User talk:Hipal/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Talk off line

I am happy to speak with you off line, if privacy can be keep, on a free conference line. Then, you can google me, and see that I really don't have any connection to this guy we are fighting over, and you will see that the arguments I have espoused are part of a thread of arguments I have been making in general for a long time, and have nothing to do with Jain, but with how information is disseminated on cyber. In any case, perhaps some constructive dialogue here, so that we can try to understand the other person's position and work together to improve this thing, rather than bumping heads. You game? I promise a polite and civil conversation.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture. You can email with anything you don't want to divulge here. No offense, but I'd rather keep my discussions within Wikipedia. I look forward to polite and civil discussions with you. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Important link on the subject...

Hi,

The link www.azerbaijanrugs.com/guide/guide_index_antique_kuba_rugs_carpets.htm is the only source in the entire web which is exhibiting 2000 antique Kuba rugs and carpets from different sources (museums, collections, auctions etc.) The rugs exhibited in this page are not for sale anymore. The page was created for merely educational purposes. Please, do not remove this link as the readers of this wikipedia article will definitely need this source to learn more about the subject.

Vdadashov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdadashov (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Glad that someone is finally noticing that can speak for the site. You'll have to take this to WP:ELN given the spamming problems and promotional aspects. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sullivan

There were some edits to the Sullivan page of which I personally wrote. Big Tim was my great grand father. He was not born in the Five Points but rather at 125 Greenwich Street which is outside that neighborhood. It would be erroneous to keep that information in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.182.221 (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Is this about Timothy Sullivan? Let me see what's going on... --Ronz (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on...--Ronz (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Steve Hoffman (audio engineer)

"Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product."

Then why on Earth is Steve Hoffman's personal website the first external link? If SC's got to go, so's SH.tv. Jonchapple (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Since the article is about Hoffman, his official site should be listed. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Why me?

Quest them, what the h*e*l*l they touch my PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by High'n'Dry man (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Faith Popcorn entry

Hi Ronz,

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to you most kind reply to my query re: Faith Popcorn. I know this is probably a difficult entry to edit, but it seemed so biased in its original form, and comments in the talk section like "some people think marketing is like lying or spamming" seemed to indicate a strong bias against her general field that appears in the implications of the language of the piece as it exists -- which basically cherry picks negative things about Ms. Popcorn in order to diminish and mock her. So I tried not to step on anyone's toes but to make it more an overview of Ms. Popcorn's whole career, and to put the negatives in context...it doesn't seem particularly "Wikipedia-like" to just assert that anonymous tipsters said terrible things about her on Gawker and not provide the context of both what type of site Gawker is, the other people who received such criticism and the positive things that were also said about her on Gawker. To me, that is neutrality, while still mentioning the possibly significant, or at least culturally relevant event. Perhaps what I'm not getting across is that the reason Ms. Popcorn deserves to be in WikiPedia at all is that she was a pioneer in the development of "trend based marketing" which, whether you like it or not, is now taught in every business school in the country, often using her books. She is also a pioneer in terms of women in business. So I am attempting to be neutral but also to give Ms. Popcorn her due for her accomplishments and contributions for which she has merited a place in WikiPedia. All of which is to say THANK YOU for continuing this process with me, I will read the citations you left for me and give it another try. Happy New Year! -- Chagedorn1 (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Chagedorn1 (not sure whether the four tildes would work or if I was implementing them correctly)

Thanks for the comments. Glad you're interested in working further on it. There's a lot can be done and should be done with the article. The article falls under WP:BLP which requires use to use high-quality sources and to use them properly with regard to the relevant policies/guidelines, especially WP:NPOV and WP:OR. We need to be especially careful that we don't simply reprint her own marketing, or attacks by here detractors. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Facesofphilanthropy as a source

Hello, I noticed that you have removed my philanthropy section on the Naveen Jain page that I wrote due to the sources not being adequate enough. Can you recommend to me any other sources of similar nature which would be adequate? If not, I'll try to find something myself. I appreciate any help you can give. Sir. Somerset (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. I've been looking, but haven't found anything yet. It is difficult because Intelius and Jain have done a great deal to promote their philanthropy, creating many sources that are either self-published or warmed-over press releases. We could certainly use your help. I've been focusing on going through all the poential sources that were recently suggested. --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is the only link I've found so far, it has been kind of difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

