User talk:Ronhjones: Difference between revisions

Ronhjones' Navigation bar

Home

Talk (Archives)

Contributions

EditCount

Sandbox

Sandbox2

Awards

Userboxes

Gallery

CSDlog

Subpages

Adminship

This is Ronhjones's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 14 days

User:MrKIA11/Archive Box

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Ronhjones,

Thanks for your help protecting the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hek_Ki_Boen_Eng_Chun_Kungfu

I have never edited a protected page before, I'd like to help clean up the article further. Per your comment this should be done on the talk page. How do things get moved from the talk page to the actual article? Do I need a special tag so an admin can move it over or something?

Thanks, Wcwatchdog (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start a new section (two equal signs each end of a title on its own line), then ideally suggest some edits, and if most people agree then copy this - {{editprotected}} - to that section , and an admin will come along and do the edit for you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ron, you are the man! Wcwatchdog (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, Thanks for helping again on this page! Wcwatchdog (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr.Ron, I am sorry to bother you but I really need your help. I have a problem with this user andyjsmith that is constantly trying to get this page (Ramadan Ramadani) off from Wikipedia. I added the proper bio and soon I will add more photos and material to the page if that user doesn't delete the page. I don't really understand why he is so against it. I saw many artist that are not worldwide famous but they are on Wikipedia and I honestly believe that that is exactly the purpose of Wikipedia. I am not putting any Spam or inappropriate content.

I sincerely need your help and I thank you in advance, (Jetonr (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Some editors have a clear view of how good an article should be to survive on Wikipedia. Generally that's not a bad thing, otherwise we would be overrun with useless articles. New articles are always difficult to construct (and probably harder than in the past), and it does not take long for someone to see a new page and decide that the content is not enough (that's why many editors now start a new article in their user space, only moving to article space when suitable). I declined the original CSD, as I could see that you were still editing and improving the article, since then User:Andyjsmith has added a PROD template (he cannot delete it himself), but you have almost doubled the article size since then - so if you think that what you have added will be enough to satisfy notability (have a look at this paqe section - WP:ARTIST) then you are quite within your rights to remove that template (the first four lines you see in the edit window), and state that the article is significantly improved since the template was added. You may also like to talk to User:Andyjsmith on his talk page and ask him what more he would like to see - that may save you a lot of effort. If you do remove the PROD, it cannot be replaced, any future deletion request would probably have to go through WP:AfD process.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronjones,

Article: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher

Thanks for your help, it worked. Normally I would be able to move a picture with no problems, but this time I did and I couldn't figure it out. If there is anything I can do in return just ask on my Discussion page. Once again it's appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It threw me when the infoboxes started being "smart"...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the lock on Jane Russell was automated or not, but I believe the recent changes in the article are due to the fact that Russell recently died ([1]. Perhaps you may want to open the page again for editing. --Zimbabweed (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was lots of unreferenced data added - if you have a good WP:RS then place your data on the talk page with {{editprotected}} and someone will come along to check.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you fully protected this article, can you please help add {{recent death|Russell, Jane}} to this article? Many thanks. – SMasters (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and now unprotected since more reliable sources are available.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. – SMasters (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. If only editors would wait for proper reliable confirmations...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Chris, the guy who you deleted the attack page about earlier today. Thank you so much; I wasn't aware of it until someone e-mailed me about it. Again, thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.68.5 (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, attack pages rarely last more than a few minutes.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ron,

I would like to request that my page regarding the myth of Michael Lloyd Roberts is reinstated as it is a genuine article, I would appreciate if it could be reinstated I understand the problems that you may come across with such articles but this is about a myth not an individual and has no personal reference or attacks within it.

You are a true wiki legend

ps I very much enjoed you page on, teaching grandmothers to suck eggs.

