User talk:Hipal: Difference between revisions

I hadn't been keeping an eye on it, obviously. I don't think the article deserves any long-term protection. WP:RFPP is always an option if it gets worse. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted about the article at the wp:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Egyptian Yoga. Hopefully some folks experienced at dealing with this kind of thing will help out. It seems kind of lame to have to work on a subject and an article that isn't of interest to clean up the mess made by a POV pusher. We'll see what happens. As I was writing this up I took a peak, and someone is on the case already. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that's getting the articles and editing some much-needed attention. Hopefully, we can get him to slow down and participate in meaningful discussions. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A conversation has been started about the use of http links on the WT:WPSPAM page. As a frequent editor of that page, your input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#http use on this page would be appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. :) Could you please mark clearly in your report what content you did add with this edit to your report so that the reviewing admin can see that this information was not available to me when I commented on that report. Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Sorry about that. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for clarifying. — Aitias // discussion 01:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I am puzzled by your response to my last post on the Bates method talk page. Those remarks were intended to be, on balance, conciliatory. Please explain. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm sorry you're so puzzled. I think, "Comment on content, not on contributors" is pretty clear. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz. I'm really starting to feel optimistic about this again. It would be very helpful now if you would do at least one of the two things recently suggested at User_talk:SamuelTheGhost#Talk:Bates_method_4. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to have "cleanuped" and with refs? every particular supported feature? I will try to add, but i don't know what do you want! mabdul 0=* 19:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Comparison of e-mail clients I noticed that there is linkspam in the "Creator" column. Go ahead and remove them if you like, otherwise I'll get around to it myself later. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I will remove the external links (i think that this is the bad you noticed). you also added the clenaup-template in the comparison of layout engines (standard) articles. what is wrong there? mabdul 0=* 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of layout engines (Non-standard HTML)? There are external links within the article body that are probably unformatted references. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I corrected following comparisons now:

• Comparison of browser synchronizers
• Comparison of layout engines (graphics)‎
• Comparison of layout engines (Non-standard HTML)
• Comparison of e-mail clients‎
• Comparison of layout engines (Document Object Model)‎

is this correct as it should be? mabdul 0=* 22:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The non-standard reference format had me concerned, but at a second glance it's probably a good compromise. --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big misunderstanding on both our parts. I was confused by the non-standard references, their poor formatting, and incomplete citation information, while you were confused by what I was referring to when discussing them. I think I've fixed it. --Ronz (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, now I will made this correct in future times. You were confusing me really. I know that some article need to get a whole cleanup (the e-mail will get; the browser sync will hopefully also)mabdul 0=* 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz, just thought I would pop in and say hello and wish you a Happy & Healthy 2009! Our editing hasn't crossed paths lately but I still like to keep in contact ocassionally.  :) I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You too! --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Ronz and thanks for your kind message, I appreciated it.

Please can you explain the criterion for inclusion/exclusion on this specific article, or point me to the specific page amongst the ones you sent I should be looking at?

It seemed to me that the article is about a list of mind mapping software, not just about notable ones?

Thanks

Yours, faweekee

P.S. Happy New Year

Faweekee (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You've found the article talk page already, that's the main page for discussion on this. WP:WTAF is the essay I meant to link to in my edit summary. WP:LIST is the specific guideline for lists. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to chatbots.org that you've removed, I found this site more complete (multilangual, international, sorted, described and commented by developers), therefor I still feel this should be part of the page! Boristoet (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've added it. Let's see what happens. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, Why do you keep deleting the references to hiring of Arun Sarin that naveen hired to replace himself. Arun Sarin as the CEO of Infospace acquired Go2Net that led to the crash of infospace stock price and related lawsuits. All the lawsuit for the period from early 2000 to 2001 which was the time period when Arun Sarin was its CEO. Please email me at wikiexpertedit@gmail.com if you have any suggestion on how to incorporate this information on this page. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page, where I've discussed the matter in detail, hoping you just might notice after your repeated requests to have a discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz,

I corrected your posting of the Five Focusing Steps of TOC. I must be frank, it appears as you just made those up. Those steps are dramatically dissimilar to those defined by TOC-ICO and by Eli in The Goal.

It would be nice if you removed your incorrected steps. These are the basic steps of TOC and should be respected.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arogowannabe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't have any idea what you're referring to. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only just spotted this User talk:Shot info/RfA Review Recommend Phase. Sorry that I haven't seemed to have replied, so I'll just say thanks and sorry for the delay! Shot info (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NP. Happy new year! --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ronz, I'm new here. Would this be a good source: http://mindmappingsoftwareblog.com/software-vs-hand-drawn-maps/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.5.121.161 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Blogs usually aren't reliable sources. Who's Chuck Frey? --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

I received your message today, thanks. As a new contributor, it cleared me up on some things, namely, why my suggested link (to my own page) would be denied.

No problem.

