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. |
Dear Ronz,
A few monthes ago, I began to contribute to some articles of the English as well as the French Wikipedia.
I have been working on the Gravikord page. When I first worked on it, I restructurated it and added chapters, links and references. I have to confess that at this moment I removed the tags about the multiple issues of the article.
I do apologize for doing that; I was new on Wikipedia and I sincerely thought that the changes I had made were the correct ones. I understand now that it was not the good way to act and that I could not be a judge. You restored the tags and I understand the reason.
Since this day I continued to work on the gravikord page; I do hope it is written in an adequate way now. Please could you see (when you have time for it) if it is ok and if the tags can be taken away ? If you think there is still work to do I should be interested in knowing how I can improve the article.
Best Regards,
( Joiesoudaine ( talk) 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
Dear Ronz,
Thank you for your answer.
Sure, if anyone can help improving the article, it is a very good thing - and remains the basis of Wikipedia.
Nevertheless, I have to say that I am a little bit surprised by your answer. Though these instruments - the Gravikord and its cousin the Gravi-kora - have only 24 years of life, they have already inspired musicians and composers as different as Foday Musa Suso - an African djeli - and Jacques Burtin - a French composer -, whose works have been produced by Columbia, Polydor or Island Records in the USA (Foday Musa Suso, along with Herbie Hancock or Bill Laswell) or Bayard Musique in France (Jacques Burtin). These are no self productions (I insist on this point) but official ones and can be bought in stores or on the Internet. That is the reason why it seems to me that the notability of this instrument is no more to be proved.
It also seems to me that the article is not anymore written as an advertisement, if it were, since the chapters actually follow a neutral, technical point of view (description, tuning, musical notation...) and are written in that spirit.
Of course, there are few external references, but could it be otherwise for a new instrument ? As you certainly know, the saxophone was created by Adolphe Sax in the Nineteeth Century (in 1841) ; the French composer Hector Berlioz already included a saxophone in one of his compositions (« Chant sacré », « A Sacred Song ») in 1844... but the saxophone was only accepted by the Paris French Conservatory one century after (in 1941) ! For the new instruments (as well as the new concepts), academic or public references may not be immediate or numerous. However, the fact that these instruments are already used by composers or musicians could be the proof they found a way to exist in another mind than their inventor’s.
You may not agree with that and I shall respect your decision but I wished to express my feelings.
Best Regards,
Joiesoudaine ( talk) 17:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Ronz. Best regards, Joiesoudaine ( talk) 08:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Both statements that dark chocolate (1) is a superfood and (2) is one of the most potent of superfoods, are supported by widely accepted quantitative evidence. These are facts, not conjecture.
I can (1) provide you with evidence/documentation of the fact that dark chocolate is one of the most potent of superfoods, and, if needed, (2) further edit the article with that supporting documentation to add to the case that the article is, in fact, enhanced with that evidence.
Is that sufficient?
If not, then what supporting evidence is necessary, as I am not 'shooting from the hip' here.
Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Goldentiger ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ronz,
Here are my first references, all of which correlate dark chocolate and/or cacao, with anti-oxidant value and properties, and further, to specific and documented benefits.
Thanks
Ronz,
I understand the blacklisted source. Is there now some agreement that must be struck before the first three references can be used?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Goldentiger ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
While I can partially appreciate your EU position as a possible reliable source, there must be deference to the fact that the EU is a net importer of cocoa, therein, displaying their own sense of bias which might tilt otherwise. Therefore, the impact of consumption might actually be impacted by their definitions on products of their choosing. Nevertheless, this term does have significance elsewhere.
So, rather than to continue to get into a tug-of-war on the suitability of dark chocolate, and apart from the subjective nature of the term, the article already mentions the blueberry as a 'potential' superfood.
Therefore, I have amended my edit to include that fruit, along with a more objective and less debatable statement of it's suitability, due to high antioxidant value and high oxygen radical absorbance capacity.
I hope this meets your criteria adequately.
For your criteria for independent and reliable reference, I have included two additional edit references, to support those claims or statements of the value on blueberries.
[9] 1Goldentiger ( talk) 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, I saw your message on my talk page regarding conflict of interest. I'm not associated with any of these organizations, though I appreciate your desire to remove any potential conflicts of interest. Rbakal ( talk) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I responded to your post at WP:CITE, but I wasn't sure if you already signed off. I just wanted you to see User:CharlesGillingham/Wikipedia/Wish list, which (I think) is what you were talking about. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I looked up the origin of this symbol, couldn't find out anything.But I found a natural source of this shape that I believe should be included in the article,but I have no clue as to how to do an edit. A piece of bamboo when filled with smoke and rolled at just the right speed will create the Yin Yang symbol.I also have no clue if this means anything but,hey what the heck... It might be right. since you must be Wiki savvy, I thought you could somehow blossom this idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharris315 ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you please help me in adding an External Link on Sustainability Website. The external link to be added is http://masonweb.wm.edu/sustainability/ which consists of more that hundred links to sustainability websites is developed by Prof. Michael Luchs of College of William and Mary.
ChandraGangireddy ( talk) 14:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a joke, just delete everything i have contributed to and get it over with, and also delete my user account while your at it, i will not be returning; Nor ever donating Again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westerr ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
So google docs is on there as well as numerous other services
just wondering where the line is drawn 00:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)~ Delinquentme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.119.149 ( talk)
i was also considering adding pictures of full versions of CVs ( curriculum vitaes ) for the image reference in CV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.119.149 ( talk) 00:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a " soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ronz To my dismay I have discovered that you have deleted all my external links I added. I find this highly surprising, as I presumed that you are a person and not a machine, and would have the dilligence and intelligence to check up on what I am adding. I am adding academic podcasts, which my company records and which are paid for by UK universities. They are all, without exception on academic topics, and stricly academic research. I hope you will check them and re-install them
Best Wishes
René — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renewolf ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, you're invited to continue this discussion Talk:Femininity. USchick ( talk) 14:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ronz,
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I'm spamming Wikipedia. I'm not associated with any of the articles that I've edited - there is no conflict of interest and no promotional material. I've added content that enhances the information on each of the pages.
