User talk:Hipal/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hipal. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Ronz - per your note on removing the Top 100 in KM - why hasn't this been removed? If others have been deleted then shouldn't this go - since it's mentioned in the reference article from KM Magazine? Topiarydan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topiarydan (talk • contribs) 21:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits on Knowledge Management Software Ronz: I appreciate the edits you made on above (considering that I brought this up to you in late May 2007 on your discussion page). However, you're conclusion on "using external links" to promote page is not necessarily the case. A) I had an external link on this one since the topic is about knowledge management software, so B) naturally one would want to learn more about them and C) our page has copyright information on it that is why we abide by the following stipulations: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons" Furthermore, a contention could be made about the reference to NetSuite in the paragraph you did not take out. So please before you go and play edit master, you could shoot one an email or note that says something like "What is your reasoning here or here is a suggestion?" So again, I appreciate your comments/your edits, but out of fairness, you could ping those you have issue with first. User:Topiarydan

I think this is best addressed at WP:COIN. I'll write a report when I have the time. --Ronz 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, I fail to see what is promotional or coi about adding a link to the article that I myself wrote from the Wastewater page. Biofilters ARE a type of OSSF and their use IS widespread. I see no harm in educating people on this fact or linking straight to Biofilters from Wastewater, instead of going through the 'middleman' OSSF page. If more people were aware of the problems associated with traditional septic systems we would not be in the position today of having to spend millions of dollars to clean up our past mistakes [[1]]. The only promotional thing about this article that I see is the very next sentence which claims 'The most important aerobic treatment system is the activated sludge process' with no backing information for this claim.

You also deleted four links I added to three different articles. I hardly believe adding links to information provided by the US EPA or the Buzzard's Bay National Estuary Program can be considered as spam. These links provide lots of good information on the types of systems available today and are not provided due to coi. This link [[2]] provides testing data showing that trickling biofilters are indeed superior to traditional septic systems, and fully outlines at least 25 different available systems. This link [[3]] proves the nitrogen reducing capabilities of trickling biofilters in testing conducted by the US EPA. I have no idea what is wrong with this [[4]] link, it is an overview of onsite septic systems written by the US EPA and has all kinds of useful information for interested parties. And finally this [[5]] link is from a book solely dedicated to educating people on their septic systems, and provides valuable information on the different kinds of systems and their components with no less than 17 different systems mentioned.

Wikipedia's content is already suspect enough quite honestly, by providing these links users have a chance to verify some of the statements made in the various articles (biofilters improve treatment, biofilters remove nitrogen, etc.) for themselves. If it is Wikipedia's standard to claim things in articles with no actual proof or references or third-party information to refer to, then yes these links are innapropriate. Since this is not (or shouldnt be) the case please revert the affected articles to their previous versions.

Sewer Me 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm very concerned that your edits appear promotional in nature, and that you've spammed the same links to multiple articles, including articles where their relevance is sketchy. Given the commercial nature of the shelterpub link, I felt it best to remove them all until this was worked out.

I don't the the shelterpub is appropriate in any of these articles. The buzzardsbay one has a very strong pov, and I don't see it being necessary on all the articles. The epa link is to a page of links to reports for verious vendors, without any description of what the reports are. I think it best to get a third opinion on this. Wikipedia_talk:External_links would be an easy and quick way to do so, but WP:DR offers other alternatives. --Ronz 20:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've requested other opinions at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Could_anyone_look_at_biofilter_links.3F --Ronz 23:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The shelterpub link not only provides information on biofilters, but also on effluent filters and various disposal methods. Biofilters themselves are not a complete system, they require these other components for the whole system to function properly. If you prefer I can put these links in as references with proper introductions and descriptions rather than as links at the bottom of the page.

Sewer Me 12:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not addressing any of my concerns at all. I'll wait for others' opinions. --Ronz 15:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There's been no response on Talk:EL, so I've requested help at WP:3O. The only info I added to Talk:EL were the articles and diffs:

• Biological trickling filters (Biofilters) 19:55, 23 August 2007
• Sewage treatment 20:20, 23 August 2007
• Onsite sewage facility 13:00, 24 August 2007
• Septic tank 14:08, 24 August 2007. --Ronz 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In the diffs above, there's a set of three links that were added to multiple articles. None of these are suitable as external links. As someone who has no practical knowledge in sewage treatment, I have no idea what information I was supposed to be receiving from those pages. Of the two remaining links added only to the "biofilters" article, only the ca.gov link seems to be directly relevant to the article's subject; and I'd suggest that one can stay. There's generally no SPAM or COI considerations when linking to a government publication.