However, I do have a concern. The link to my page that was there on Wikipedia's "Peanut Allergy" article for a couple of weeks seems to have been deleted within the last 48 hours, which is the same time I received a flare from a reviewer who happens to be the author of one of the other links on the same page. Is it possible he is in conflict of interest? Was he involved in the removal of my suggested link?

I have, by the way, written a polite e-mail back to that person, substantiating the claims found on my site (and in the book it refers to) that he has disputed without having checked the footnotes.

Sorry to trouble you with this, but grateful for your help.

Billy Adam
billyadamg@gmail.comWikiabilly (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Interesting situation. Let me take a look at what happened... --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link, along with many others in that article. No one else was involved. It's an article that I watch but haven't looked at closely in a long time. The article tends to attract bad links, but I hadn't looked through them in a long time. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for checking the situation. What you say makes sense.

As a person with peanut allergy and author of one of the few adult trade books about it on the market, is there an ethically appropriate way to contribute to this page? For example, if I added a reference not only to my book but also to the other main books (The Complete Peanut Allergy Handbook and The Peanut Allergy Answer Book)? Or, if a third party added these?

At present, the page's three external links don't seem to represent the major organizations or peer-reviewed authors in the field. If you have a chance to look, I believe to have included a complete, impartial list on my site at www.paplus.net/bibliography.htm and www.paplus.net/links.htm.

I'm grateful for your consideration. All the best,

Billy AdamWikiabilly (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given your expertise on the topic, I think you could be a very valuable editor. Be sure to read through WP:COI carefully. The article is fairly well referenced and written at this point. Someone with your background could probably help identify and resolve anything that is unbalanced or could use expansion. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid foods that often contain peanuts Peanuts are common, and avoiding foods that contain them can be a challenge. The following foods often contain peanuts:

   * Ground or mixed nuts
   * Baked goods, such as cookies and pastries
   * Ice cream and frozen desserts
   * Energy bars
   * Cereals and granola
   * Grain breads
   * Marzipan (a molding confection made of nuts, egg whites and sugar)

Less obvious foods may contain peanut proteins. Some examples include:

   * Nougat
   * Salad dressings
   * Chocolate candies, nut butters (such as almond butter) and sunflower seeds are sometimes processed with equipment also used for peanuts
   * Cultural foods including African, Chinese, Indonesian, Mexican, Thai and Vietnamese dishes often contain peanuts
   * Foods sold in bakeries and ice-cream shops may come in contact with peanuts
   * Arachis oil, another name for peanut oil

Personally, I find nougat to be fairly destructive with regards to peanut allergies. My alter ego, Dr Arrupe Gupta who has spent much time on Wikipedia in the past, is horribly allergic to peanuts, but fortunately I am not. The above information came from the Mayo Clinic (a reliable source RONZ!!) and you can get more information on how to deal with your allergy there. I would also suggest going to your local CVS and picking up a saline solution and dousing your nose in it. Surprisingly, this can be effective in comabting peanut allergies. Go figure! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.244.157 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A properly sourced discussion of the prevalence in food of peanuts and peanut proteins looks like a good area for expansion. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I added a link to a screencast (movie from a computer screen) to the 'External Links' section of the "Performance Analysis" article because that movie provides great information about performance and software profiling/analysis. This is at least as informative as the current link to a Microsoft tool and provides a nice alternative to the commercial content in the Microsoft movie.

Please explain why the link I added was removed in favor of keeping the existing link to a spammy video from Microsoft. [Just followed the Microsoft link] That video doesn't even exist anymore. So regardless of whether we include the Zoom link, the MS link needs to be removed.

Thanks, Fay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.53.253 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favor of something else, just removing your repeated spammed links. See your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

Thanks again for your responses, including the referral to the WP COI page. I've read it and reflect on what we talked about. I would like to use my experience to provide to the public a fairly complete, short, and impartial collection of links on this controversial topic. Can you have a look at the following, and let me know what you think? At the end, in italics, I explain my criteria. Thanks for your time. One question - are you involved in peanut allergy research, or Wikipedia admin?

Billy Adam

• Allergy and Allergies Agency (UK)
• Allergy/Asthma Information Association (Canada)
• Allergy New Zealand
• Allergy UK
• Anaphylaxis Australia
• Anaphylaxis Campaign (UK)
• Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (USA)
• Food Allergy Initiative (USA)
• Internet Symposium on Food Allergens
• Mayo Clinic (USA)
• World Allergy Organization

• The Complete Peanut Allergy Handbook, by Dr. Scott H. Sicherer, with Terry Malloy
• The Peanut Allergy Answer Book, by Dr. Michael C. Young
• The Sprouted Peanut Vaccine and Other Stories, by Billy Adam Gottlieb
• Peanut allergy: where do we stand?, by Dr. John Weisnagel
• Peanut allergy: an overview, by Saleh Al-Muhsen, Ann E. Clarke, and Rhoda S. Kagan