2009 Step Up to the Plate Honorary Chairs, Naveen and Anu Jain Sir. Somerset (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you mis-copy the link? It doesn't show anything related to the title for me. Is it a copy of http://www.overlakeserviceleague.org/html/AL09/jains.html? --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, must have copy-pasted the wrong link! The link you just posted is the one I meant, is it permissible? Sir. Somerset (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's listed in Talk:Naveen_Jain#Potential_sources_for_expanding_and_cleaning_this_article. I noted it's not a reliable source, referring to WP:RS. It's self-published as well.

Such profiles are usually submitted by the people themselves, which explains why some of it is copied directly from Intelius' press releases.

Maybe a local newspaper would have written something? We have a couple of them listed: The Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and the Bellevue Reporter. --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Links and URBI

Dear Ronz, Thanks for the information concerning the links I posted. As I told you earlier, I have no plans to promote my company in doing so. Like every other Wikipedia editor, I try to point to articles of interest for the people who are into robotics. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I do understand you can think there's a COI here, but I assure you there's none. I strongly believe no matter who or what people work for, we should all consider first that they are looking for ways to improve everyone's knowledge on a specific point (in my case, robotics programming) Thanks for all the pointers you've sent me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.144.210.105 (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. What help do you need with URBI? I see there was some confusion when you added some external links. I've restored them, noting they could be used as references. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please do not engage in edit warring, otherwise you will probably get blocked. Removal material in the absence of general agreement to do so is likely to be looked on unfavorably by the community. This was previous discussed, and the vote was the other way, that it should be kept. That guideline is not core policy, and treating it as if it overrides core policy is unlikely to succeed.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 03:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. --Ronz (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete image?

Why did you delete this image?

--71.80.52.67 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Already explained on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of relevant link

I do not understand the deletion of a link that is very relevant to the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity

I placed a link to the creativity portal (http://www.creativity-portal.com/) and you deleted it (regarding "External links" section at bottom of page). I do not care whether or not there are no follow tags (does NOT matter to me). The site link is relevant and no less so than the links that are already there. By your standards those other links should be deleted too. I will wait for your response before making a further move. From your arbitrary edit to the link I added, your action says you did not look through the site as it has lots of informative articles about creativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyrdorn (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the other links were inappropriate, so I removed them.

I'm not sure that an article like Creativity needs any external links, and I think it would be very hard to find any that wouldn't be better off simply as references within the article. Because of the nature of the topic, WP:ELYES is extremely hard to apply. There might be some WP:ELMAYBE cases, perhaps http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/Creativity/ or something similar? --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Gamelan spamming

I think you have some history with Badagnani (who is blocked) and gamelan.org. Can you take a look over Special:Contributions/66.31.142.14? If you're thinking what I'm thinking, should we open up a SPI investigation? ThemFromSpace 00:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, the IP tracks to Vermont. It could just be regular spam. ThemFromSpace 01:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OAR model

Ronz,

I have added a secondary resource--a reference to the OAR model from an academic journal: http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde39/pdf/article_11.pdf.

Here is an interview in which I talk about the OAR model: http://connections.blackboard.com/posts/b9a4b62e95. Would it be appropriate to include it on the page?

What other steps would you recommend that I take to meet the general notability guidelines?

Regards,

George — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.joeckel (talk • contribs) 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the interview as an external link. As far as notability, the more independent sources with significant coverage of OAR, the better. --Ronz (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Intelius Automatic Enrollment section

Hi, I have noticed that you reinstated a section that uses a source that doesn't meet the WP:RS criteria. I have started a talk about it as you have seen and participated in, so please let's reach a consensus about it before you reinstate it again. Thanks 173.160.205.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

I don't know what delay's you're getting seeing my updates, but I think my comments and tagging the source are all self-explanatory. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Veena Malik

I am getting really tired of verifying this article. i have raised some new issues on the discussion board. can you please take this up at WP:RSN ? Thanks. Boolyme ^Talk!! 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How about we wait a bit and see what response we get to the first RSN discussion, where I specifically mentioned needing help finding better sources for the entire article? --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at

http://WWW.howardzinn.org and it did not look like spam to me. It looked like a perfectly reasonable link to include in the Zinn article. However before putting it back I thought that I might as well discuss it with you. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I was a bit iffy on it's removal. I expect it was removed at some point earlier, but didn't look. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confusing it with a different article entirely.