While I realize that you are working to better the site, I don't think it's effective (or welcoming for that matter) to suggest that you will block me from Wikipedia.
Rbakal ( talk) 16:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I recently edited the rolfing entry to include this quote:
"Rolfing has a physiologic impact on the peripheral nervous system and on myofascial structures."
This is direct quote from the abstract of the research from the previous sentence: "A 2004 review of Rolfing found that "there is no evidence-based literature to support Rolfing in any specific disease group".
This sentence is not found in the abstract and I am unable to even verify its existence. Yet it is cherry-picked out of the study as if its the most important statement in that bit of research. I personally find that misleading. In order to provide a more balanced perspective, I quoted from the abstract itself. I'm not sure how this was found to be "dubious", when its a quote from the abstract of the very research cited in the previous sentence.
I am a licensed massage therapist and not trained in rolfing. They are actually my competitors, to be frank. But I don't think that the entry as it existed was fair to rolfing, so I changed it.
I appreciate the hard and probably thankless work you do for wikipedia. Thanks in advance for reading this and getting back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartolo Cologne ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
You deleted my edit about a recent lawsuit, which was referenced to an article on the Courthouse News Service, with a comment that it "looks like a warmed-over press release about ongoing legal matters." Courthouse News Service, however, doesn't produce its content based on press releases, but rather writes original content based on civil litigation filings in the U.S. See their "about us" page: http://www.courthousenews.com/aboutus.html
I can understand a desire to exercise due care about what goes into the biography of a living person, but I believe what I wrote was NPOV and sufficiently referenced. Lippard ( talk) 01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ronz: You just removed the link that I included with the picture on the Irish potato candy site. I am not associated with Couldn't Be Parve or with any commercial Irish potato candy company - I was just looking for an image to add to the page (which I was editing because I like to eat Irish potato candy). That image is licensed on Flickr with a CC BY-NC license, which requires attribution. Larrimore ( talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In preparation for responses to all the cleanup I've been doing with spamming related to Mark Sells, here's what I see:
-- Ronz ( talk) 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding changes to I made to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_structure_gyroscope 18:11, 22 March 2011 Rc604 (talk | contribs) (13,310 bytes) (→Quartz MEMs (QMEMs) gyroscope)
Can you give me some feedback as to what can be changed that will make it acceptable as non-advertisement? Rc604 ( talk) 21:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Ronz,
I don't quite understand why we can not include Epson Toyocom as a major MEMs device vendor. I understand that you do not want external links in the body of the document. Could I atleast put the Epson Toyocom back in the document without the external link?
I can provide references to confirm that Epson is a large MEMs player:
http://www.i-micronews.com/news/Gaming-market-reveals-changes-MEMS-gyroscope-competitive-la,5711.html "Competition is gaining in intensity as the gaming gyroscope market is becoming increasingly attractive. Established players (ST, Epson Toyocom, InvenSense) are also pushing hard to introduce 3-axis gyroscopes into this market while new large players such as Kionix and Bosch Sensortec are also expected to enter this market. It is possible that a unique 3-axis gyro could replace the 2-axis gryo + single axis gryo of the Motion Plus controller"
http://www.i-micronews.com/news/Epson-Toyocom-branches-out-motion-sensor-market-highly,5622.html "Compared with other materials, quartz shows a high degree of stability while consuming very low power. In addition to angular rate sensors and accelerometers, Epson Toyocom continues to make better use of the characteristics of quartz material by introducing an absolute pressure sensor, the XP-6000CA."
http://www.i-micronews.com/news/Invensense-IPO-change-competition-motion-sensing-business,5512.html http://memsblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/invensense-ipo-will-change-the-competition-in-the-motion-sensing-business/ "1 or 2 players are dominating the business: STM for accelerometer (50% market shares) followed by Bosch Sensortec; Invensense for gyroscope (almost 40% market shares) followed by Epson Toyocom"
http://memsblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/shifts-occurring-in-the-mems-competitive-landscape/ "Canon—like Epson—managed to remain flat in terms of shipments of inkjet printers and therefore was able to increase its market share in the inkjet printhead segment. Canon was up 3% and Epson 12%, thanks to its booming quartz MEMS gyroscope business."
http://www.i-micronews.com/news/MEMS-quartz-components-contribute-Siwards-revenues-2011,6172.html "With electronics devices continue to shrink in size, MEMS technology is able to reduce the size of quart components. Japan-based quartz component maker Epson Toyocom has already developed its own process, QMEMS, to capture the trend of smaller and slimmer devices"
http://memsblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/isuppli-2009%E2%80%94the-hockey-stick-year-for-mems/ "InvenSense emerged as the No.1 supplier of gyroscopes in revenue in 2009 with an estimated $57 million (source: H2 2009 Mobile and Consumer MEMS tracker, December 2009), just ahead of Epson Toyocom"
http://memsblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/kionix-sale-for-233-0-million-to-rohm-in-a-booming-consumer-electronics-mems-inertial-market/ "The latest Wii game controller already integrates a dual axis gyroscope combined with a separate single axis gyroscope, respectively from InvenSense and Epson Toyocom (J). Used with the original 3-axis accelerometer, this gives an IMU function performed by 3 separate chips today. Yole estimates than more than 10M of such solutions have already been sold."
http://memsblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/3-axis-gyroscope-the-new-killer-product-for-cell-phones/ "The success of “virtual” 3-axis gyroscopes in gaming combined with 3-axis accelerometers, especially in the Nintendo Wii Motion Plus since June 2009. iSuppli calls it “virtual” because Nintendo’s accessory combines a 2-axis gyro from InvenSense with a 1-axis gyro from Epson Toyocom."
