JKCmomma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.123.195 ( talk) 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have destroyed the Net Promoter page repeatedly. Researchers want to be able to learn about the concept. You removed all reference to the essential elements required to do that.
While it may be relevant to include some reference to the work of researchers with a commercial interest in alternative approaches (for example, Keiningham of Ipsos Loyalty), removing all description of the approach, how it is calculated, how it is used, as well as reference to respected companies making use of it seems beyond irresponsible. If you believe this article is "promotional" then please help make it less so without gutting it of all reference and educational value.
By the way, if you were to actually read the detail of the Keiningham article you reference, I think you would find that the data and analysis reported in it shows only that Net Promoter is about as good statistically as more complicated metrics. One might take issue with the data set used, the analytic methodology of the researchers, or even the motives of the authors in drawing conclusions far beyond what their data shows. The article does not address the practicality of the approach versus alternatives, which is, I believe, its greatest merit according to companies using it.
Please don't destroy the usefulness of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.246.170.23 ( talk) 20:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you please check Net Promoter Score? Someone made edits to it, and I added some references. I think it seems less like an advert now. If you disagree, could you give me some specifics so I can try again? -- Elvira100 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Any chance we can remove the Advert tag now? Check the article. Seems very simple. Elvira100 ( talk) 12:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia but isn't the point of Wikepedia that this is the place to find the latest knowledge, expecially when it is presented by academic scholars? You seem to remove everything that is new knowledge in the fields that I am interested in. I have even made a point of given sources because I was told this was important here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anita Burr ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've prepared a clean version of Jill Whalen at User:Jehochman/Jill Whalen. Would you be willing to check that and possibly install it? I'm not going to do so myself. It seems that some of Jill's fans puffed up the article, but I don't think she was involved. - Jehochman Talk 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ronz,
Please check my comment at Talk:Force-based_algorithms.
Tks
LuisFagundes —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisFagundes ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 November 2007
Hi! I have read Wiki articles on External links and Images, but I still have a trouble understanding your actions (and I would really like to):
1. You have deleted the screenshot of Cayra software and have left the screenshot for Mapul. Tell me what's the difference between these two programs? They're both free, besides I strongly believe Cayra needs a screenshot because it has a particular approach to mind mapping which is seen on the screenshot.
2. You have deleted the link to Cayra's official website and have left the ones for Semantik and Loughborough University Library. What is the difference?
If there's a need of third-party impartial opinion, you can take a look at Cayra's "References" [1]: e.g. from the Mindmap-software.com [2] or from Mind-mapping.org [3] which is the biggest source of links for mind-mapping software.
I think that Cayra's screenshot and/or website should be on this List, because screenshots are neccessary for people to see that there're different approaches to mind mapping, and Cayra's website is a source of in-depth information on the topic of mind mapping.
Waiting for your response, Kind regards, Julia sova 07:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we protect the Bosniaks article from edit by newly created users. This article has sustained alot of transient pov pushing and vandalism from users who have created their accounts only for that purpous. Best Regards Ancient Land of Bosoni ( talk) 05:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I am interested why you have deleted the inclusion within this section. I looked into the company that publishes worldwide rankings and it is recognised and the chosen rankings of the European Career Guide for applicants looking at doing an MBA, EMBA and so on.
The Business educational institutions site them with equal acceptance to the ones that have already been listed, please see examples below:
http://www.triumemba.org/news/rankings.php
http://www.hec.fr/hec/eng/about/rankings.html
http://www.gsba.ch/ranking.html
The list goes on.
They should be included, unless you know of another reason why they should be segregated out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio1st ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ronz, no conflict of interest, I was just bored at work and thought I would look around Wiki and update some stuff that interests me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio1st ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Studio1st.com is a photographic studio hire company and the 2 topics I wrote on was Web Design and MBAs. Personally I can not see a linking between photography and those subjects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio1st ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ronz,
If “FACTS” can not be updated to Wikipedia, then this defeats the purpose.
I have not promoted any company and have no intention on promoting any company; the only thing I have done is updated specific sections that interest me. I have not spammed the system, and started tidying up a section.
You should either learn to work with others; assisting with the update of Wiki, than pretending to be a character from a cheap cop movie. Maybe, using your energy to offer advice and become a little less pedantic would be considerably more beneficial.