If you, Sewer Me (t c), have specific information you'd like to reference from those links, then by all means find the applicable page on the site, and link to it as a reference. However, please be aware that your references need to stand up to the reliable sources policy, and I didn't take the time to examine these links in that light, since that wasn't what the dispute was about.

Also, Sewer Me (t c), please don't be surprised or offended that your contributions are being subjected to rigorous examination. You're a newer editor who's only edited in one subject area, and your username is directly related to that subject area. It's therefore obvious that you have some personal interest in this subject, be it academic, commercial, or otherwise. This is where the conflict of interest policy comes into play. There's nothing that says you can't edit sewage treatment articles, but as you seem to have a personal interest, your contributions are going to be subjected to much closer scrutiny than the average editor. Additionally, please be careful when adding external links. It's typically HIGHLY unlikely that the same set of three links is applicable to two articles, much less three or four. Adding these links to multiple articles throws red flags for those who watch for self-promotion or "spamming" behavior. Please take care to select only the highest-quality and most relevant links for each article. If the link is of a highly technical nature or the relevant information isn't immediately apparent, then use the link as a reference instead.

If you have any further comments on the issue, reply here, I'll be watching this discussion for a few days. --Darkwind (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I like your solution of moving them to the talk page pending positive "yes" votes. I don't know anything about the subject (stumbled on it somehow), so didn't want to step all over it. - Special-T 00:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I had made a note to work on the article a long time ago, but never got around to it. --Ronz 00:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A link to our site about south shields has recently been removed we are related to south shields and we have checked the policy and cant find any reason as to why this link was removed? Eddiec 14:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You may have overlooked it, but I placed the information you're asking for on your talk page on Aug 29: WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. --Ronz 16:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

we have been through those and we do not seem to do anything that would consider our site as spam, we are well known to the south shields community and cant see any reason as to why we would be removed for this link? we provide information to the south shields community and ex-pats worldwide for over 7 years. all of which is relevant! please advise? thanks! Eddiec

I'll put together more information when I have a chance, but basically there were a number of editors contributing the very same links that you did with little or nothing more over multiple articles. Please note I'm concerned with the three different links you've added, not just south shields. --Ronz 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.cellpacksolutions.com_http:.2F.2Fspam.myhometown-schools.co.uk_http:.2F.2Fspam.southshields-sanddancers.co.uk --Ronz 22:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

okay thankyou for your help we feel the links where/and are relevant any help would be appreciated, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiec (talk • contribs) 07:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi do you have updates as of yet, thanks! Eddiec 08:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Updates to what? --Ronz 14:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The links in the article were very useful. Is there any problem with moving them to external links part? Dima373 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please join the existing discussion on the article talk page. Thanks! --Ronz 21:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok Dima373 22:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you and Avb are talking on I'clast's page. Sorry, but I don't want to respond on his talk page. As being someone who he outed I will support you anyway I can. If you happened to have the link that Avb deleted or know where I can locate it I would really appreciate the help, please do it via email. I hope you are well. Off to relax and watch a movie! --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ronz: Let me preface this by stating this is a vanilla post (nothing sarcastic at all). Since you have edited this topic a couple of times over course of year, my question is why would the companies still be listed in the Top 100 of KM still be listed when the reference article mentions them way towards bottom if the viewer selects? Also if you read in the topic there is a ton of info about NetSuite - what makes them so special? So I am just stating that since you edit many topics and "promotional use" seems to be a hot button with you, wouldn't these two pretty blatant miscues by whoever created the article warrant removal? I would edit it but since you seem to be the one who has had issue with this and other posts by others (wastewater, etc) I wanted to get your take on it first? Respectfully, Topiarydan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topiarydan (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. The article still needs lots of cleanup. I'll try to get around to working some more on it. --Ronz 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I'm very sorry to bother you, but there's still disruption going on over at Cydonia Mensae. I've stopped undoing the edits by the anon there as I think I'm close to my 3RR limit. I've posted a note on the offending anon's talkpage, but don't really anticipate sensible discourse from them. Anyway, I thought I'd ask for advice/assistance as, judging from your userpage, you've got form on dealing with disruptive editors. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to help. --Ronz 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a 3RR report for the repeat edit-warrior and requested page semi-protection because another ip is involved that has no other edits. --Ronz 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just stopping in to say hello and let you know I am still on planet earth! ;) Seriously, real life has kept me busy. Our move didn't happen so we are again looking for a place. I hope you are well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay. Thanks for the check-in. Sorry that your move fell through. On the positive note, it's nice having only one disruptive editor active recently. --Ronz 17:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ronz,

You have removed a link regardind the back pain caused by work involving varied task. It wasn't a commercial link, IRSST is a scietifical organisation, could you explain your decision?