Rc604 ( talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that what is deemed reliable and independent is subjective. In the same article you have following external links which are clearly from biased sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_structure_gyroscope#cite_ref-MEMSGyroComp_14-0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_structure_gyroscope#cite_ref-Wii_MoPlus_13-0 Basically, I would like to know how Invensense and Kionix "qualified" as a major vendor. My opinion is that Epson being a larger company and greater market share for MEMs technology should atleast be added to the list.
In the links above, most of the source is from reputable industry market research firm such as Yole, iSuppli. I'll admit one of them had Epson Toyocom cited as a source. If you read the article, it does independent analysis and listed major vendors of MEMs devices and market research. Since semiconductors and more so MEMs technology is very specific, it would be hard to find mainstream press discuss it. The only time they will mention MEMs sensors is when they talk about consumer level popular devices such as Apple or Android products (which our devices are designed in).
There are other sources I can add, but the question is how many links must I produce to satisfy a fellow user? Minimal-Drift Heading Measurement using a MEMS Gyro for Indoor Mobile Robots
I would say it is equally hard to find sources for all of the mfg listed InvenSense, STMicroelectronics, Kionix. Not so much Analog Devices since they are recognized as one of the first to bring the technology to the sensing market. I should add that these companies use Silicon MEMS technology, which differs from Quartz MEMs technology because of the material used. Which is why I originally wanted to branch off a section.
Basically, I want to work with you on how I can modify my content to make it acceptable. Obviously wikipedia in its nature is very subjective in content.
Rc604 ( talk) 16:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no particular agenda and was trying to update some rather archaic viewpoints re. customer service with some emotional context. I see why you thought it was fluffy and I have taken out the external links and changed them to an internal link and a reference and shortened the endless reference to inc magazine's customer service makeover yadda yadda. hope it's o.k. now, if not just lump it. thx. Aanchalparvati ( talk) 18:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Fist bump or big hug, depending on gender and/or sexual orientation. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Ronz, why not start a talkspace draft and use the sources on the talk page. I'm pretty sure they support a good deal of the content, though perhaps with less detail. Ocaasi c 17:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know you were speaking about Lambanog. What I don't get is why the focus should be on him anymore. He seemed to want to include information regardless of whether or not it could be secondarily sourced. That was not a great approach. You resisted it. Fine, fair enough. But now we have lots of secondary sources, and it seems like you are continuing to play that same role. You can call this kind of comment in appropriate, but I think it's obvious you are not a fan of Enig's theories, as many scientists and concerned citizens also feel. But we're passed the point of establishing minimal notability and I don't see why the rest of the article should be a slow grind against your view of V and BLP. It strikes me as using those policies against their spirit if not just a more subtle reading of them. We can describe Enig's work in full without endorsing or promoting it. We have plenty of primary and secondary sources. Why shouldn't we do that? Ocaasi c 16:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads up, the sourced excerpts are the total references from the article. There's nothing else in them about Enig but what's on the talk page. Ocaasi c 01:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I replied to you on my talk page -- Elderbree TM ( talk) 18:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ronz. Please see WP:AN3#User:Ronz reported by User:Lambanog (Result: ). Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 11:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Reading through the previous posts was also helpful. I, too, was dismayed when I read the comment re: COI. I'm not affiliated with the person whose work I wrote about, other than studying it in a scholarly sense, and applying the methodology in my professional practice. I've never met or been in contact with the person. I saw that someone else (a relative "unknown" in the field, with due respect) had "bolstered" the entry with his or her own references and put their own name in the Wiki article. I left the person's name in, because others may know of this "expert", even if I don't) and added in some verifiable references, published by independent sources, to highlight the contributions of the more widely known scholar on the subject. Thanks for starting the conversation. Makes me feel like I'm part of a community of people who care about knowledge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreaton ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't spend any more effort on that editor. The SPI case has already concluded with a positive result, so it's a waste of time. Not sure why the account isn't blocked yet, but it shouldn't take much longer. Hans Adler 16:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ronz, you should have called me earlier. No one picks on Santa, and gets away with it. ;) -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi I am hoping this is just going to be a useful piece of article improvement - I removed the templates because imo there is little need for them and they are not benefiting the content - you have replaced them and so I am in my rights to request your specific issues you replaced them for so we can work together to remove them. please when you have time be specific and reply on the talkpage. No big hurry, but please reply to my points when you have time, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Ronz - but I am not interested in any of that. Simply respond between the five bullet points your specific issues and I will work to resolve them - you are welcome to help me resolve them also. Perhaps I am wrong but basically its like this - you add the templates to benefit and improve the article and then we remove them - so lets do that? Off2riorob ( talk) 20:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Glad we're making progress. Care to consistently format and fully enter all the reference info? That was one cleanup concern that I recalled as I was reinstating the position info and timeline. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
heloo ronz,
I got an email today on the account that you guys blocked me in Feb. You said i was spamming so i stopped using the account.
now why have you come back with all this?
yes i was the owner of that site easykobo.com and i stopped after i read the guidelines.
my website was not spam, but you guys can do whatever you want. leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.86.136.114 ( talk) 10:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ronz,
I've noticed you have had the same issues with the Pocketbook article and Brainsteinko. Please see Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Person_keeps_reverting_edits.2C_removing_negative_facts_and_represents_company_and_products_overly_positive
BottomDog ( talk) 09:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ron,
Apologies - I will refrain from edits pertaining to any organization I have an affiliation with. I have removed all edits pertaining to the company I have done web design work for - and have even reached out to other wikipedia users to apologize for my attempt at creating a wikipedia page for them (they had originally suggested keeping the page - but I suggested not to considering the article did not have enough sources to reach wikipedia standards).