For most users, your attitude would just simply turn them away and create another account. If you have issues with me, then best get in touch with Wiki and get my account deleted. Whilst you are doing that, I will carry on re-writing other sections of this site. Studio1st ( talk) 11:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Good job, keep at it. Do you want to be an admin? Bearian ( talk) 23:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the work you did the other day on an IP that was adding Turkish commercial links ( 78.174.6.216). I think this person is back - 78.174.44.101 - at least one of the links is the same as one added on Building then. Is there anything I need to do about this new round besides reverting and warning - and adding links like you did, I guess? I'm still learning here. Jackollie ( talk) 05:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ron I am surprised that you categorised a non profit website and organisation working for the education of the poor and orphan kids in himalayan state as being personal , advertisement and biased. Please revisit the website and find out yourself if someone is making money out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msemwall ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ronz:
This is in reference to the Cryonics Society article.
1. The notice regarding the article's being written like an advertisement was placed earlier. It was rewrittern. The advertisement marker was removed, and not replaced. This time I added several references -- as indicated by the banner mentioning a need for them, and made no changes to the text except to mention that one of the organization's officials was a member of the bars of California, Ontario, and Alberta, as confirmed in one of the references.
Yet the advertisement label has now been re-added. How does an article that is tagged as an advertisement, then allowed to run without the tag, become an advertisement again by mentioning the legal qualifications of an official in the organization? If that is the case, I will be happy to remove it.
2. The Talk notice gave the following reason for removing all references: "Moved from the article because there was no indication that any were actually used".
That is because they were removed instantly. Am I correct that there is some indicator of when changes are made? If you will access them, you will notice that the references were removed literally within minutes of being placed. How can they be 'actually used' by anyone if they are taken off at once?
The other reason indicated for removing the references is: "Some might not be reliable sources):"
All are reliable sources. Xpress is a legitimate newspaper in Dubai (UAE), The Future And You is a long-running podcast. The Arizona House records are available publicly, and Alcor (which hosts the records) is itself a multi-million dollar non-profit, which you can confirm by accessing nonprofit research engines such as Guidestar (another reference which was removed.)
Every one of these s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Typeform ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ronz:
Excuse me for ending a message in mid-sentence. Apparently there are length limits I was not aware of. To conclude what I was saying:
Every one of these s —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Typeform (
talk •
contribs) 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to revisit the issues you raised on my talk page? My page is still in the Category 'Usernames editors have expressed concern over'. Do you still have concerns in that regard? VMS Mosaic ( talk) 23:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ronz: What went wrong this time Ronz? Another policy change? -- Ebbee 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Replied there; I hope we can reach a suitable compromise.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you have systematically removed all the links to my site. I don't understand your reasoning. the fact that it is my site and that it has adsense on it will prevent you form seeing the fact that each link pointed to a tutorial with the valuable information related to the topic of Wikipedia page. I understand your struggle for keeping the wikipedia clean from unrelevant spam, however you are removing links to relevant information. I have had tens of visitors coming from those links write to me asking me questions about relevan crafts or commending me on providing such a useful resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.104.8 ( talk) 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ronz. I have read the COI article you have referred me to. The closest match to the criteria mentioned there is the following:
: 1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
Still, I think that you (and many other Wiki editors) are being blinded by the fact that there are ads on the linked page, without actually looking at the content of the page. The article linked to was definitelly not "obscure or not particularly relevant". It was spot on on-topic. It was a useful resource. As i pointed before, people coming form Wikipedia have initated a correspondence with me on the topic of the page.
The site was made by my wife and myself. She is an occupational therapist and is very good with crafts and I am just helping build and maintain the site. We have personally done each of those craft activities and taken photographs. True, there are ads on the site but why is it forbidden ? It does not make the site "commercial". The fact is that the existance of ads has made the site irrelevant in your eyes but not in the eyes of visitors.
Please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 ( talk) 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
As I have mentioned on the Papier Mache page, I would like to know the status of the link. Can I reinclude it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.104.8 ( talk) 19:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ronz,
I thought to let you know about this real drama surrounding NotJustBrowsing. Have a look at [
[4]], [
[5]], [
[6]] and [
[7]]. It will be a good learning experience for all working for wikipedia.