Kindest Regards

Fancy a smo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fancy a smo (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now at User:Fancy a smo/Michael Lloyd Roberts (myth) - you will have to get some good references from reliable sources before attempting to move back to article space.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete my article, wikipedia needs to review first and it's about a real person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChHP211 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real people do not get pages on Wikipedia unless they are notable, supported by references from reliable sources  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my page despite the fact that I had a hangon. I asked the person who said delete it what policy it was violating and he couldn't tell me. Can you please? Fouredits (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. All articles must be notable and supported by reliable sources
2. The ref had nothing to do with the article
3. Hangon does not guarantee it will stay, it shows a full reasoning has been added for keep, for the admins to read before deletion.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficiency of sources establishing notability goes to AfD. CSD is only for articles that are not notable on their face. Fouredits (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notablity of a person, you, who only had two edits prior to the creation of this article, is prima facie evidence of lack of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 00:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated vandalism is being noted. Corvus cornix_talk 00:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was mad about something.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your hint as a WP:SOCK hit the mark.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please email me at Krypton33@aol.com Thanks ICEPROMO (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC) why did you delete my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICEPROMO (talk • contribs) 01:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was correctly tagged as Advertising by User:Eeekster - phrases like Visit ICEPROMO on the web are just not allowed  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also not it's not your page - no one owns any page here, the user pages are just for the users to give a bit of background about themselves should they desire.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron,

Is it a good thing you touched my page?

In my first few hours I've already attracted more attention to myself than I wanted.

Regards,

- Jeff (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least you still have it, some would have just deleted it.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the question mark for the last title since I didn't see any reference as to why you left the note. If you copied the page for me thanks. - Jeff (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was put up for deletion - I moved it instead - See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jeffrey.A.Limpert/Project_Content&action=history  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, The section is "Hasty decision". Enjoy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Jones:

I am writing to you regarding the recently deleted article, Argentine people of European descent, because I believe you were misled into deleting it by someone who jumped to certain conclusions without really looking into the matter.

It's a long story, but it dats to February 11, when a related article, White Argentine was deleted by Beeblebrox (see: [2]) because of what he felt constituted a "synthesis" based on a social construct (i.e, "white" people). I excised any such language, and any inference thereof, keeping only the history, data, and their references.

That Argentine people of European descent exist is common knowledge ([3], for background), and is an interesting subject to many. They are also distinct from other communities in the country (Indigenous peoples in Argentina, Asian Argentines, Arab Argentines, Afro Argentines, and others), though they share many common experiences, of course. The article itself, moreover, meets and probably exceeds guidelines for sources, throughness, and balance met by those on White Latin American, White Hispanics, White Brazilians, White Cubans, White Mexicans, Peruvian of European descent, and other similar entries.

I wrote to Beeblebrox about all this. He skimmed the surface of my article, noticed that it looked similar to the one that had caused so much offense, and put it on the chopping block, responding simply that: "a few portions of it are new or lightly rewritten, but for the most part you have simply reprinted the same article" (see: User talk:Beeblebrox#Speedy deletion). As an administrator, he should know that this is a very arbitrary, almost capricious way of using his power. I, by the way, did not contact ou as I don't see how any of this was your fault; you simply noticed a speedy deletion tag and acted accordingly.

In any case, I was asked to mention the problem to the Deletion review board. As I told Beeblebrox, I hate all this. I was writing an article about a major political party in Argentina which lacked an English-language page, and would already be done had it not been for this, for example. I'm sure you feel the same way.

Regards, Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really appreciate it if you would knock of the whole "abuse of power" argument. I did not use any admin tools here, I nominated the article for speedy deletion, something anyone can do. It's not an order that must be obeyed. Ron or any other admin could have declined the nomination if they thought it was flawed. There is also the matter of attribution that was brought up at ANI, you are obviously re-working an old version of the article without giving proper credit to those whose work formed the foundation of your alleged "new" article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hasty decision  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Alerts.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please revert it back to the db template, as the author clearly intended to blank the page, and only now has information due to the editing of another editor, in contradiction to G7. 128.61.18.21 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