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maura T (talk • contribs) 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The removal was based upon your editing behavior, not the content of the pages you linked to. Your entire editing history, up until you made the comment above to me, consisted of eight edits total, six of which were adding nothing but links. Your other two edits were removed by another editor and consisted of adding a small amount of information with the same link.

See WP:LINKSPAM, "repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." --Ronz 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, my contributions were links to some scientifical research...but if you care to verify it is nothing near spam or commercial. Please let me know which should be my next step, since I think that info belongs there.

Regards, Maura T 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Maura Maura T 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please reread my comments above. They were removed because of your editing behavior. Please read the policies and guidelines that are included in the warnings on your, especially Wp:spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. --Ronz 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw you comments, but there is a section named "External links" and in that particular section one could find just links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maura T (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And I've pointed out to you the specific guidelines on why your links have been removed and what you should do instead. I also pointed out to you WP:COI, which gives additional guidelines which may apply to your situation. --Ronz 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your recent comment at the WP:COIN related to Richard Brodhead and Herman Melville, and I was impressed with how you handled a very complicated situation. Having reviewed your history here at Wikipedia, which stretches back more than a year, I think you could serve the project as an administrator. I would be willing to nominate you for the necessary process at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

One thing I need you to explain before I would support wholeheartedly is what your role was in the mediation and arbitration discussion relating to Barrett v. Rosenthal. It happened about half a year ago, and most everyone's forgotten about it, but such "dead history" tends to come up at RFA discussions. If you could just explain briefly (2 to 3 sentences) what the dispute was all about, and what was your position, that would help. If you try RFA, you'll have to explain it anyway in answering question number 3 about conflicts.

Other than that, you have a lot of experience and treat other editors with civility and respect. I think you would make a fine admin, and the project needs people to clean up the administrative backlogs. Please reply on my talk page.

By the way, I think you should change your talk page header to explain that a comment might be deleted only if it harasses you. Failure to sign comments is generally an honest mistake, not a reason to remove the comment itself. Shalom ^Hello 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would totally agree to your being an administrator. I know what went on with BvR and it shouldn't be involved in your being an administrator. I know how you helped me when I was learning and I think you would be a wonderful administrator! --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your actions in addressing the WP:COIN for Richard Brodhead. I appreciate it! -Bluedog423^Talk 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hopefully this can be wrapped up quickly. --Ronz 00:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

mars pyramids are ancient??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.254.157 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. They're claimed to be. --Ronz 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Given I posted a link to WP:COI in the summaries of my edits and am contributing to a discussion on WP:COIN, I think it's safe to assume I'm well aware of the policy, thanks. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I placed it there to make it clearer to other editors that you've been informed on this topic. --Ronz 20:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, though you're currently coming across as rather patronising to an editor who has been using the site for over 3½ years and who has actually posted links to the relevant policies in the edit summaries. For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's inadvertent.

The article's previous version is entirely non-neutral, singling out one company for criticisms that have been levelled at the entire industry, in an edit that was made by a competitor of the company in question.

I have gone to great lengths — as an established editor here with a reputation for fairness, compromise and a willingness to abide by consensus that I would strongly like to maintain — to explain to the marketing department at work that Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a press release and that any work done by the company on articles directly affecting the company need not only to be transparent, accurate, verifiable and neutral, but need to be seen as being so as well. Why else, apart from anything else, would I get them to go to the trouble to create a new account that is explicitly related to the company?

Now they've finally understood that and prepared some more neutral wording for the parts of the articles that they found contentious, I'm sure you can understand why I might find it highly frustrating that editors with zero knowledge of the industry in question would immediately assume that the edits would be non-neutral where we're actually making the articles more accurate and more neutral.

I have managed to get across to the guys at work that they cannot expect an encyclopædia article to be entirely favourable. They get that. They also get that they have zero control over the content of articles relating to the company.

I do, however, resent that two editors now seem to have no interest in actually engaging with me or with the company on the subject of these edits — be it by trying to find a version of the articles that a consensus can find satisfactory or by engaging in the discussion at WP:COIN or by doing anything other than reverting the article to a version that is less accurate and less neutral and subst'ing template messages onto my talk page.