Is there a way out of this crisis? Can these middle level gate keepers be avoided? The last one very simple page was very similar to [ [8]]. -- Ebbee ( talk) 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 12:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
unblock|I restored legitimate comments by myself and others to a talk page on a protected article for the purpose of discussing the disputes for which that article is protected. Removal of others' comments to talk pages is a form of simple and obvious vandalism, the exact type of vandalism that is exempt from 3rr. Further, if editors are to be blocked for simply trying to contribute legitimately to talk pages, then any single editor can be stifled from contributing to Wikipedia simply by having enough other editors remove that single editor's comments.
Note that the editor who began the edit-warring for the purpose of removing my comments in Talk:Bosniaks also did so in WQA (diff #1 below). Note also, that while the comments I restored are legitimate, the two editors that removed these comments are both involved in disputes with me over the legitimacy of their own contributions to the same page.
When I last restored the comments, I refactored the only portion of it that was in dispute (diff #2 below).
Also note that this is a part of a dispute where personal discussion (diff #4), WP:THIRD (diff #3), WP:3RR, and WP:WQA were all tried without response (plus ANI on a related issue with a different editor).}}
In a recently-closed arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. Stifle ( talk) 12:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note I've been working extremely hard to try to find alternative solutions to these problems. I'm happy to explain in detail what I'm currently doing, and could use a great deal of help. I've written only a few things down, recently in Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus. Summarizing, I think the best solution is to strongly encourage editors to use the article talk pages, protecting articles if necessary, then strongly holding editors to WP:TALK and WP:CON. WP:TALK directs editors on proper use of the talk page and proper interactions with others. In the talk page discussions editors should explain their perspectives in terms of current policies and guidelines, linking to them as needed to be clear. Editors that are unable to follow WP:TALK should be drawn into dispute resolution, in venues other than the article talk page. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Recent example with User:83.67.73.117 concerning his use of Talk:Bosniaks as a forum in violation of WP:TALK, WP:BATTLE, and WP:SOAP:
-- Ronz ( talk) 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the problems that I see that's not being addressed, which I brought up in arbitration early this year, is that most of these editors are inexperienced with Wikipedia and their experience comes from interacting in extremely controversial articles where civility is often overlooked (to put it gently). It would be helpful to encourage these editors to work on articles that had a better editing environment, and also encourage them to seek a WP:MENTOR. -- Ronz 21:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
hi and thanks for your clarification. I agree that this is unwise to add links massively (although in some rare circumstances it may enhance the value of the articles). In all cases links should be definitely looked closer on and removed if redundant. Pundit| utter 13:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ronz,
I am the Marketing Director for Silanis Technology. IP Address 66.46.217.132
It has just come to my attention that Silanis has been blacklisted from editing Wikipedia as a result of our contributions being deemed SPAM.
I want to first apologize for not addressing this earlier. I was not ignoring earlier messages from you or others, I was simply unaware that messages were being posted to my account. If you see recent repeated attempts to replace text that was deleted, it was because I was trying to figure out who was removing it (I assumed it was being done maliciously).
While I do appreciate the importance of Wikipedia NOT being used as a marketing vehicle, I have 2 concerns with being blacklisted.
Firstly, while you have applied this policy strictly to Silanis, our competitors remain on these pages. ARX, Yozons, PGP and others. If you are going to enforce this rule, it should be done uniformly.
Secondly, we ourselves have a very strict policy about not taking a commercial approach to our articles and resources. We were the first in the industry to create a resource center with the goal of educating the marketplace to increase adoption of the technology in general. As such, our articles are extremely educational. It is a shame that readers seeking useful information on this topic would not have access to white papers from experts simply because there is a presumption of bias.
I would greatly appreciate a response to this message. Please advise what can be done to resolve either of my concerns.
Thanks, Andrea Masterton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.217.132 ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 December 2007
Hello Ronz,
I undid your removal of the non-notable softwares in Entity-Relationshiup Diagram page, because it has already helped me and I belive other users in finding a solution that can be adequate for creating this diagram with an open-source solution. I was the initial person who divided the list in proprietary and open source software as I was trying to find a software that fullfill my need, and as I expected, many other people contributed with solutions and finally I dicovered Power*Architect which has recently became open-source. I am a System Analyst of a major brazilian governament company and my division has adopted this software for it´s use after these events. So I think is really helpful, and ask you to leave it. As you may already know, there isn´t any open-source solution in this area with the recent exception I told you. Our best hope is Power*Architect and brModelo. Please don´t remove this list. Other softwares may appear and this page is my (and others) first source of information.