Evildeadxsp ( talk) 20:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that was a poor choice of words, and could be taken the wrong way by editors that have difficulties with WP:AGF. Reverting first, making accusations next, disrupting the talk page, then finally apologizing for not looking at the edits/edit-summaries/discussion. It only took me three times telling him that I didn't remove the information for him to finally realize I was right all along. I prefer to assume he did it out of ignorance rather than as something far worse. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to explain why I feel this is an appropriate edit summary, and explain this edit. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please not continue to post there as the user has removed your posts? This indicates that they do not wish you to post there and I think it behooves you to respect this. Thanks. -- John ( talk) 18:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a dialog on
Talk:Barbecue#External link request where other editors may join in the discussion. You were involved in the archived discussion (I see that you may have retired...but notifying you in case you come back:)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕)) 22:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spam for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 19:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest, I wish the world could have been blessed with two of me, but sadly 'tis I who has been editing via IP. BE TA 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, You have removed the links to that applet from a couple of pages where I added it. The applet is definitely of ineterest to those who want to familiarize themselves with the subject: it is quick and easy way to learn the limits of the analytic approach. Also, there are no resources like that listed on those pages. Plase could you give me the reason why the link should not be there. Thanks, Andrei Andreiborshchev ( talk) 07:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
All I did was update factual information on AICPA's wikipedia page (i.e. membership numbers, locations, officers and so forth). I did not add anything else. So I do not feel your tags of conflict of interest are valid.
Additionally, the CPA Exam page and fingerprinting: While candidates are fingerprinted, there is obvious language in this section that is biased and not based in fact. There is also a broken reference link. Really, the majority of this section is about Choicepoint and should be had on their page and not the CPA Exam's page.
I do understand the removal of the external links and appreciate your guidance in that area.
Aicpa gjw ( talk) 18:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I just submitted some changes trying to tone it done, but still be factual and maintain the "controversy." Let me know what you think. Thanks! Aicpa gjw ( talk) 18:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I added three pieces of information to the article on Usability Testing. You, I assume, are the person who removed two of them. I would argue that they are not self-serving, they are simply fact and properly documented. I was surprised to see them disappear because the Intuit material, in the same section, remain unchallenged even though it is remarkably self-serving and factually wrong. I don't advocate its removal, because it is an interesting data point. It just needs to be surrounded with more and more facts.
The article, when I first read it, appeared to indicate that iterative testing was first started at Xerox PARC in around 1979 for the Star project. The Intuit reference has them claiming they were the first to do it beginning in 1984.
What I did was, first, to move that date back to 1948-49, with Henry Dreyfuss's work on the ships, Constitution and Independence. I then inserted two projects at Apple in the same era as the PARC work already mentioned that had been done using the iterative testing methodology. These were drawn from a book I wrote in 1992 called "Tog on Interface." This was not a book on the Wonders of Apple, but an educational book for new designers in which I just happened to use the examples I mentioned in the WikiPedia article because they were instructive. In the book, I laid out the six designs required to come up with a successful one, showing and explaining each of our five abject failures before final success. That was definitely not a self-serving.
My purpose in adding these examples to Wikipedia was not to claim invention, as evidenced by my adding the fact that Henry Dreyfuss was already doing the exact same thing in the 1940s. It was just to add additional early examples in the computer industry to those already in place. I hoped that by adding these examples, it might draw other people out since it is my belief that iterative design, formal or informal, had been happening in the computer industry far before the 1978-84 time frame, almost certainly at Xerox PARC, and probably at SRI and MIT.
Ironically, it was I who taught the iterative design methodology to the people at Intuit, and not in 1984, but 1980. If I wanted to be self-serving, I would have pointed that out. That information, however, is irrelevant to this article. What is relevant, however, is that they were not the first company to do iterative testing. I've traced it back to Henry Dreyfuss Associates. I suspect it started long before that.
At any rate, I would appreciate it if you would consider returning the material, edited in whatever manner you wish,
-tog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toghome ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
My name is Attila, and the Inwdorg is not Spamname. It is my site's name. http://Inwd.org: Internetional Wellness Directory...
Please not report me Spam, because I am not spammer :(
Thank, Attila — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inwdorg ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
ok thank you -- Cashflowtrader ( talk) 14:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The link I added is not unverifiable. Stop acting like it is. It's by Ross Jeffries, a notable figure in the same industry as Richard La Ruina. Richard La Ruina has posted a reply to the publication of that email. If you bothered to look through the links you'd see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, I believe you deleted my revision to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_telephone_directory, earlier today. This is likely because we include a link to the FAQ section of our website. I understand you may not want this link coming from us, however, the current Wiki article is a bit out-of-date and inaccurate. Link aside, I believe the changes I suggested were factual and neutral. You might want to take another look and reconsider the Wiki changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phonehelp ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I have made an edit war report involving you at EWN should you wish to remark or comment there. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The No Spam Barnstar | |
Thanks for removing spam magnets in Professional video over IP Kvng ( talk) 13:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC) |
Will you please be more specific on the article's talkpage about why the material and tone are promotional and unenclyclopedic? I absolutely do not understand why I can not use reliably sourced material - some even in quotes in this article without it being called an advert. The changes that were made without discussion were the ones that were not according to sources. I will go over ever change I made and give the exact sourced material if that is what is required. Agadant ( talk) 21:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ronz
Why did you remove the link of the oud tuner? Don't you think that this link will help thousand of players and people who are interesting the oud music to know more aboyt the different tuning option alive? I think that this is the only online oud tuner on the web and can contribute a lot.