[[Category:Allergology]] [[Category:Food allergies]]

The external links are to national and international organizations providing information to the public, in English, as opposed to research groups. The books are the three extant adult trade titles by scientists. The articles are examples of full scientific texts, as opposed to abstracts, available on the internet. I removed the medicinenet.com article, previously listed on the page, because no author is given and it’s not a particular leader in the field. Wikiabilly (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added them to the talk page. The article really doesn't need more external links, but these look useful as possible references. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was conducting some research on flaming and trolling. No hard feelings hopefully. 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed "research" involved sock puppetry, edit-warring, multiple WP:BLP violations, and harassing the editors that intervened in your improper editing. Sorry if I find your explanation of this being an "experiment" when you're faced with a further block as being just a bit too convenient, and downright unethical. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ronz,

Let me first wish you all the best for 2009 - I started the year by rewriting entirely the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND_Technologies following your labelling as "lacking references, notability & being an advertisement". I hope you will reconsider this statement.

Regards, adoligno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoligno (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

I read your reply. This time I disagree. The three links that are there are not, in my survey, the best of what's available, nor representative of its range. How did they get chosen? Who decides they get to stick?

It seems the balanced thing to do would be either to remove them all, leaving only the references, or expand them into a new set of links, as I have written up for your talk page. What do you think? Thanks for your consideration.

Billy AdamWikiabilly (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written, well referenced articles need few, if any, external links. I don't see strong reasons for any for this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

Ronz is correct here. I recommend that user Wikiabilly discuss his views on these matters on Talk:Peanut allergy. Wikipedia:External links guideline should provide further insight. — Athaenara ✉ 02:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz and Athaenara,

Thanks for your input. I took some time to think about it and review other Wikipedia pages. I still feel the Peanut Allergy page needs to be updated, to better serve the community, and ask your collaboration in finding a way to do this, that respects all concerned.

I can see the merit in keeping the External Links short. In that case, extra care must be taken that they be representative of existing literature, and allow the reader the go further than what the Wikipedia page itself can provide. This is why I suggest referencing the three existing scientific books devoted to peanut allergy. (Originally, I also suggested including a couple of articles, but this was in deference to the status quo, not because they meet the criteria.)

My book is one of the three. I don't feel it should be omitted simply because I am proposing to also be involved in editing the Wikipedia page. I put it last, however, in recognition of this and because the other two are more established. Their authors and I are specialists in the field. We have devoted years of our lives to helping people with this severe health problem. Of course we want our books to be read, and the sites I reference (our respective publishers) do offer them for sale. However, mine is a non-profit initiative, and I'd be surprised if the other two are making much if any money on theirs.

To these I would add the most important public-service allergy organization in each of six English-speaking countries where they exist (US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa), plus the World Allergy Organization which can inform readers about other countries. In this way, any visitor to the Wikipedia page will have someone they can call or write to find resources in their community.

Perhaps the books could go under a subheading General References, after the References, while the organizations would be in the External Links. This follows the form of Wikipedia articles like Cancer.

Please let me know what you think. Also, I do ask again for Ronz to present the experience that you feel places you well to decide what happens with the peanut allergy page. Thanks to both of you for your consideration.Wikiabilly (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should take this to Talk:Peanut allergy. List the specifics as examples too, if you could. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done.Wikiabilly (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

It seems we haven’t gotten any response to the posting of suggested changes, on the Talk:PeanutAllergy page.

I’m writing to ask your formal permission to edit the page, as proposed, trusting that

• I have exercised extreme caution, as demanded by WP COI rules;
• Public input has been solicited, and time given for response;
• There is minimal room for COI, since the book links proposed are comprehensive, not selected (all 3 of 3 books out there), what room there may be should be eliminated by placing mine last;
• The book and group links do something good for the public that the current selection does not: direct them to the only sources more completely informative than the WP Peanut Allergy article, and to their closest local service group;
• I have not found a rationale for how the existing links got chosen, in terms of the research that went into them or the credentials of the author;
• Given my education and experience studying this matter, I am in a position to verify that the proposed information is comprehensive and representative.