The external link doesn't belong in the See also section. It remains in the External links section. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Life is good. Carptrash (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mistakenly deleted

Hi There, I have added a plain article about a business today (25th Jan), with no promotional and advertising material, NOR external links. Like many others listed on WIkipedia. AND you deleted the page (Maresias beverages). Why is that?? Please explain... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megadayan (talk • contribs) 05:50, 25 January 2011

I didn't delete it. You were notified that it was about to be deleted 09:55, 23 January 2011. That notification includes instructions on how to continue working on it. --Ronz (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the new version you added, so cannot comment on why it was removed. The administrator who deleted it cited Wikipedia:CSD#G11. --Ronz (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Thanks for your reply. I thought you deleted it as your user name came up. I would like some help adding this page. The content is very simple. I understood the page I added on the 23/01 was wrong. However I re-did it based on the rules and it was deleted again. What is wrong with that?? Please comment. Thanks.

"Established in 2006 in Melbourne, Australia. The company imports and distributes latin american products." Then I would like to add relevant internal wikipedia links to pages that are relevant to the products.

If you don't mind, I'd like to focus on how you can get an acceptable article together, rather than discussing the problems you've been having: If you can meet WP:CORP, the rest is fairly easy. To do that, find some significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. You can simply make a list of such sources on your talk page as a start, or ask an administrator to move the old article where you can work on it temporarily per the instructions I mentioned. --Ronz (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

My recent revision

I recently revised a highly biased article about water ionizers. The current version as it appears on Wikipedia contains no review of benefits, only skeptic opinions. Please consider my revision. It is written from a neutral standpoint and has both pro and against arguments.

Moorstag (talk)Moorstag

Thanks for following up with me. Looks like we were each writing a message to the other at the same time. I've proposed a way to go forward, and pointed out the various policies/guidelines that apply. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Water Ionizer talk page

Hi Ronz,

I have posted some new references for evaluation on the Water Ionizer page. All of the references are on PubMed, where you can see abstracts. Would you please give your opinion on the quality of the new references for use in the article.

I have also asked that the "pseudoscience" category be removed. I reviewed Wikipedia's page on Fringe theories and I determined that the medical effects of alkaline, ionized, water represent a Alternative theoretical formulation. I posted my reasons on the talk page for Water Ionizer Would you please review my post and tell me if my argument has merit.

Very Respectfully, Moorstag (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Moorstag

I've asked for help at WP:FTN on these matters. --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes, I am getting a fast education on how Wikipedia works. Thanks for your patience. Moorstag (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Moorstag

Question

I haven't known this user for very long, and I'm going to assume you have. Have they ever done anything constructive here? So far I haven't seen it, only obstruction, stonewalling, baiting and controversy, but maybe in the past they were constructive. Right now the word that comes to mind is a huge "timesink". -- Brangifer (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

These recent interactions on his talk page and at Talk:Civil are the only interactions I've ever had with him. I share your concerns. --Ronz (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

E-Commerce..

Hi Ronz, Not sure why you undid my additions to the eCommerce articles. Press Releases are objective pieces of information provided by companies which are not based on personal opinions, rather they provide hardcore facts and strategic direction. The referencing to Walmart and Target shows the evolution of the retail marketplace. Why would they be tagged as unreliable sources of information? Thanks--SY2020 (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. As press releases not expounding directly on the material in the one independent source, WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE apply. --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to go into more detail, but we should probably do so on the article talk page where others can join the discussion more easily. --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit to disruptive editing

Ronz, what you reasons for reverting this edit?