If it is because i didn't put it in the right way i will be glad if you help me to place this link because as i have said before it is extremely important. This is the link: http://www.arabinstruments.com/112730/Online-Oud-Tuner
Please advise Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.71.156 ( talk) 08:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Template:External links-inline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 10:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ronz, I appreciate your comments and advice regarding my edits. Like I stated before it is not my intent to be promotional with my posts but more to illustrate some of the industry known associations. I completely agree with you in finding secondary/independent sources to support my content. If you don't mind I may ask for your advice regarding this section before I post again, and other posts from time to time. Will this be OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louie81 ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
As you can see, I am a new user and trying to learn my way. Could you help me to understand why my association with the company (Amplified Analytics) prevents me from listing it as vendor on a relevant page. The articles you referred me to, does not list any specific reason that makes it a conflict of interest. What evidence I can provide to remove your objection to restoring the listing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Yankelovich ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 September 2011
Ronz, I would like to restore the link to the example of a text-based CAPTCHA server that makes text-based CAPTCHA practical. This is important to blind and visually impaired people users. But I'm afraid that you will just delete it again. Can we discuss this? David Spector (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ronz -- is this the same person as the one who was just being abusive on your talk page? Also this one. If so (and the style is rather distinctive) we've collided with him before. The history of that page is particularly interesting. Anyway he's blocked now for two weeks. Antandrus (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi
You removed the link to my page as a reference for Bono's DOME program.
The reason for the existence of my page is that there doesn't seem to be a home for the DOME program, and the source versions of DOME I found on the web were outdated and wouldn't build on a modern system. I therefore maintain a buildable version of DOME to keep it available for anyone who wants to run it. Please see this thread.
The page is just a basic home for an abandoned piece of software, but as DOME is mentioned in the article it seems more useful for it to have a link that points there than to have no link at all.
Adrian. Antiprism ( talk) 18:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Ronz, an anonymous editor recently edited the Angel investor article to remove all references to Gust (formerly Angelsoft.) Given that the person behind this anonymous account (as well as a number of other accounts used for recent edits to articles in the early stage entrepreneurship field) seems to have a personal animus, would you be willing to review the edits, and take whatever action you see fit? Yorker ( talk) 07:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The impartial, objective editing that you've been recently doing is appreciated. Yorker ( talk) 00:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly objectionable at the best of time so it's my fault rather than yours - when I get the time, I might do a bit more work at that coworking article as it looks to be constructed on rather thin sources. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I did add the entries to promote the book in that it's the only book available that describes RPR. However, if that's unreasonable I'll accept the judgement.
Best regards... Credible58 ( talk) 21:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
this edit [7] contains a number of uncivil assertions which are not justified by my behavior. I understand that may be your experience with other editors, but I'd ask you to retract them. thanks. -- Ludwigs2 02:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
"Please keep in mind that the better part of a billion people still rely on acupuncture for their conventional treatment. I don't suggest that it's better than equivalent modern treatments, but if it didn't work at all it would have ceased to exist long before the West came into regular contact with Asia" Definitely ad populum and appeal to tradition fallacies, and seems to summarize much of the previous arguments in the discussion. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Because I am dense and benifit from explainations of those who know, what is it that presents the issue with the links at Moxie Marlenspike? Thanks! =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Squeaky ( talk • contribs)
Hi Ronz,
what seems to be the problem with my post?
regards,
FTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomtochoose ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ronz,
Regarding what you say is "discussed on [my] talk page and on the article talk page" I don't see anything in my post that resembles a conflict of interest or "soapboxing, advertising or promotion" nor do I see a "discussion on the article talk page on how to properly rewrite the entire section." How would I go about rewriting it so that it will not be removed from the wiki page? Michael Schmidt is on a hunger strike. He is a Durham, Ontario dairy farmer. His cause is championing the freedom to choose the food we put in our bodies as responsible citizens. He wishes to start a dialogue with the Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to address this issue. His hunger strike has been covered by reputable and established news media sources.
Sincerely,
Freedomtochoose ( talk) 02:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC
would you prefer "John Doe"?
-- Freedomtochoose ( talk) 02:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC
And so, how would I go about rewriting it so that it will not be removed from the wiki page? I have not found a "discussion on the article talk page on how to properly rewrite the entire section."
-- Freedomtochoose ( talk) 02:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC
Ah! I just noticed that you must have edited the entry for me. Thank you very much. It looks good.
Sincerely,
-- Freedomtochoose ( talk) 03:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC
Thank you, Ronz. Printing and bookmarking that page now.
Regards,
-- Freedomtochoose ( talk) 03:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC
that is, printing and bookmarking this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WLU/Generic_sandbox
-- Freedomtochoose ( talk) 03:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC
Actually, I believe you are mistaken about the last consensus. In my view, you made changes from what is closest to the last consensus so you should start the discussion to justify your changes. The last consensus version was this:
"Consensus refers to the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what 'consensus' means for these purposes, but consensus seems to offer the best method to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages."