You me reach me on [email protected]
Nelson Teixeira —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.70.139.207 ( talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have continued the dicussion in the article talk page, as you requested. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
161.148.140.157 (
talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I do consider the "alert" informally resolved, as there is a consensus on the WQA page of several editors actually discussing, but the wording for use of the template that I should "believe the situation is resolved with consensus or at very least grudging acceptance of the involved parties" doesn't seem to have been satisfied yet, as the people you were dealing with haven't agreed with our characterisation of yourself as a reasonable editor who is trying to salvage a contentious cycle of articles from partisan chaos. I have left notes on their talk pages letting them know how the situation sorts out for me, but as you know they may have little effect. The good news is single subject editors who declare up front that it's their POV or the highway are going to have more difficulties than they cause at a certain point, IME. Several of them have been sanctioned by admins at this point, and that promises to make any ensuing round of sanctions that much more effective. Cheers! -- Bradeos Graphon ( talk) 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi RONZ. I would be happy to make a draft for the ethnicity section and submt it for evaluation/ suggestions Hxseek ( talk) 01:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Were you going to respond? - I wasn't planning on it, it seems to have done a good enough job of getting sourced. I'll just let an admin close it as keep, which is what it looks like will happen. Corvus cornix talk 19:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ronz, hi, I was not aware of this consensus about external links, thanks. I have appreciated having comprehensive lists of software in Wikipedia. I guess I'll have to bone up on this subject as to what Wikipedia is and is not. We certainly could use a comprehensive or a list of the major Wiki Genealogy Software. Do you think it would be appropriate to start it? I guess that would mean contributing articles within Wikipedia about each wiki, which I'm not prepared or equipped to do. Oh well.-- socrtwo ( talk) 05:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea and a good suggestion you made for the first entry [10]. Whether this goes into the main body of the article or not we should make it clear what we are able to establish factually in the Talk space. — Whig ( talk) 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I would take it upon myself to archive tendentious discussions, but I'll let someone else do that. For now, I think I'm going to put up a DNFTT warning at the top of the page. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk page. Certainly we want to keep cool heads; however, first, mere politeness is insufficient, as disruptive editting can be done with a patina of politeness; second, we are saddled with disruptive editting, and addressing it openly is IMO more effective, and more honest, than ignoring it. Unhappily we have disruptive editting on both "sides" of the core issue; people over-reacting to the perceived attack against science, and people over-reacting to a perceived attack against Faith. Both Science and Faith have been used by manipulative people in fraudulent ways. Myself, I'm a scientist, but both sides have bad people. Pete St.John ( talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The current status of what we have posted to each other (can't really call it a conversation, IMO) at my talk:
==Talk:Quackwatch== I really appreciate what you're trying to do with comments such as this [11]. You're trying to calm the situation, that's clear. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Quackwatch is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you remove and apologize for the following, "I consider your pugnaciousness to be misguided and disruptive" and "(over and over again; which is [[Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing|tendentious)".
I suggest you delete your /ScratchPad notes about me, and discuss the matters with me instead. I hope this is specific enough for you. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
...I cannot find any evidence that these website reviews are actually peer reviewed. They appear to be solitary reviews, submitted to the journal, with no reviewing criteria at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That is, Ronz complains that the review is not reviewed. Think about it. Pete St.John ( talk) 20:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
1) QW is not peer-reviewed.
2) QW should be peer-reviewed.
3) There exists one person who has publically criticised QW for not peer-reviewing itself.
4) QW is an evil fascist conspiracy to inflate the costs of over-proscribed medications.
5) Anyone who disagrees with any word spoken or written by anyone who agrees with QW about anything, is destroying the Immortal Crystalline Edifice of True Science and causing the imminent collapse of Human Civilization.
You've made my point for me. Thanks! When you actually want to discuss facts, let me know by actually discussing them yourself. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" I can't say I've done any of that. 206.162.145.2 ( talk) 19:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ronz,
I understand and agree with the removal of the links as you have done, however I am perplexed as to why you removed a significant part of the article. I agree that removing links is something that was needed on the article and appologise for having added one, however, I think that your removal of vast majority of the Providers section siginificantly reduces the value of the page. Prior to my edits to fix a misspelling of North Plains Systems from "NorthPlains" there were a number of links in the page that as you pointed out should be removed, however, I think that only the links should be removed as the list of providers is very useful to someone who is looking for just such a solution. Your edits, while they definately remove the links, removed a lot of content too.