db-author is just for the author to post, or he blanks the page. No other scenario is allowed.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be too many other edits from other editors to allow him to blank the page or apply db-author anyway, if may have to go via a different CSD or PROD or AfD.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, since the major author User:Abc1233ac is the only supplier of content, while all the other editors made only grammatical/minor edits. In one of the previous edits, the main author left it 13:17, 5 March 2011, without adding any more content, compared to the continuous changes that occurred over the past few hours. Then, another editor User talk:Fairtraderrr comes and restored the page contrary to G7, which was added as the page was blanked.128.61.18.21 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, if deleted, there's nothing to stop User talk:Fairtraderrr re-creating the page (which is a reasonable assumption), which User:Abc1233ac would be powerless to blank - a PROD or AfD would be more sensible.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern ;Implying; (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implying;

Possibly is not allowed - only verifiable data from reliable sources  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I tried to add to the on hold messaging section is 100% true. Yet, it seems that only companies who know how to BS are worthy to make it into WP. It's sad to know that WP will not acknowledge my contributions to this industry. Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.62.65 (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTTRUTH  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on that! Just a lot of IPs trying to make the results fiction! Quick question: Am I right in saying that merchandise sites in external links applies under WP:SPAM? Tried to revert one on the Scott Redding page but stopped due to 3RR threat. Regards, Cs-wolves(talk) 01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mouse button is getting hot with all those protects... Spam, always a bit pov as to inclusion - all the relevant bits are at WP:EL, and official links are covered by WP:ELOFFICIAL. That said, I suspect an official merchandising site is going to be a grey area. Good idea to avoid the 3RR!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the site in question, and placed above the official website. Something's a miss, surely! ;) Cs-wolves(talk) 01:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post the issue here - Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard - you'll find those with a firm knowledge of EL policy.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shall pop it on there, pronto! Cs-wolves(talk) 01:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here? How is this a justification for indefinite semi-protection on so many articles?--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you unprotect Pedro de la Rosa? Your stated reason for indefinite semi-protection was "IP hopping vandals" but there has been no vandalism to the page since at least August 2010. Did you protect this page by mistake? --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, the same group of IPs hit it on 16th February - WP:DUCK on the edits, similar ones appear on other articles - still I've not problem unprotecting, but they might be back.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, how about the rest of them? Indefinite protection surely isn't justified just in case one vandal might come back some time. If anything it's more work for you as you have to unprotect manually rather than e.g. letting a week-long protection expire. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just lazy me :-) Mind you we don't know it's one vandal - it might be a concerted effort. Indef is the default. I'll get round to trim them back after I've finished checking all the years (I only did 15 years checks last night 1990 to 2004 - IIRC).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on? WP:PROF seems to be the most applicable policy and it says no such thing. Is there a different policy that you are referring to?--Terrillja _talk 00:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right, looks likes my error. So many policies to remember! Feel free to revert.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The establishment of a (scientifically accepted) new research field is certainly an indicator of importance in science. The request for speedy deletion according to Wikipedia:CSD#A7 by Terrillja was unreasonable as importance has "a lower standard than notability". Of course, professors are not notable by default, but I already added some references which show the notability. Blauenfels (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Blauenfels, the joy of Wikipedia editors working together... Such a nice feeling, if only it could be sustained throughout WP.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I'm all that surprised, to be honest! Yep, had a read at the comment over the IP copyright earlier on...seems a weird one. But as you say, it may be tampered with when the protection comes off. Still a bit to wait until that occurs though! Cs-wolves(talk) 20:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ronhjones. You have new messages at User_talk:SDPatrolBot/ErrorReports.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer... I have completed the source= section as per your suggestion. Can i remove that speedy deletion tag now? or do i need to ask the dude who put it there to remove it? I wish more admins on Wikipedia are helpful like you! Okkar (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once you filled in the required fields, the the DI template can be removed. I've done that for you. As to if the copyright "experts" will like your source, I'm not saying - image copyright can be a real minefield, and is also very country dependent (I'm happy with UK situation, but the US does have some oddities...)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are my unblocking admin and I'd like to invite you to express your opinion at the following discussion: [4]. I've made a report against User:Nmate 's behaviour, but he did not respond the issues raised by me, preferring to attack your unblock decision, together with (his partner) User:Hobartimus