So if you want to go back to that and discuss Kotniski's changes, that would be fine. Or we can include his changes as I have done and discuss reordering the material, which is where perhaps we don't quite agree. Thanks. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 01:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Ronz, my only concern is that info gets WP:PRESERVED. I don't recall even making the note; it was probably auto-suggested to me when I split off the (at the time) new Gitmo specific article. Occasionally, unscrupulous editors will WP:Merge two tangentially related articles together and then plead WP:Undue so as to delete information from the project, despite my only concern and, of course, despite WP:PAPER. There are a number of such tricks, and, IIRC, that sort of thing was happening on many fronts back in Jan 2010 towards an editor who was devoted to documenting Gitmo subjects thoroughly. In the long run these people are racing the tide of WP:5P. AFAICT, everything has since worked out AOK. In short: you are likely just cleaning up the detritus of an old edit war. Keep up the good work! -- Kendrick7 talk 07:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Ronz,
All the information submitted earlier have factual proof that I personally verified. Dr Mindell has in fact published 54 books, verifiable on Amazon.com... http://www.amazon.com/Earl-Mindell/e/B001ILIGLU. The fact that the article states that he has published "over 45 books" is vague and inaccurate. Dr. Mindell is a currently practicing pharmacist, verifiable by the State of California, for which I provided a valid source... Board of Pharmacy, 1625 North Market Blvd Suite N-219, Sacramento, California 95834, (916)574-7900. I have the original document that proves this and can submit it. It is not just a past hobby or interest of his, it is his current profession. Additionally, the school he attended was in fact a "Private Postsecondary University recognized by the California State Department of Education... source: Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, 1625 North Market Boulevard, Suite S-202, Sacramento, CA, 95834. PO Box 980818, West Sacramento, CA, 95798-0818, (916)574-7720, www.bppva.ca.gov, Sheila M. Hawkins, Education Administrator, Degree Programs. This is verified by personal research. I have the document from Shiela Hawkins who works for the California State Department of Education if I need to submit this document.
I request that you review my claims and repost all my edits, and if you need me to post any documents to Wikipedia let me know.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piggynuts ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Good catch on the copyvio images, I've tagged them at commons. Sock puppetry? Haven't noticed this, what are you referring to? Dougweller ( talk) 06:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
On the Ricky Rozay GFID page, people keep spamming it and vandalzing it, putting fake tracks & producers. Can you or another admin please protect it? RickyRozay ( talk) 14:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I am an orthotist and am trying to get the quantity of information on the the various orthotic subcategories proportional to their place in the field. You are a working hard to tend to this and other entires, I am sure. Rather than delete info, it would be much better of me to expand and reference info. I apologize, I am lazy. I created the original definition of this subject years ago and successfully deleted lots of info placed by podiatrists who wanted to limit the scope of this term to one small area. The proportionality thing is what always gets me....SORRY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.149.132 ( talk) 03:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Recently I have undo deletion of section and projects. If you see any NGO wiki page - you may clearly find out that all activities/projects are listed in details. Please discuss in talk page before deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.17.49 ( talk) 10:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I wonder, why many sections of Art of Living is getting deleted! For your information - It is world's biggest NGO and taken up more service projects then any other organization including Red Cross etc. It is not justifiable to have very little information about the organization. List of service projects, work done etc. should not be treated as organization. All information are deleted without having any discussion on talk page even though it has reference to India's bigest newspaper; it is highly discouraging! We are having direct knowledge about the organization but still discouraged! All Seva Project listing are removed! It is our humble request that please have discussion on Talk Page first before deleting because I am sure you are not having direct knowledge of organization! Deepeshdeomurari ( talk) 04:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Further regarding anonymous blogger lawsuit - Please explain me any reference yet in wikipedia which actually use to promote HATE BLOG! Here in reference - two anonymous blogger have written hate blogs leaking content of Art of Living foundation - Further, Art of Living sued them and they have to remove content copyright to Art of Living foundation. Further they have to halt updating the blog as part of the order. So how is it a Controversy with respect to Art of Living! Anyways - for the timing - I am rephrasing content to make it neutral rather than provoking. You take a call on whether it should be part of wikipedia or not; because anyways there are 100s of cases Art of Living foundation implied on; like one photographer sold copies of pics of the Master and later he was sued by Art of Living; should we include all these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari ( talk • contribs) 04:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Please mention on talk page - what looks like advertisement. Content of the foundation is very limited and it is still start class. It seems that you are not letting any user add the content for this page. Either you add the content or allow others to add the content and DELETE/REVISE only after discussion on Talk page. You reverted content of almost all contributors and they stopped contributing to work on this and other Spiritual work Deepeshdeomurari ( talk) 02:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Ron Z, I would like to congratulate you on your efforts to keep up Wikipedia entries on Orthotics and Prosthetics. I do not put as much time into it as you do. I apologize for my rush to put into the entry what I consider to be a fair representation of the general content needed to reflect these two subjects. I have found the entries for Prosthetics: Lower Limb History to reflect some one sided interests of specific companies and individuals. These folks whave done great things in prosthetics, but their entries do not reflect the general nature of the field. I know it is now incumbent on me or someone else to offer information that would be useful to this end- the balance end, that is. I will work on it. thanks, Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.149.132 ( talk) 03:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the two resource pages. I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhampgonsalves ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ronz,
How can I contribute to innovation? My theory is noitavonni.
What do I need to accomplish in order to have this new way of thinking about innovation be published on the wikipedia web-site?
It does add to the body of knowledge on innovation.
May I ask for clarifications on this issue?
Dr. Clayton Christensen, D.B.A., discovered disruptive innovation theory and has a wikipedia web-site. How can he?
Please let me know what I need to do.