Please let me know either way, if you have an objection or approve. Thanks for your consideration.Wikiabilly (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey don't worry about it, I was only playing. Thanks for your help. I always generally add a specific link anyway, in fact when you contacted me originally I was actually in the middle of starting a batch of stubs with the direct maplandia link!! You must have stumbled across the lot I did without a direct link. All the best The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded again on talk page. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded again. In short, I'll try to find some other sources to add to that so its not a one-source article. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, why are you questioning the notability of Wallace? He's a published novelist whose book Big Fish was turned into a film by Tim Burton.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the article watched, so I'm not worried about it being deleted. As I said, I think the article first needs some references to show that WP:BIO has been met. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the article and added a number of other references. I didn't write the original article, but I was familiar with Wallace. But as I did this work, I was surprised that there are no other in-depth interviews with him out there. In my view, that's another plus for Schneider's interview. Anyway, I hope you will consider removing those tags now. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I guess you didn't notice that I removed them while you were working on it. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, missed that. Thanks. BTW, this Schneider thing is a mess. Check out my comments here. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really entirely sure exactly what the complete processes are, or how to initiate a checkuser. StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, checkuser is a pain unless you are an admin with checkuser rights. We can make the request, but in my experience they are slow in responding to checkuser requests and often deny them unless there is a burning need.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And this is going to be one heck of a checkuser request. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And they admins who run checkuser may feel that we've solved the issue with the XLinkBot. But I'll support any checkuser on this if that helps. I also e-mailed you something a moment ago. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know I'm not going crazy on all this. I told Steven if he wanted to remove the links, I won't argue any more--I don't have a lot of time to spend on Wikipedia, and I hate to waste it arguing on stuff like this. But I told him that with the bot in place, from this point on editors were free to add these links without being accused of being SPAs b/c they likely won't be SPAs. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also looked like Steven and I worked things out. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appologize about the COI. I would however like to leave a picture up on the "label dispenser" page. THe only thing i feel i edited that would be a COI is the link to the website, everything else is plain fact. I invented the semi-automatic label dispenser in 1973 with my partner Allen O'Glander under Cmmercial Mailing Accessories INC, my name is Richard Shannon. I really do have good infromation about the equipment if you would let me re-insert the picture, i can show the original machine, and also what it is today. The page was orphaned and that IS a shame, since this machine is connected to every industry that manufacturs. This machine is used all over the world, from mom/pop places to Mattel, Goodyear, Revlon etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemonikc (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I'll discuss on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you restored the warning banner on Bates method, I will reiterate my suggestion that you copy the article to your userspace and bring that version into line with your interpretation of the policies. That should be a fairly straightforward project, since it would in all likelihood consist mostly of deletions, and in your userspace no one else could interfere. If you then link to it from Talk:Bates method, that would make clear why the tags are there. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed your suggestion. If you recall, I've done it once with this article before, and felt it was mostly time wasted. I will not make the same mistake again. Such projects should be done collaboratively, or not at all.

If you've read my comments about what needs to be done, you'll realize that I think all the article sources need to be reviewed in the context to what points of view they present and how those points of view are weighed within those sources. After that, the article should be changed as necessary to properly present these points of view with the proper weight as determined by the review of the sources.

I pointed out close to a year ago that this work was necessary to resolve the pov problems that have been problematic with the article since it was first created. I also pointed out that the longer this work was put off, the harder it would be to resolve.

Thanks for the very civil comment though. My only suggestion is not to assume what another editor's solution might be. Even if I hadn't already outlined what the solution was, it's not very helpful. Instead, you might state the same thing in the form of a question, or qualify it. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this, in my opinion it did help a lot; much of the article was then trimmed and condensed, and many references to secondary sources were added to sections you flagged as lacking such. However, that was merely an outline, which is not what I am suggesting now. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to what you think needs to be done, recall that I listed the major secondary sources in October. Not sure how to go about it beyond that. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Bates method I've begun the discussion which you've suggested above, as I understand you. My attitude had been that if you felt it should be done, you should be the one to get it started, but your comment here made me realize that you believe (though mistakenly in my opinion) that your previous efforts regarding the article have been wasted. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comment again, you'll see that I wrote, "it was mostly time wasted." --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is this what you wanted done? Where do we go from here? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely impressed with the work you've done there. I'm trying to set aside some time to assist, but I want to first get this mess organized to the point where a complete sockpuppet report and checkuser request can be written.

In the meantime, the one easy thing I wanted to start is identifying the expertise/reliability of the authors in question, which is especially imporant for WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying their expertise is I think easier than estimating their reliability, since the latter can be rather subjective. But I agree it's the right question to be asking. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "expertise/reliability" to cover any cases (perhaps the Time article) where we might have trouble identifying the author's own expertise, so instead would rely upon the reliability of the publication and its editing process. I don't know what the case is, but it's very different if the Time article was written by a science editor than say a war correspondent. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy I am telling you of this:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ronz --Timeshifter (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that! --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome appears to be that my actions were inappropriate and that Timeshifter was using the AfD page inappropriately for personal attacks. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi ronz, i left you a message on my talk page -- Kku (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2009

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

Could you explain why you think quote databases are not a significant cultural feature of online chat? It's well known that much of online culture is in-jokes and memes. These come from: 1. High visibility BBSes, newsgroups, and more recently imageboards; 2. Link sharing/social bookmarking; 3. Quotes databases.

Could you suggest a better place to put these items, which I feel are not large enough topics for their own article, but are certainly not trivia (i.e. lists of miscellanous facts)? I would have put the section on IRC subculture, but the quotes are not limited to IRC. Perhaps the problem is that a lot of IRC subculture should be in Online chat subculture, on which there is plenty of verifiable research.