By all means, please engage with me in a discussion on this issue. However, simply reverting the article and making no effort to determine whether or not the edits are being made in good faith and abide by WP:NPOV is, frankly, offensive.

I — and the guys at work — do understand that our copywriters' work will be changed by other editors. I've even managed to persuade PR people at work that they have no choice in this matter and will just have to live with it. Reverting the edit is substantially less constructive — and, as it happens, less accurate and less close to NPOV — than editing the text (new version or old) or even just making suggestions on how it should be edited.

I'm sorry to come across as quite so rant-ey, but I'm sure you can understand my frustration when all we are trying to do is make the articles more accurate.

For the record, the account User:uSwitch is not a sockpuppet of me. As should surely be obvious from having made edits to the articles myself, if I wanted to edit the articles myself, I would do so, under my username. As I posted to WP:COIN, User:uSwitch is one of our copywriters, working with some technical assistance from myself (as I have experience using the site and they don't). Also, for the record, I am a developer for uSwitch, not a PR person. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As it's now 2200 local time on a Friday night, I'd rather like to leave this whole topic until Monday morning and enjoy the reasons I tend to use Wikipedia in my leisure time. I will make, here, now, a formal undertaking not to make any further edits to either of the two articles under discussion until I'm back at work and would appreciate no hasty blocks being put in place over the weekend, please. Thanks. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenBlacker (talk • contribs)

Sorry that you dont like templates. Please AGF.

I can understand your frustration. However, you're not helping your situation by editing against coi. Contribute to the talk pages of the articles, at length, and describe what you think needs changing and why. Don't let these other editors' behavior cause you to lose your cool and do something that will undermine what you're trying to accomplish. --Ronz 21:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not that people are not trying to work with you, the problem is you have it in your head that the the edits you are making have a NPOV and they clearly do not. I do not need to have an understanding of the industry to see that unsourced glowing cliams are made in the article and negative coments with sources are removed.Ridernyc 23:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, User:Ridernyc, I disagree completely. The edits made to Energy switching services in the UK changed the article fr having claims that only one company had received criticism to having a (more accurate) claim that both my employer and several of our competitors have had that criticism levelled at us. I have no problem with those references staying in, so long as the article doesn't imply that uSwitch is the only company that has been criticised in this manner (which would clearly be non-neutral, given it's not the case). Similarly, the article claimed that the accreditation from energywatch had been revoked from uSwitch, which is simply not true.

Equally, if there are any "unsourced glowing claims" you feel have been added by myself or any of my colleagues, please highlight them and I will either request that they be removed or provide references for them. You're right to be concerned that a company might be trying to abuse Wikipedia for PR. I honestly believe that is not what my employers are trying to do. Indeed, if it were what I felt my employers were trying to do, I would make it clear that I would want no part in it and would be having shouting arguments with our Marketing director on the subject. :o)

As it happens, some other editor has removed the whole paragraph from the article, so the topic is probably now moot. For the record, though, neither I, nor the copywriters here (nor, indeed, the marketing department) have any problem with criticism being reported in the article, so long as the criticism is accurate. Surely that's only encyclopædic? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may poke my head in here, Owen, I think you are missing the point, which is that the question of whether the criticism is being accurately reported should not be judged by an editor with a conflict of interest. Post your concerns on the article's talk page and let uninvolved editors decide. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work on the article, Thanks! However you've removed this paragraph twice saying "incorrect information, undue weight". Can you explain that please as I really think the paragraphs should be included.

"However UNESCO has published a report entitled: "Bosnian Pyramids: A Pseudoarchaeological Myth and a Threat to the Existing Cultural and Historical Heritage of Bosnia-Herzegovina" which is extremely critical of Semir Osmanagić, stating that he has suppressed findings which contradict his views and the whole enterprise is being run as a money making exercise rather than a scientific investigation. ^[1]"