Thanks,
Lee
Please see the Moxie Marlinspike talk page... =//= Johnny Squeaky 04:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ronz,
You recently deleted some entries that I made on risk management with the comment "some tood, some bad, mostly unsourced, too much in an inappropriate tone".
I'm happy to accept that my entries do need improvement but as a published author with over 25 years international risk management experience I do know what I'm talking about. My entries significantly improved the page on risk management so (while it needed more work), I believe you did the community a dis-service by simply pressing 'undo'.
I've made some more edits to the article (again) so if you have any objections, could you either please contact me with suggestions or make some improvement (rather than just pressing undo). Granted, I'm new to editing Wikipedia so probably will make content, style and technical errors. All suggestions and tips would be gratefully accepted. I think we have the same goal here - to improve wikipedia.
Thanks,
Julian Talbot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliantalbot ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Ronz, Thanks for all the links and tips re editing the Risk article and Wikipedia generally. I'll go through them and learn how to be a better contributor. A colleague also suggested that a) I need work on a strategy for the page and b) that I set up a wiki project to get more risk practitioners involved. I'll start with some ideas on the Risk discussion page (and will remember to add my name). But first... to read up a bit on editing tips. Cheers, Julian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliantalbot ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear colleague, my name is Jürgen Wolff and I am working in tandem method since 1977. Some months ago, on may 24, I tryed to give an overview about its history, effects and so on ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tandem_language_learning&diff=456573656&oldid=430654466) which was improved formally by some other editors. While writing, I integrated all the former information and the links of the Bochum project. On september 5 you deleted the whole text returning to the previous one.
Also, I noticed that you deleted on october 26 a link to teletandembrasil.org . This is a non-commercial university project which permits poor brasilians access to language exchange, and not a promotional link.
I am conscient that my first text might have had formal defects, as I am not usually writing at wikipedia, but I do not understand the deletions and would be interested to know your reasons, in English or German. I will check this page, my mail is tandem@tandem-f.org, yours sincerely Jürgen Wolff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.152.13 ( talk) 10:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I will re-view the article taking into account your ideas during winter holidays, Jürgen Wolff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.152.13 ( talk) 08:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear colleague, as promised, I have today - reduced the level of details - suppressed the list of organizations - added sources, basically in history (one is in German because it is the most complete I found) - changed words which might be seen as publicity. I have maintained the external links to the 'big players' (Tandem Server Bochum, Tandem Foundation, Tandem International schools). I will look at your comments in the next days. Have a good exit 2011 and entry 2012, Jürgen Wolff - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.133.100 ( talk) 10:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, let's see, Jürgen Wolff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.133.100 ( talk) 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and asking for help. For the past two years I've "protected" Festivus during December and January, when it gets hundreds of thousands of hits and lots of IP and red-link user vandalism. This year I'm without a home computer for awhile, so I probably won't have one during the upcoming few weeks. Can you look in on Festivus every day, and starting on the 21st or so, like every hour??? On the 23rd it gets nearly 300,000 hits, and I'll try to cover some of that. I've asked for semi- or perm protection on the page starting in mid-December, and for sure by the 21st, so if you can contact an admin to do so this year if I don't? Thanks veryy much, and I'll send a copy of this note to True Pagan Warrior as well, who has edited the page lately and is fairly high on the contributor's list. Thanks, and nice to meet you. Randy 15:24 7-12-'11
While trying to scroll a history page, I accidentally clicked the "undo vandalism" link beside your last edit on Prison tattooing. I believe I escaped out of it quickly enough to prevent the action, but I wanted to let you know in case you saw anything. Sorry!
BTW, why did you insert that link into Mgeorge27's user page? Is that a special flag? Thanks. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw the note on your User page and just wanted to exhort you to stay around--there are not enough good spam fighters here. I just recently ran into Hu12 and discovered the Spam Project. I think it needs all the help it can get; I hope you don't retire. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I am no sock! ParanakanDoctor ( talk) 06:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Another DPeterson sock. I've filed a report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPeterson. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, sorry to hear about your problems.
I have problems understanding this edit (or to say removal of a paragraph) of yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Seduction_community&diff=next&oldid=456083697 The paragraph states that some teachers split off due to ethical differences. Now this could probably need some "reliable source", but in the end it seems like a truism.
But also the paragraph states that some of these teachers distance themselves from the "technologies" at hand and "proves" this with, well, a link to a statement of one of these teachers. So the "unreliable" source actually acknowledges this claim. I fail to see how there can be a more "reliable" source. But I guess a newspaper article would be accepted, even if it would only reference this webpage as well. This does not make sense in my opinion.
You may point out that these teacher in particular (or say his business) is not noteworthy, but this can be said of all teachers and "players" in this field, so if we remove all information based on such sources, we could probably throw away half of the article. I totally believe that the removal of this paragraph has not improved but worsened the article because it is a important point to show that there is even quite some criticism inside the field at hand. I have seen that you removed quite some more text with the same reasoning and I believe that you have not done good to the article there as well.
I accept that there must be some guidelines to which sources can be used, but especially in topics which are not so much explored by "traditional" media and science like the topic on hand I totally believe that this should be done with a good judgement. Therefore I ask you to reconsider your edits. -- 62.143.127.38 ( talk) 21:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ronz,
I just noticed that you've got a message box at the top of your page. Every so often I get so pissed off about something on wikipedia, or so enraged by absolute stupidity, or so disgusted about some moron sharpening their axe on some page I've worked on, and I think about packing it in. I deal with it by walking away for a bit, reading some of my favourite webcomics ( Dr. McNinja anyone?) or pick up a book on an unrelated subject, and never, ever making promises I won't come back ever. Instead, I just leave it. Check in on some articles I'm really interested in once in a while. And wait for the itch to come back. I never make demands on myself, or insist I edit, or don't edit, by a specific date. And eventually, I come back and it's fun again. Helps me. Keeps me sane. Keeps the satisfaction up in the editing. Keeps the focus on better articles.