You'll see I created a discussion about this at [2] when I first added the section. Please reply there with any views, otherwise I hope you don't mind if I revert your edit.

For a sense of notability, see [3] [4] [5]

--MarkSteward (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Sorry that I didn't notice your discussion about it. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

Can you let me know which link I provided you consider SPAM? Thanks,Htomfields (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new to making edits. I see your point. Thanks for the advise.Htomfields (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am not a member of the International Myopia Prevention Association and I appologize if some of my links apears to be writen by the same person. After suggestions made by relative and friends of mine on the theorie of Donald Rehm, I did countless hour of research on the internet. I have also discussed this dispute with both an Optomerist and an opthamologist. They both agreed Donald's Theory is a valid theory and the past and on going study done on reading glasses's effect on myopia progression is good science and good preventative medical research. This article merely serves to paint a clear picture of the both sides on this dispute so people can learn from wikipedia what the dispute is all about. However, I admit the possiblity that the experts I have talked to may be exceptional in their views. please help me improve this article so you are satisfied with it's quality by pointing out what aspects of my article is "biased" and what sources I have are problematic. I am willing to make all necessary corrections so readers know the sources are reliable. An issue with such polarized sides must be looked at with an experienced eye. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junsun (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left you some more information on your talk page to give you some background with the issues in creating such an article in your situation.

I'll respond further once I'm done with the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ronz The article have under went a lot of change in a few short hours since I last made any changes. I have really tried to make the article match the stardards of wikipedia you have helped enforce. But I feel this topic needs to be covered even if it may not be "100% verifiable" since even the American Optometric Association agrees with Donald Rehm on the likely link between close work and myopia progression. I think the American Optometric Association (AOA) that upholds the profession of eyecare is about as expert as any source on eye health topic out there. I really think you should allow the existence of an artivle on a theory that has withstood 30 years of skepticism and is partly uphelp by the AOA. The Dr. Francis Young research has being published in New York Times, which is a credible source. Perhaps you will be a little more tolerant on the idea of creating an article and let other editors contribute beside me edit in instead of deleting it which just takes away the opportunity we have to give IMPA a hard neutral look. The site counter has registered over 300 thousand visitors to International Myopia Prevention Association's website, and for those visitors, I feel wikipedia must have an approapriate unbiased article so they can see what Doanld Rehm is saying is plain light. I am willing to adopt a hands off position at this time and allow others to restructure and "unbias" this article if only they can have the time. Junsun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junsun (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think you've understood much of the multiple problems identified in your contributions to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. If information is not verifiable, it can be removed. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out why your deleted all of the conversations around the Schneider spam issue here. I see that you were archiving items on the page, which makes sense, but you should either archive the Schneider discussion all together or leave it as is on the page. To remove all the discussion from the page while leaving the links to articles makes it look like this is a spam issue that hasn't been resolved. However, I though we had found a way to keep people from spamming these links and were simply waiting for a check user before deeming any particular edits as spam. I also think your edit to the discussion implies that sites like The Moderate Voice are engaging in spam, which is incorrect. I have edited the item to address these concerns, but if you'd prefer to simply reinsert the previous discussion that would work for me.

As I mentioned in the original discussion, if it makes people happy let us go ahead and remove all the "spam" edits everyone was complaining about. But with the XLinkBot now in place, doing that also means if a new editor reinserts these links or other references to Schneider's articles, then the assumption has to be these are good faith edits and not spam. Would you agree with this approach? Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot archived it. I restored it temporarily in order to copy the information I was working on still.

I don't think it has been resolved. A checkuser is definitely needed, and I wanted to put together a list of users to include. At this point, the problem looks so vast that I'm going to settle with working with what I've found so far.

I'm not waiting for a checkuser when the spamming is blatant. Someone is obviously just going through the articles that were part of this dispute in the past and restoring the disputed information, using the same means as before to do this: through the creation of new accounts. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, as I've said, Schneider has a lot of readers. It's hard to tell which were good faith edits and which were spam attempts. I should also note that during this discussion I reinserted many of those links because I felt the evidence was not there that they were all spam. To simply remove a link to one of Schneider's articles by calling it spam is not right b/c it may have been a good faith effort. It seems to me that too many editors seem to want to do a Scheider witchhunt by calling any link or reference to his reviews spam. But I have inserted a number of these reviews and references, and I am most certainly not spamming Wikipedia. best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm removing the links that I think are blatant attempts to spam the information. If you want to discuss individual cases, I'd be happy to join the discussion and avoid further action on similar cases while the discussion is underway. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, go ahead and remove all the links. I personally don't care about any particular link to Schneider's reviews. The reason I originally became involved in this issue is because a few editors started removing links and references to Schneider that I had placed in articles, calling these spam. I was irritated that people did this without assuming good faith or seeing who had actually made said edits. As long as people don't try to state that any reference or link to Schneider is spam--which would be wrong and faulty reasoning--I'm not going to trouble myself with this anymore. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see we left messages at the same time. I'm also tired of the whole issue, which is why I said to go ahead and remove the links. I have no objection unless there is an attempt to label anything Schneider as spam.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm just going to try to wrap up with the articles I've listed so far. There are many more, but I've at least have a good sampling for the checkuser. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me that Schneider or someone else spammed his links across Wikipedia, although I also see some legit edits that are being removed b/c they are being called spam. So where do we go from here? There are editors like myself who find value in some of Schneider's reviews, essays, and interviews. Does this mean we can't use links or references to that stuff? I thought the XLinkBot had fixed this issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be careful with what I'm removing. At this point, I'm trying to write up summaries of the editors I've found for the sockpuppet report and checkuser.