--Dumbo1 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The information is incorrect because the letter is not from UNESCO, but to UNESCO. Given that it's only a letter, we need to be especially careful not to give it undue weight nor violate WP:BLP. --Ronz 16:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible you're being a little over sensitive on the promotional aspects of the piece. For instance, do you really think that the criticisms section connotes advertising for Popcorn? Sure there are links to promotional materials, but those still explain who she is, the content of her work etc. The article has already been scaled back from the original vanity piece. Anyway, we'll see if there are any substantive changes to the article based on your banner. Mattnad 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would be a bit much to give it multiple tags all covering NPOV and BLP issues. Perhaps the advert tag might overemphasize the promotional issues. The criticism section is just as bad if not worse because BLP also applies. --Ronz 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a good point on WP:BLP in reference to the Gawker survey of New York Worst Bosses. They savage her. That material is probably overly critical of Popcorn, but the other critiques come from editor reviewed and academic sources. I don't think Wikipedia is going out on a limb with points that predicting the future is hard. I think this article suffers mostly because her work is pretty fluffy overall. Since her writing lacks both substance and impact, you're not going to get much better than a few puff pieces that are arranged by her publisher. Compared to giants like Michael Porter or Philip Kotler, Popcorn is a nobody. She's also had significantly less success following her first book so there's relatively little material on her. Mattnad 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Even though the link has appeared in the section for several years without dispute or disturbance, recently it has been removed. I think it provides an objective description with pros and cons of the Sybian as well as how to operate the machine. There is no solicitation to sell the machine or any other product for that matter. In fact, there has never been any advertisement on that page. It reads more like an information guide than anything else. It belongs in Sybian article. Buttysquirrel 23:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the warnings on your talk page. Because of your conflict of interest, it's best that you discuss the inclusion of this link on Talk:Sybian. You might also want to read and participate in: WP:COIN#Sybian. --Ronz 23:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Your edits in article-space to date consist mostly of adding links to the website you run. I realize that you made most of these edits years ago, but today such behavior is considered to be spamming. Please familiarize yourself with the current guidelines, especially Wp:spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. --Ronz 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)"

I disagree. I have contributed several photos of the Sybian, and other related photos such as the Topco Love Machine, which I had our photographer take. In addition, I have added content to several articles that never link back to our site(s). So I do not believe most of the content I have added have been links that to go back to our site. Besides, your argument reads like I'm banned from making any editions because you deem the link spam. --Buttysquirrel 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, I need you to delete those Sybian images that I uploaded into the article or at least tell me how to do it --Buttysquirrel 05:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Try Template:Db-author --Ronz 16:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and civility in explaining the removal of external links. I went to remove them, but see that you already had. Sorry for your trouble. Duane Frasier 00:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz 00:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to respond to the two questions I laid out for you on Talk:Stephen Barrett? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've said all I'm going to at this point. The current sources for criticism do not make the distinction. --Ronz 00:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I've posted a reply to your comments about the depression article on that article's talk page. Thanks for feedback.

Sardaka 09:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz-

I did not see your message regarding me edits until I had made additional ones as well. Can you please provide a little more information regarding what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Lexicon Branding, Inc. has in fact named the products where edits are being made. It is in no way meant to be advertising (as there is no external link provided to the company website).

Please advise and if you can suggest a different way of adding this information that would be great.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SailBoat1982 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Have you also been editing as 74.211.139.69?

The issue is complicated. First, if you have a relationship with Lexicon Branding, then WP:COI applies. Conflict or not, there are WP:SPAM and WP:SOAP that apply. COI and SPAM both have discussions on how to edit properly.

The information must be verifiable, from a reliable source. It also needs to be important enough to mention, which usually requires a reliable source from a neutral party (not from Lexicon Branding, nor the client company).

I realize this is a lot of information to digest. Let's keep the discussion going. --Ronz 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider refactoring your comments here: [[6]]. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with those comments. Perhaps you should distance yourself from this situation given your past history of disruptive editing. TheDoctorIsIn‎ seems to be following your lead, and you're leading him into a RFC/U at best. --Ronz 00:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, as you have probably noted, I only get on in little bursts lately, and when I got over to this area, it seemed to be past it's logjam. So I didn't say anything. Shot info 01:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I guess if I take it very slowly and carefully, the backlash will be minor. I don't know where I find my positive outlook sometimes. --Ronz 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain your accusation concerning spam/COI further.

Changes were added to Anchor which required reference. The supplied link to an authoritive article directly pertaining to the added content met this requirement. Rather than heeding Russeasby's knee-jerk reaction to anything which mentions a certain brand of product which he has a problem with, and other symptoms of article-ownership, perhaps you could consider the content on its own merits.

In any case if you still disagree, the section should be reverted back to its original state, as the bits I added need citation and are unverifiable in their present state.

bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 03:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel like it's a waste of my time to explain further to you. COI is very clear. --Ronz 04:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Ronz!