WP:VANDAL. --Ronz (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't think it was good faith or accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony121212 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not waste each others' time here. If you don't want your account blocked, you'll need to completely change your editing habits. I've left you a basic outline of how to get started as an editor on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to waste time. I actually both admire and appreciate your efforts in ensuring the sustainability of Wikipedia. I am still a little unclear why the entry on disruptive editing solicited the threat that it did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony121212 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope the facts are obvious: I warned you because your edit to WP:DE was vandalism, all your previous edits were vandalism, and you'd been given multiple vandalism notices for those previous edits. Beyond that, I don't know what I can add. If you'd like to have someone review my revert of your edit and the warning I gave you, try WP:THIRD. To have all your edits and the subsequent warnings reviewed, you should probably ask at WP:ANI - look through WP:DR first and see if you'd like to try another venue instead. --Ronz (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So, does a person's editing history effect the manner in which his/her edits are treated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony121212 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

RapidMiner

Hello, I found you have removed links to 3rd party RM extensions. As it is not very easy to find this source of extensions elsewhere on the web and as I believe that many people interested in RM could be also interested in a list of extensions - is it really a good idea to remove them?

No problem with it, however has it some reasoning? I believe, most visitors of this pages would interested in a list of 3rd party extensions (as they can extend possibilities of RM). Dont you think so?

Best wishes.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.229.146.236 (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you've found the talk page discussion on this after you wrote the above. Can we keep the discussion there? --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we should continue on the talk page.

Talkback

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at EWikist's talk page.
Message added 01:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at EWikist's talk page.
Message added 01:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suggest an addition to Innovation page

Hi Please consider adding my personal definition of "innovation" to the page [Innovation] at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation

Innovation could be defined as the combined final product of integration of: 1- Information 2- Education 3- Technical training 4- Scientific R&D 5- Design 6- Marketing 7- Organization 8- Legislation 9- Investment 10- Communication In brief it is [M O D E L I S T I C] or [D O M I C I L I a T E S]. Thanks From: Tarig Anter; tariganter@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.209.66.216 (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tarig. Thanks for contacting me about this. It would be best to discuss this on the article talk page so others could more easily participate in the discussion. Your list seems very comprehensive, but we'd need to have sources to support this information and demonstrate it is not original research before we could add it to the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramids

Dear Ronz,

I am not familiar with editing wikipedia articles but I would like to add a lot of the things to that one about the pyramids and back it up with evidence. How can i do that? I tried to change one word for testing and it was put to original form in a few minutes.

Best regards, Borut borut.bric@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.138.74 (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Borut. No offense, but Bosnian pyramids is a very poor article to edit when you're just learning to edit Wikipedia. The reason is because the topic is contentious and part of a long-running public relations campaign to promote the hills as pyramids no matter what. These circumstances make it very easy for editors to violate WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE when attempting to revise the article to agree more with the pr campaign.

While we may not have enough sources to do so yet, I'd like to see the article expanded and organized to separate the science from the pr campaign. This way we could go into more depth as to why and how the idea of pyramids there became so widespread, and is still strongly held for cultural and monetary reasons. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, from what I've seen, owners are here 'to promote the hills as pyramids a hoax, no matter what' - isn't that just as bad? Some of us just want a fair representation of sources but guess that's not allowed either.... --163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to editors when you say "owners", then you're simply focusing on editors rather than on content. No matter who you mean, you're arguing for a fringe viewpoint, rather than considering the significant viewpoints presented in reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I only have a beef with one line of that article, which does not say what the sources say (as is required by policy), that is patently not the case, you however have been unable to provide a quote from sources to back up your preferred wording and fail to engage in constructive dialogue to improve the wording. Fringe is not policy, only a guideline.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Who are these "owners" you refer to? I don't think we should continue the discussion on other matters til you make yourself clear. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Veena Malik image caption rewrite

Thanks for your timely intervention. His argument was just blowing my fuse. I will be more careful from now onwards. Btw, the image has 9 people in a row. So, the 5th person from the left should be the 5th from the right and not the 3rd. So evidently, the new caption points to a new person (1st woman from right and 6th from left). This is also the view of Zeesolz. So, the argument was on the identity of Veena Malik. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 18:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. Given this confusion and her appearance (she has one of those faces that can look extremely different depending upon what makeup she's wearing), it would probably be best to find a replacement image, though I don't think there should be any hurry to do so. --Ronz (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Little Dragon's external link discussion

In case you haven't noticed. --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 07:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I apologize for the leaving-in of template boilerplate, for sure. L2, however, issued a "2nd Warning" now, which does not seem the action of a person who wants to defuse his civility issues. Collect (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re - User Talk: Joshua P. Schroeder

"Given the history of harassment and incivility by and against this editor, I felt your comments were inappropriate and removed them. My apologies if you feel I overstepped in my refactoring. Go ahead and use your best judgement in how to respond."