When is Schneider's opinion worth noting? I'm not sure. Adding back a spammed link without discussion, even when you're not a sockpuppet of a previously blocked editor, isn't a good way to convince anyone that the information is useful. I think it's worth discussing his merit as a film critic and as a literary critic. I'd think a strong argument could be made for linking his film reviews for movies that have no more notable reviewers. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea where such discussions should occur? --Ronz (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think he has a lot of merit as a critic. In addition, you are correct that if a more notable critic can't be found for a particular movie article, a link to Schneider's reviews are very valid. But at this point, it's hard to decide what's worth keeping b/c of that whole "fruit of the poisoned tree" argument. I mean, there has been so much spam around this issue that when I try to say that Schneider has merit, people don't listen. Anyway, I've been removing a number of the spam links to clear the deck of all this, so to speak. Maybe when this cools off I'll go through some of these articles and see what links and info truly add value.

BTW, were you referring to me adding back in spam links without discussion?--SouthernNights (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for a discussion on Schneider's worth as a critic, that is not something that should take place on Wikipedia. If he fits our guidelines for notability--which I say he does--then he's good. If for some reason he's not notable, then we wouldn't use him. But a debate on his "worth as a critic" seems like dangerous ground for Wikipedia.--SouthernNights (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Sorry. No, I wasn't referring to you. I hadn't even noticed that you were revisiting this. --Ronz (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ronz,

Thank you for looking over my additions to the Life Extension Foundation entry on Wikipedia. I see that you deleted an external link as "promotional", however LEF.ORG is where you can find out more information about memberships, read the Life Extension magazine, find the Foundation's scientific achievements, among other resources.

I feel that the external link I added to LEF.ORG is not of promotional nature. It complements the entry on Wikipedia about the Foundation and directs users to the Foundation's face - the Buyers Club.

Please let me know if you agree with keeping the link to LEF.ORG and I can edit it back.

Best,

TD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiagodoherty (talk • contribs) 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I noticed it on one of my watched pages (Hibiscus tea), and luckily for Wikipedia, I was in the correct mood for a long, semi-brainless series of edits. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My site is all about struts tutorials, so I thought a link in this page will be appropriate. Sure i will go through the guidelines before adding any links.

Thanks

regards, Eswar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreekEswar (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I'll reply on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz. I saw your post over at WT:SPI#Huge, repeat sockpuppet situation. If that were submitted as a checkuser case it would be huge. The problem for checkusers might be knowing which editors could be considered abusive. Could the XLinkBot do something useful? (I haven't read through all the reports on the Schneider situation). EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, we've got four of the domains listed with XLinkBot. I'm currently going through the others to see what could be done.

Having gone through the history of the problem, it's clear that editors have learned how to avoid being identified as spammers. The majority of accounts make less than a dozen edits total, usually on a single day or to a single article. Basically, these people are just discarding accounts regularly to avoid detection.

Another solution is just to identify the accounts used for edits that we're unsure about, and run checkusers on them. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples of some accounts that you think have worked deceptively? I'm trying to separate the sheep from the goats, so to speak. (There must be *some* good-faith editors who just think that a Dan Schneider review illustrates the topic). EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples:

Luigibob (talk · contribs) is an editor that I kept on the list as a good faith editor for comparison purposes.

Mctoomer (talk · contribs) and Mitziohara (talk · contribs) are blatant spammers.

Aerogelo (talk · contribs) is obviously an experienced editor.

Erinsisle (talk · contribs) made two of his three reverts of links with no edit summaries, when every other edit has an edit summary.

The problems look even more suspicious when you look at article histories. 8½ is a fairly typical example. A Schneider link is first added by a spammer, 4.230.147.95 (talk · contribs) in this case, then was removed during the Aug/Sep'08 cleanup [6]. Along comes another spammer, 68.93.132.113 (talk · contribs), adding the same essay hosted on a different domain. It gets immediately removed as being spammy, but gets restored by yet another SPA, Babuul00 (talk · contribs), who's editing patterns are nearly identical to previously blocked editors. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I think multiple approaches would help:

1. Increasing the number of domains that XLinkBot is using.
2. Getting some of the accounts blocked for their own spamming alone.
3. Requesting comments from the editors that added the links in good faith.