Jlegue ( talk) 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend contacting an uninvolved admin, asking them to review your diffs, and if they deem it appropriate, issue a warning. If violations of NPA or whatever happen after the warning, then the block becomes appropriately preventative, instead of punitive, for past bad acts. Mr Which ??? 01:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you point out where I'm responding in a fashion similar to their own? ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am just dropping in to say hello and to say that while in the hospital last weekend I noticed a lot hasn't changed with the Barrett article. What a shame. Hope you are well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 20:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett have got to be the most confounding controversy I have ever come across at Wikipedia. It needs to go through arbitration right now, there is just no other way this stuff is going to get resolved. The way that the Levine2112 group is operating is
disruptive editing pure and simple and they seem to confuse the issue so much that well-meaning editors become vicious angry overnight (witness
User:PeterStJohn). Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the patience to go through such an ordeal and the accompanying megabytes worth of data that such an action will generate. I wish there would be a group of uninvolved administrators who would swoop in and shut down the article entirely (maybe even delete it from Wikipedia for some time). I cannot believe that there are no less than six people operating on those pages that deserve to be kicked out of Wikipedia. I haven't seen such a high concentration of problem-editors since my days fighting the plasma cosmology wars.
ScienceApologist (
talk) 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE on Net Promoter research.
Dear Ronz,
The listing of the research I conducted with Professors Bruce Cooil, Tor Wallin Andreassen, and Lerzan Aksoy is incorrectly listed as being "my" research, and provides the appearance that my employer, IPSOS Loyalty, is involved in the research--it is not. Could you have this corrected so that my co-authors are given proper credit? This research is purely scientific, and my co-authors are well-regarded academics.
Additionally, my co-authors and I were recently informed that this research was awarded the MSI-H. Paul Root Award from the Journal of Marketing for the article that represents the "most significant contribution to the advancement of the practice of marketing." This award represents "best paper" from the leading scientific journal in all of management and economics (as measured by the citation index) and represents a significant statement by the scientific community regarding our research into Net Promoter.
Finally, the research reported to support Net Promoter by Paul Marsden and Mark Ritson was not published in any scientific journal--it does not meet that standard and therefore does not represent scientific evidence of a relationship between Net Promoter and firm growth. The only other scientific research into Net Promoter of which I am aware challenges the claims attributed to Net Promoter. These articles are:
Keiningham, Timothy L., Bruce Cooil, Lerzan Aksoy, Tor Wallin Andreassen, and Jay Weiner (2007), "The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Customer Retention, Recommendation and Share-of-Wallet," Managing Service Quality, vol. 17, no. 4, 361-384.
Morgan, Neil A., and Lopo Leottte do Rego (2006), "The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction And Loyalty Metrics In Predicting Business Performance," Marketing Science, 25 (5), 426–439.
Pingitore, Gina, Neil A Morgan, Lopo L. Rego, Adriana Gigliotti, Jay Meyers (2007), "The Single-Question Trap," Marketing Research, vol. 19, no. 2 (Summer), p9-13.
I would like to note that my co-authors and I do not care what metrics managers choose to use. We only care about the research presented in our scientific journals, of which the Harvard Business Review (where Net Promoter was introduced) is one. Claims presented in these journals must be able to withstand scientific scrutiny.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Tim Keiningham —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLK 001 ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey there,
I've been looking for innovation on Wikipedia, and have discovered that http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Innovation has been made useless (sort of): There have been inserted many lines of text written by Henry Bolanos. I dont know how to delete this - there is no "Edit" to that part, and it is above the introduction. Can you help?
br Anders Schroeder
[email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersschroeder ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussions rather than simply reverting. In this case, the discussions stretch over three weeks. Thanks. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Ronz your email is not activated so would you email me please? Also I have ANI on my watch list and was shocked when I saw the accusation of you using a sock. I had to read it twice to make sure I read it correctl. You gave a good response though. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I added the business link so people could check out the comapny for themselves and to back up statements that refereed to that company. If these sources will confuse user then I will delete them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.78.52 ( talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have already left on warning for him a few days ago: [13] (which was promptly removed), and will look into leaving a second warning a bit more tomorrow. -- Bradeos Graphon ( talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ronz, I do respect the rules. How about this diagram which is available in Flickr? @see: http://flickr.com/photos/bryce/106972762/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirBehzad ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
My edition is referenced and sourced and the nameless editor called me a turk and made racial remarks on my origin page few edits back on my talk page. Megistias ( talk) 21:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ronz,
You are the only person I have had any interaction with, so, am afraid - I hope you do not mind me asking your opinion on something?