I don't know the specifics of your situation, but I really, really hope you come back. Even for a bit, even with reduced editing. You're a rock solid editor, you know how to think, research and write. You're tops in my book and I really want to keep running into you. 'O course, sometimes it ain't worth it. But know that, FWIW I'll always be happy to see your name on my watchlist. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 02:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you left this on a user's talk page, but I don't know what it should do: [8]. It is a broken link, as far as I can see. (Sorry to see that you are being abused, I've stepped away from watching a number of pages because of pig-headed ignoramuses, but there can be compensating pleasant interactions sometimes.) Nadiatalent ( talk) 19:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi.. just noticed that you left a message on my talk. The link led to a spam link that u made of the website i am associated with. Just wanted to inform you that I am new to wikipedia and didn't really understand what you meant. Could you please elaborate. Moreover, if u have marked the website under SPAM, kindly remove it as the editing done yesterdays were unintentional and have already been reverted. Thanks.
Pbanwari (
talk) 09:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
-- Hu12 ( talk) 14:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Good job. I agree with your reversal of their edits. Thank you. Pedro : Chat 21:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not understand what was the link. You just dropped me a link. I did not understand what it meant.. And Thanks if you did not do it. Pbanwari ( talk) 06:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
U have written on my talk page that do not have add poor references to some pages. Do u think that the reference of Hindustan Times and Times of India is poor?-- Jozoisis ( talk) 18:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the Max Gerson page, the previous writer has a clear bias against the subject and has cited research of the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute in an attempt to present the subject in an unflattering light. I have cited The Gerson Therapy book in an attempt to edit and provide a more balanced look, but that's not good enough? Why can someone cite a reference that has a clear historical bias against the subject?
Amusedspaceman ( talk) 21:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Greg
Hi, by all means move review articles that are listed only as "further reading" to the talk pages, but I think that your level 3 warning was a bit harsh. What I've seen of the situation (Pomegranate, Wolfberry, and Cranberry) seems to fall into WP:DNB territory. He does have a point that these are well-researched authoritative reviews and could belong somewhere. Nadiatalent ( talk) 20:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ronz -- you said:
Looks like you're cleaning up some of the same problems that I recently encountered. Best to provide some explanation somewhere. I'd started a discussion here that includes a link to the only other discussion I've found on the matter. If you are aware of other discussions, please let me know. Thanks!
Also, I think it would be best if the material was moved to the talk page of each article. I've held off doing so in order not to split the discussion, but it was probably a bad decision on my part given the extent of the editing of this sort. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing to add to this discussion, and the offending author has slowed her/his pace to external reading sections. Transferring these additions to Talk may be fine, but I am ok with culling.
You asked: Re: Mushroom - Do you consider this a reliable source: [9] I do not consider this a reliable source, despite its apparent attraction for solving an environmental problem. The author does not publish in peer-reviewed scientific literature and retains utopian views, such as believing that "mushrooms can help save the world". [10] -- Zefr ( talk) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for reverting spam and possible copyvios. Pine talk 09:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hello Ronz,
as I can see all of my edits are changed by you. I added some more external links for describing each item in Bosnia and Herzegovina because my country has very little information on English language part of Wikipedia. I don't understand what have I done wrong. I understand that Wikipedia has nofollow links, but my intention wasn't to make my page rank higher. My intention, as I intended with website www.go2bosnia.com, is to give some more information about my country to the foreigners that speak English language. Please, can you bring back the links? Thanks for your time.
Muamergon ( talk) 12:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Muamergon
Thanks for your answer. Website indeed intend to promote Bosnia and Herzegovina in touristic way, but this is only one aspect of this promotion. Website describes and shows real beauty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, oportunities for outdoor sports and other things. Go2Bosnia also shows cultural and historic aspect of Bosnia and Herzegovina that is based upon the facts. You can find there many photo albums and video materials from the different places. You can not find that on Wikipedia - so the best way is to show that by linking. I can guarantee you that Go2Bosnia is not a company or tourist agency. We are a team of people that love their country and intend to give a better view to the foreigners.
So, I am asking you again if you could bring back the links that are deleted.
Thanks in advance :)
Muamergon ( talk) 17:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Muamergon
Thanks.
Wish you all the best :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muamergon ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I tried to contribute and help people see my country with some more light on each topic by giving them a better perspective through videos and photos. Deleting these link doesn't harm me and I have no right to act with anger. Thank you again for being polite and I wish you a nice day :) Muamergon ( talk) 07:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Muamergon
Ronz, I know I'm getting snippy over at the animal-assisted therapy page. Basically I have other fish to fry, (see Talk:Stallion, which is turning into a nightmare thanks to an anon IP with an agenda) and I apologize for being testy. It's nothing at all personal, I really prefer not to see articles that could be very good ones just torn down for their flaws unless someone is willing to fix them. Some of those EL's you've tossed can actually link to good reference content, but tossing them means that it becomes more difficult to find them again later when people have the time to work on the article. It is very helpful to not have to do look things up twice. Looks like overall you are a good editor, and I don't mean to be "bitey," I can just only deal with one article in crisis at a time... Montanabw (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Great work on protecting Festivus. And it's too bad that the edit count history went out from the 23rd to the 25th - the times when the page gets hundreds of thousands of hits. That's going to mess up the edit counts for all the December holiday articles. Randy 20:09 27-12-'11
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)