--Ronz (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about blacklisting some more links. It seems that cosmoetica.com is already blacklisted. What about noripcord.com? I see that we have an article on No Ripcord, but it is weakly sourced and might be a candidate for deletion. Some of the IPs above are from Austin, Texas. Is there a list of the domains you have submitted to XLinkBot? EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XLinkBot currently has altfg.com, blogcritics.org, cosmoetica.com, and noripcord.com. Looks like cosmoetica wasn't necessary. I've only started looking at them, but there are probably a half dozen more that should be considered for listing from all the domains found so far. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of dubious accounts is vast, yet the number of domains is small. It could make more sense to start scrutinizing the domains, and see which ones we can do without. I see that you listed 21 domains at WT:WPSPAM#Domains. It would make sense to start going through those. Do you already have a half-dozen to recommend? EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half-dozen is a guesstimate. A few of the domains are barely linked at all. Some are to fairly questionable sites. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, i will not remove my comment, and i was merely saying that i look forward to your contructive edits. in turn, i don't see how merely replying that you are going to readd the tags - without addressing any of the concerns raised in my original post - is anything more than unilateral belligerence. To see who's right, why not see if anyone else readds the tag thinking there is a neutrality or undue weight issue? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I'll remove it then. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss my editing, or give me suggestions on how to do it better, please do so here. However, if you're going to justify your actions by assuming mine are cases of "unilateral belligerence", then I suggest you take a break or work on something completely unrelated. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the boilerplate message about WP:NPA - i was actually aware of this guideline, but did not mean my comment as a personal attack on you, it was a criticism of your edits. at any rate, i thought we had already talked about my comment, my readding the comment was from from personal belief that talk page comments should not deleted in any case other than those at WP:OUTING - which i referenced in the edit history. obviously, you took unintended offense to my comment, so i struck it out as an act of retraction. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The portion not struck out was still inappropriate. I feel that personal attacks should be removed, especially when the page in question has a history of such problems. By your own admission, you've assumed bad faith and attacked another editor. Continue this way, and you'll get yourself blocked. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea re. deleting book reviews. As a published James Joyce scholar, I'm excited about cleaning up and developing the James Joyce entry on wikipedia. HiromiHyoshida (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Nice to have someone of your expertise contributing.

The high-quality ones should be considered for the articles on the books themselves. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you narrow it down to particular users, make a request vie the normal method (not the "quick check") under whoever you suspect the puppet master to be. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz. The following is only intended as friendly advice, so please don't take it as anything else. Your interactions with other users might go a whole lot better a lot more often if you don't mention WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, etc. so often. Perhaps you should try not mentioning them at all for a while, at least in situations where you are already involved. If I had saved the first reply I typed to your recent AGF message on my talk page, things likely would have gotten very ugly. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Obviously, some editors would rather just pretend that any behavior is appropriate here. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email on a private matter. As for the CJ article, feel free to remove the info if you feel it doesn't add to the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Looks like I must have been viewing an earlier revision and completely messed it up. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. That makes sense. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

I previously created a wiki page covering information on a computer program called iMindMap. It was removed from wikipedia due to Wiki's advertisement laws. As I am not intentionally attempting to advertise and do not want this to happen again any information that you can provide preventing my text or imagery from doing so will be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Rhodri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodri Harries (talk • contribs) 09:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhodri. Thanks for the note. I'm happy to help. If you can find a few independent, reliable sources first, it will be easy to create an article that won't be deleted again. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wondering what the basis is for the removal of "self published" references on Steven M. Greer, here and here. My reading of Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Using_self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves, suggests that such references are acceptable: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. They're not being used to advance extraordinary claims, merely that Greer is the founder of these organizations. Could you enlighten me? I'm not entirely familiar with BLP, refs and so on. Phil153 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are SELFPUB #1, #2, #6; WP:SOAP; and WP:UNDUE. Find some reliable, independent sources instead and it would resolve all these problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz-

You removed the section I made on the CAPTCHA page, citing WP:TRIV. I believe it falls under WP:IPC, though certainly the distinction between the two is often the subject of debate. Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Xkcd&limit=100&namespace=0&hideredirs=1 and explain how my edit is substantively different than the majority of those listed there. Please note that the list includes technical as well as less serious articles.

Thanks Ellensn (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without a secondary source, I think it should be kept out. The article has a lot of problems with editors adding information sourced only by primary sources, usually for what appears to be promotional purposes. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that it is substantively different from many of the other articles in this list to which I provided a link. Would you prefer that I place a reference to this in the body of the article under the section 'Characteristics'?