Upon revisiting a Wiki page that I'd provided edits for I find your message accusing me of SPAMming the encyclopedia. I have been writing essays for a number of years and have my areas of expertise published on my personal website. Others have added links to some of my essays on existing pages and those edits stand. Yet when I add to an existing subject page information I feel to be valuable it gets deleted as SPAM. This is sad. I feel like the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. However, I will cease making such offers of content and am pretty soured on contributing in general as I don't feel to make more deleting work for you and yours nor do I wish to waste my own time.

Sincerely, - Onelover 13:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you very carefully read WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:COI. You've admitted to spamming Wikipedia. Sorry that you don't the situation. --Ronz 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I freely admit to, as per the Wikipedia definition of SPAM, which thanks to your deletions, another watchdog's threat to ban my username and pointing toward educational links, ain't mystery meat to me any more <grin>. Thanks for the heads up, I didn't realize that I was committing a grievous error from your POV. However, your explanations don't appear to explain why a minor edit to the following pages were sponged.

1. 16:15, 30 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Rastafari movement‎ (→Ceremonies) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari_movement#Ceremonies
2. 16:09, 30 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Sacrament‎ (→Views from other Christian Traditions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament#Views_from_other_Christian_Traditions

- Onelover 23:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Have a nice day whenever you are ready (so I am not telling you what to do).

I suggest you contact the editors that made the edits you're concerned about. I've made no edits to either of those articles. --Ronz 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

you removed information because it was linked to the project website, the information was directly related to features. Does this apply to all projects, where you cant list features unless its on a 3rd party site, which would then be unreliable since its not official information. That would be like saying an article on Microsoft Windows couldnt reference a Microsoft.com site to state features.

I am unsure that qualifies as appropriate, since you do since you deleted the content, can you suggest what type of 3rd party site would be acceptable for all software (not just this project) to list what the software does (ie its features)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trixter ie (talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that we don't let articles become advertisements. See WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV. --Ronz 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I was going to just pop in to say hello. I know I've not been around too much but real life has kept me real busy, though I do check my watchlist and other things daily. But then I saw this thread and thought this link might be of interest to you; [7] I hope all is well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not surprised by the ANI. This is a conflict of interest case that's snowballing. --Ronz 01:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read various messages that you've left on talk pages for different articles and I've noticed that you can be rather terse. Here are a few examples:

• 'Demo Links Needed on Wiki Comparison Page,' on this page
• 'Schools offering PhD?,' on the Ergonomics talk page
• 'Kirkland Institute for Implant Survival Syndrome' on the Sally Kirkland talk page
• and 'External links' on the Coral Calcium talk page)

Have you considered that impersonal responses littered with policy after policy might scare away new users? Wikipedia's 'Be Bold' guideline could be hampered by messages such as these. Maybe you could try a friendlier, more personal approach?

I can fully understand and respect how exciting it is to be involved in a project the magnitude of Wikipedia, and how scary the idea of someone not following policy can be.

Further, I can understand how trying interactions with new folks can be, but it may be in everyone's best interest to assume good faith a bit more often.

Here's a few basic tips on making Wikipedia a friendlier place for everyone:

• Be sure to use 'please' and 'thank you' often.
• Make time for basic pleasantries such as 'I hope you have a good day'
• Try to limit accusatory language
• Understand and make an effort to prevent the ambiguity inherent in online conversations
• Cite policy only when necessary and explain it rather than linking to it
• Lead by example by not falling into a spiral of mean spirited discussions
• Be aware that 'professional' writing can come across as impolite or terse discussion

I hope these help, and I hope you have a great day!

Thanks, 172.167.34.201 19:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. Obviously, I'm most comfortable with professional writing. I also tend to put my efforts where I think they'll make the most impact. Two of the instances you bring up are interactions with extremely disruptive editors, one of which has since been banned. See my user page. --Ronz 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz,

Thank you for your comments on my edit to the User-Centered Design page.

Please note that my only edit was to link author’s name to a page about him [which I created]. The inclusion of both the book and the author on the User-Centered Design page was either the work of the person who created the page or of another editor.

Both the book Designing Pleasurable Products and the author Patrick W. Jordan are notable within the field of emotional design. The book, which was published in 2000 was the first substantive work in this area and is probably the most referenced book in this field. Jordan himself is considered by many within the field to be the founder of emotional design as a discipline [perhaps largely because of the book].

It was not my intention to promote either the book or the author, simply to give more detail about a person and a book that have been highly influential within my discipline and which I believe meet the Wikipedia standards for notability.

I would very much appreciate it if you would allow restoration the original text and the link.