I updated the following section, trying to follow the guidelines and wondered what your thoughts are on my changes.
This is the section I updated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Business_Administration#MBA_ranking_resources
I removed the first MBA Ranking Resources “Compilation of business school rankings” this is not a qualified MBA ranking resource and as such is not relevant for this section: self promotion (you taught me that one).
Updated the “Top 50 MBA programmes as determined by the United Kingdom Government” and included the date then I realised that this had been included in “Reference and Notes” and does not actually have anything to do with rankings. As such should not be in this section.
Would love to know what you think?
--
Studio1st (
talk) 23:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, just read the discussion page and had a minor heart attack. -- Studio1st ( talk) 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ronz,
Please take a look at my inquiry in discussion for User Expeience Design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:User_experience_design
AmirBehzad ( talk) 01:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Please come to this section I created just for you. . . [14]. TheDoctorIsIn ( talk) 03:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You are one person who took the time to try to help me understand policies at the beginning. Your patience with me was remarkable to me since you had to continually repeat things until I finally understood. I hope my editing, although not that much, shows that I have learned and became a better editor over all this time. I thank you for your help and appreciate it very much. I wish you and yours a very Happy & Healthy holiday season. 2008 is around the corner and my wish for you is that is a full of happiness, great health and happy editing. Thank you again, -- CrohnieGal Talk 17:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ronz,
I saw your reply on the 'External Links' talk concerning a link to a blog with interesting content. I added some material in the article's discussion section. Is this what you really advised to do? Please help cuz I am slightly new to this! thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicheader ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The text is pertinent the the topic. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm sorry I've been out of it for a while, but the surgery last week really kicked my butt. I must be getting old. Having worked in a surgery myself for most of my adult life, I shouldn't be too surprised.
I have replied to OrangeMarlin's arbcom enforcement motion [15]. I am glad that the issue(s) is/are getting attention from many other editors, which is the only way to reach a lasting solution, whatever it may be.
As an aside, I do myself support a wholly sceptical approach to alt med type things, even though now I teach tai chi chuan, tui na and qigong for a living myself. Go figure. Cheers! -- Bradeos Graphon ( talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I hope so too but don't hold your breath, I like you too much! :) Thanks, I will repost what I put on the first one when I am able. Right now I have too much meds in me to think clearly enough. I am still recovering from my hospital stay and now I have a tooth that need to go big time, tomorrow as a matter of, that is killing me. Of course it happens during a holiday. My Crohn's is taking so much away from me it's driving me crazy. Oh well, thanks for the help. -- CrohnieGal Talk 21:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
REFACTORED - information removed
Magnonimous ( talk) 12:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
"I wouldn't be opposed to a complete stubbification of the article" Someguy1221 ( talk)
Magnonimous ( talk) 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess some would call that being BOLD, hmm funny ol' world i'n'nit. Magnonimous ( talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I just reverted to a better version at Coral calcium. I hadn't noticed you were working on it. -- Fyslee / talk 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, great, Ronz. At what point was I libellous? At what point did I make controversial statements without proper sources?
Of what exactly are you accusing me and what evidence do you have?
k —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kalowski (
talk •
contribs) 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Listen, Ron, here's what you wrote on my talk page:
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. [1] --Ronz
If you check the history, I have not made ANY statements on ANY page other than a TALK PAGE about anyone. Kalowski ( talk) 06:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I see. I now know what the diff means. You are suggesting that this
Hilarious. Actually, who cares? Who is this guy? Why have I ever bothered to get published facts here for a guy whose main job is surely to press 'record'. A mastering engineer? Or a re-mastering engineer? What the hell does it mean? Protect it forever, man. Hell... delete the poor guy!
is possibly libellous. How? Is he not a re-mastering engineer? From the Steve Hoffman page:
Steve Hoffman is an audio engineer from Los Angeles, California, who specializes in remastering sound recordings on compact disc and vinyl record.
Does an audio engineer not record sound? Or re-record sound. I have not libelled anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowski ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)