"Although a checkbox "check here if you are not a bot" might serve to distinguish between humans and computers, it is not a CAPTCHA because it relies on the fact that an attacker has not spent effort to break that specific form." ...to which I could add... "The popular webcomic xkcd included a spoof along these lines that instructs 'bots' to honestly state if they have emotion."

Ellensn (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll look at the article talk page, you'll see that a solution has already been offered for these cases: find a independent, reliable source for the information. Otherwise, we're violating WP:V, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SOAP. If you disagree, I think it would be best to get a third party involved. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion - I agree that this information appears to be trivia not directly related to the article, and, as such, is not required. It does not appear to illuminate the concept any further than the article already does. If it could be incorporated into the main text of the article, with a citation in a secondary source as to its importance, that would be perfectly acceptable, although it seems unlikely in this instance. On the other hand, I also agree with Ellensn that this does not appear substantially different from many of the other references to xkcd in the list he provides. In my opinion, however, many of these other references should probably also be deleted as tangential, or forming parts of indiscriminate lists. Anaxial (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That was pretty quick and painless. Ellensn (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I had never looked at the WP:IPC talk page. Apparently xkcd is an exceptional case. I didn't realise into what I was getting myself! Cheers. Ellensn (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I think you've found the motto of all Wikipedia editors, "I didn't realise into what I was getting myself!" --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While an obvious COI exists here, I think the relevant parts of this reverted edit [7] should be placed back into the article. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Good call. I'd prefer it be sourced and trimmed. Ignoring the spamming and coi, there are still WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTHOWTO issues. I'll give it a shot. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

Would you be able advise me on how to tag an article? e.g If a user would search for my article (Buzan's iMindMap)by typying an alternative name such as iMindMap, it would recognise the relation between the two and provide a link to the page.

Any help would be much appreciated,

Many thanks,

Rhodri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodri Harries (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhodri! Mostly, you'll just want to create new articles that WP:REDIRECT to the current article. In complicated cases, you may need to disambiguate between multiple current articles. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for your reply on the Talk:Peanut Allergy page. I've responded there as far as the article's content goes, so people can read.

In terms of procedure, and our collaboration, I still have concerns, which this page seems like a better place to work out.

• You explained WP's CoI guidelines to me. I integrated this into my re-submission, but have not heard if this is to your satisfaction - that I have exercised extreme caution, as demanded by WP CoI rules; that public input has been solicited, with time given for response; and that the proposed book links are comprehensive, not selective (they list all 3 of the 3 scientific adult trade books in print), so there should be no room for CoI;

• I have submitted that the article needs to be edited, because the current links do not responsibly serve the public - they seem randomly chosen, and include fairly one-sided sources; I have asked and not received an explanation of how they got added and kept, in terms of the research that went into them, the credentials of the author, and your experience on the subject of peanut allergy (as opposed to your clear experience with WP procedure);

• I believe the proposed book and group links fix this - direct readers to the only sources more completely informative than the WP Peanut Allergy article, and to their closest local service group - and that, given my training and extensive study of this matter, I am in a position to verify that the proposed information is comprehensive and representative. It would be good to be able to address any concerns you may have, to verify this.

Thank you again Ronz. Cheers,

Billy AdamWikiabilly (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ronz, I recently added a link to the Wikipedia entry for Imposition that points to my online Imposition service. You removed the link, I restored it, then you removed it again.

Can you please provide justification for this move? My website is free to all users, and provides a real-world demonstration of how a printer's imposition works, as well as allowing users to try it for themselves.

My website does not ask for any money, nor does it have any advertising.

A user that may have been told that their file needs imposition before printing may look to Wikipedia for information, but aren't they better served by being referred to a free online resource that enables them to actually do the imposition as well?

I can't speak for the other links on this page, but I am at a loss as to why you would remove the link to my site.

Can you please explain, or remove your objections to this link.

Regards, brrayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brrayne (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me directly. You may have missed it, but I already pointed out WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. Basically, Wikipedia is not a forum to promote such services. See also WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I did not miss it. I do not believe my site link contravenes any of these rules, hence my note to you. My site is not spam, is free to use and is of great relevance to the topic in question. If mine was a site that explained the process of imposition, you would not have an objection. Is your objection that my site demonstrates this process rather than explaining it? I just did a search for Unix time and have found a link to a "Unix Time Generator". This is a website that calculates the current Unix time. By your guidelines, this site should be removed too, correct? Wikipedia is littered with external links to sites that demonstrate the topic in question. Why has mine been singled-out?

Brrayne (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz, I just wanted to let you know that I removed the reference list in the middle of the talk page for Stick candy. If you add any references below a reference list (as I have), they do not show up, even if you add a second reflist at the bottom. I am going to remove it again with an explanation on the talk page (I briefly did so in my edit summary, I must have been unclear).--kelapstick (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's probably the best solution given that some editors might not know that it would need to be moved if they add any references below it. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]