Instead of accepting that I am again a member of the community, they keep disregarding me and contesting my unblock (instead of WP:LETGO). I've tried to respect all the policies since I became again a member of the community in December 2010, but they keep writing about my old socks in every discussion we participate, thus breaking WP:HUMAN (in my case, unblocked users are human too). (Iaaasi (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Rohnjohnes, did you know that Iaaasi lied to an admin on IRC to get him to support his unblock? Were you aware of this? And that the result of this lie was that the admin in question reposted the lie on Wikipedia? On September 27 administrator Muzemike states He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki and at ro.wiki since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. There it is, flat out stated that Iaaasi did not sock since March(!!!). Please compare this outrageous lie to the list of CheckUser confirmed sockpuppets and the number of edits made by them in full violation of the block [5]. I must ask you about this, since you cited that very discussion when you explained your deliberations. Is it acceptable for users to outright lie on IRC to further their unblock agenda? If it is not acceptable how can it be stopped how can it be avoided that it's repeated again and again. Is there a noticeboard or something on wiki dealing with IRC abuse? What can be done in cases like this? Hobartimus (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Iaaasi lied to an admin on IRC to get him to support his unblock"

Hobartimus, you are breaking WP:NPA. You have no proofs for this accusations. (Iaaasi (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Just to make it clear, Do you deny saying the above to Muzemike? Your claim is that you did not say these things to him? Hobartimus (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who must prove that I am guilty. Why don't you ask directly him? (Iaaasi (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks I have all the confirmation I need, you do not even deny it... Besides the links posted above and the word of Muzemike are more than enough proof. said on September 27 check dates before September 27... Hobartimus (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this more annoying for you.  :) I have blocked Iaaasi on a 3RR for a week. After reviewing this, the current spat at WP:ANI, and the rather tepid consensus to unblock him in December, I would welcome your review of his editing status. I have not been able to parse through all of the conditions of his original indefinite block, so I do not have an opinion yet. Kuru (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what fun... As far as I'm concerned, any activity pre 20:38, 8 December 2010 is now irrelevant. User Iaaasi achieved a mild consensus for a second chance (but it was a for!), he then accepted that offer, and was later unblocked at that time stated. If he had not been unblocked then, then I suspect he would have been unblocked a month or two later. Users must remember that an indefinite block is not infinite - WP:INDEF, any blocked user who shows willing to following Wikipedia policies is likely to be unblocked. Harping on about the past is just a bad case of I don't like him (which really falls under WP:NPA) - like him or not Iaaasi was unblocked, and I for one am unlikely to block on any old bit of data pre Dec 2010, it's time everybody moved on and concentrated on good editing, instead of bitching about other editors. I feel that any review of the conduct of Iaaasi should be solely based on editing post Dec 2010 - assuming he has not reverted back, since that date, to any of the issues that caused the original indefinite block.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ron -

You helped me last year with my organizations page Parents Via Egg Donation. I got into a pickle editing it and not realizing it was against the rules. You folks heard my case and were kind enough to unblock me from Wikipedia, and I was thankful for that.

Since that time we have been gathering information about the organization (as requested by Toons one of Wiki's editors) which appeared in the media for the reference section. Our page received a tag of orphaned which made me nervous as I feel our nonprofit is Wiki worthy, and has encyclopedic value. However, my hands were tied as I am not allowed to add anything to that page.

In the meantime we found a user who took an interest in our group who is a writer and wrote a lovely bit of information about us. And now our page has been deleted. Even after this user followed the rules.

I am asking for you help in sorting this out. I do believe we are Wiki worthy, we helped thousands and thousands of people each year in the field of Reproductive Endocrinology. We are not self-serving if anything we are a public service organization much like the American Heart Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, INCIID, or RESOLVE but on of course a much small level.

I appreciate your time - Marna Gatlin MDG 00:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marnad1963 (talk • contribs)