Best Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liyuyu (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparing Jordan to Norman? Nice publicity for Jordan, but no sources to back it. That's why I moved it to the talk page. --Ronz 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you mocking this person's contribution? At least Amazon thinks Jordon and Norman are comparable; see the "Buy Together" section on Amazon -Buttysquirrel 16:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Amazon's Buy Together is not a RS. --Ronz 17:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronz,

I am a new user to Wikipedia and I recently uploaded a new article that most likely needs some outside editing or changes. If you have some extra time could you please take a look at my article, TekBots, it would be greatly appreciated. I see you have made some revisions to similar articles so I thought you may be interested in this one.

Thank you, --Jordman16 14:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a quick note on the article talk page about WP:N. If acceptable sources can be found, the article should remain. I did some quick searches for sources but didn't find any that were independent of the OSU. Hopefully you can find some. I'll monitor the article, and am happy to review any sources you find. --Ronz 15:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, I resubmitted a completely rewritten version of the article with some additional sources. The sources are articles from other university websites outside Oregon State University's website so I beleive they qualify as being reliable. Would you be willing to give the article a quick read through, any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again,

--Jordman16 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page. It needs additional independent sources. --Ronz 16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I kind of inserted myself into the Dsarokin issue, because I know him from a previous internet life. He's promised not to add any links for the rest of the month. I know he's probably already earned a block of some kind, as I did see where he said he wouldn't do that any more, and that he has. If he does it again, I'll support a block too, but would you mind, as a courtesy to me, giving me a chance to see if I can help first? He's not a worm, and he's given me his word pretty directly, which I accept.

I'm not sure what he wants yet; I'll talk with him, and if I think it might be productive I'll direct conversation back to WP:COIN after I find out, and explain WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:EL, WP:SPAM etc, etc once more in excruciating detail. I think it might be more WP:POINT related than WP:SPAM, which still isn't good, but if I'm right, I might possibly be able to focus him more on policy pages than article pages.

Let me know if this steps on your toes. --barneca (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's great you were able to step in as you did. It would be nice to see this all work out well for everyone involved. I planned on leaving you two alone while you work this out while I continue to clean up his past edits. I actually found a set of edits he made that was okay other than a link to an organization that I'm hoping he has no relationship with [8] --Ronz 00:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Great thanks. --barneca (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you can't seem to want to let this go, I've filed a formal harassment and stalking complaint. Flybd5 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that! --Ronz 15:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right. I won't dispute it. I have inserted an article on the company where it is the "official web site". I don't have any commercial relationship with the company, its parent, etc., BTW, except as reader of most of Dr. Klein's books. Sources of Power is a great book, ranking with The Essence of Decision. The company is notable, in part, because they actually contribute by authorship to the literature in naturalistic decision making. Actually, I'm going to go look up notability as it applies to plain-vanilla companies. Thanks for bringing the point up on my talk page. What are your thoughts on the company's notability? I can be NPOV on this since I haven't exactly killed my self putting the article together. DCDuring 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I was going to tag the company article for deletion, but I'll hold off while you work on it. See WP:CORP. Basically, you'll need to find an independent, reliable source or two. --Ronz 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The rules seem distinctly hostile to for-profit enterprise. How much more indication of notability would I have to get? If 50 (or 250) people get together to form Polyamory part-time, that outweighs an enterprise that makes and applies an intellectual contribution? I spend a lot of time deleting non-noteworthy stuff and pure spam. I see a HUGE difference here. I'm beginning to wonder about NPOV at WP as a whole. DCDuring 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:N is unrelated to WP:NPOV, and that WP:N is considered a guideline only. Importance/notability is a matter of the amount and quality of sources on a subject. I rarely look at WP:N and related guidelines except when an article appears to be eligible for deletion. There's a lot of controversy and discussion on WP:N, much in agreement with what you're saying here. --Ronz 20:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you see my comments in Talk:Klein_Associates? --Ronz 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen your comments. I am also aware from my wanderings that that header is rarely used indeed. I don't need to have my screen filled with warnings against behavior not likely to occur. I'm working hard at this and I am feeling a *little* harassed. All right, I don't enjoy working under pressure and I don't like my unpaid work to be subject to challenge before its completion. I get defensive. I am not alone in this, judging by some of the talk pages I've read. I'm sure that you're trying to help and uphold WP standards. I think that WP needs to be somewhat open to the commercial world without providing rampant opportunity for spam and non-spam advertising. Shutting down small business pages that happen to actually be notable and to have attracted the interest of an independent editor (me !) can't be a good use of resources. I wonder about some of the unsourced pages that lend some credibility to some 3-person school of psychotherapy (Why isn't that advertising?) or a garage band with seven fans or the unsourced real-estate-touting pages for all the municipalities. Sorry about the venting. It's what I do when I feel threatened. DCDuring 21:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly relate to the venting and appreciate that you've not directed it at me. I just stumbled across this following improper links of decisionmaking.com. I'm impressed with the work that you've done! --Ronz 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I'm sorry to be bothering you again about this, but I'm afraid that our anon friend 193.203.82.194 is back introducing POV and inaccuracy at Cydonia Mensae. To avoid triggering another edit war, I've not reverted this change yet, but I have posted a request for him/her to explain what they think is wrong with the article. I'll wait a couple of days to see if that results in any progress, but if it doesn't I suspect an edit war may result. Anyway, I thought I'd better let you know what's up. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. At least he left the page alone for a few days after the protection was removed. --Ronz 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

References have been provided. Further rollbacks will be considered counting towards 3RR. Maury 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits to prevent BLP violations are exempt from 3RR. --Ronz 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The policy states "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons". That is not "clearly libelous", as it is sourced, and well documented events that happened. You are now in 3RR violation. I suggest either a self revert and a self-imposed time-out, or I will block you for the violation. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've discussed the issue on the talk page, and made two reverts in the past 24 hours, and have been making the edits out of concern for BLP per my discussion. I'm happy to undo one. I hope you'll contibute to the discussion. --Ronz 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Already reverted by Maury Markowitz. --Ronz 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While it is true you have previously discussed the issue on the talk page, you failed to address the latest notes placed there, failed to invite the main editor of the content in question (me) to comment on the issues, failed to heed the advice of other editors on alternate solutions, and failed to consider the new references I added. I don't want to dump on you, but removing material from any article is always contentious, and you need to do more to avoid the sort of edit warring that invariably results. In the future I would recommend following FlyBD5's excellent advice and first post up cite-needed tags. If that does not address the problem, track down the original author and ask them to participate. If that doesn't work, then you should consider removing material. But remove only as a last resort! Maury 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a different interpretation of BLP:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles

I do not find the current reference sufficient, and said so: [9]. --Ronz 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, you posted a couple questions about the 2005 and 2007 studies for the article on Tension myositis syndrome. Parsifal and I responded to your questions. Could you post a reply? Thanks. JTSchreiber 03:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I replied. I think the discussions and work on the article have been going much better so I haven't been participating. --Ronz 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Since you're not participating anymore, I won't contact you anymore about the TMS article, unless you start participating again. JTSchreiber 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks fine. Good work! --Ronz 04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Ronz

Hello Ronz, yes I am new to Wikipedia, and spent a great deal of time composing the Failed Back Surgery Syndrome page. I had looked "Failed Back Surgery Syndrome" up in the Wikipedia search engine and found nothing, and then proceeded to compose the page. After completing the page I found that another page, called "Failed Back Syndrome" had been previously composed. So I added new material to that page, including many scientific references. I then found that the "Failed Back Surgery Syndrome" page had been deleted, and redirected to the "Failed Back Syndrome" page. The problem with this is that "Failed Back Surgery Syndrome" is the much more correct name, and the name that is more scientifically acceptable (see the references in the article, this is the name that is cited in the literature). So yes, it seems that there is no need for duplicate articles, but the Failed Back Syndrome article should be retitled "Failed Back Surgery", and the "Failed Back Syndrome" searches redirected there. I am not sure quite how this should be done, since I am new. Also, with regard to the added links to the chronic pain and related articles, these links were added quickly (and correctly, although there may have been some degree of duplication) because of the related content of these sites; yes, the sites had been previously read. Are you able to help with the above? It would contribute to the scientific accuracy of this content. Thank you. --BP2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BP2 (talk �� contribs) 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. Not sure how to do this... --Ronz 15:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a shot, but don't know how to track all this type of editing. It looks like articles may have been moved as well as redirected, but I'm not sure. I created Failed Back Surgery Syndrome and redirected it to Failed back syndrome. Failed back surgery also redirects there. I don't see a need for a move, though maybe it should be discussed on the article talk page. --Ronz 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

hello, thanks you for your welcome. i see your picture earlier of czech rep and i am pleased i'm also czech. i will try to follow rules but i'm not sure why mine link was delted. thanks again. -Jana2004 06:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)