No worries Ronz, I am aware of the issues (and have had some myself, and would not remove the notice myself for that very reason) but as I knew his page was being 'watched' by his friends, I thought it a good way to bring it to their attention, in case it was an oversight. It wasn't my intention to start a conversation (which could go quickly downhill) as I see followed my post, just wanted to make his friends aware in case they saw fit to change it. I'll leave it at that. Davesmith au (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Customer Experience

Lewis Carbone, Len Berry, Stephan Haeckel wrote numerous articles on customer experience years before Pine or Gilmore. Just wanted to be accurate. Maybe a origins section is needed.

Third party source for Engineering Customer Experiences: http://www-935.ibm.com/services/au/igs/pdf/engineering_customer_experiences.pdf http://senseandrespond.com/downloads/Original_EE_Article_MM_1994.pdf

Also see: http://worldwide.streamer.espeakers.com/assets/9/8379/25327.pdf

For complete list of people citing the articles as a source:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Engineering+customer+experiences%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Thanks for following up! I'm not sure when I'll have time to get to this in the detail it needs.

My initial concern is original research. We shouldn't be trying to find who said what first, we should be reporting on others' research into the matter.

I'm also concerned that we risk giving such information too much prominence for the subject matter and article. Tied with this concern is that we don't present such information in a promotional manner. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I may have jumped the gun and added an Origin section stating it in a non-promotional manner. I apologize in advance if that was premature as I am new to wiki and just starting to learn as I integrate myself into the community. Original research conducted regarding customer experience is extremely limited as it is an new business discipline still in its infancy. I think with the amount of little research out there it may just come down to who did say it first and publishing date of when it was said to back up the claim. With that being said I am looking forward to collaborating on this wiki page with you. --JC1717 (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. I've tagged it in the article for now. WP:DR gives guidance on how to get others involved. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS regarding an issue with which you are involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 February 2011

Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You're listing me because I participated in a completely different dispute with you? Please read WP:BATTLE, WP:DR, and WP:AGF. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Musical theatre

Hi. I have been working on this article, and on musicals in general, for almost five years. The links to the article are extremely useful to anyone doing musical theatre research. They are of practical value to many people who work on Wikipedia in that area. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job. With such high-quality articles, external links are rarely needed at all. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your comment that I've removed per the instructions at the top:

• "One of the great advantages of this encyclopedia is that well-chosen external links are made available to readers who want to know more about a topic." We agree. We also agree that at least some were not well-chosen. We disagree on the extent.
• "The purpose of this encyclopedia is to make information available to the public." We're here to create an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTLINK.

If you'd like to rephrase your other comments, I'm happy to respond. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

IAR?

Where exactly have you alluded to Ignore All Rules in the RSN discussion? I can't see it mentioned in your interventions at 20:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC) nor 21:06, 23 February 2011. Diego Moya (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"I believe my interpretation is in line with creating a better article and encyclopedia. Time after time, I find that the best resolution to disputes is to find sources that everyone agrees are reliable and relevant."

"doing so results in better articles and makes it easier to resolve disputes in general" --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

How is that a call to ignore all rules? You wrote those sentences to support a strict interpretation of the verifiability rule! Moreover, by not discussing the ideas in the history section and the Spillers' article you're failing to prove how your position would improve Wikipedia in this particular case. Diego Moya (talk)

Because I feel it's a proper application of WP:IAR. IAR is above all, a reminder that we're working to improve and maintain Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I could understand that view if you had bothered to explain how you're improving that article other that your general assertion that 'following policy improves Wikipedia in the long term'. Diego Moya (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

We were having difficulty determining what it meant to be an expert in the context of WP:SPS, so I brought up IAR. It turns out that my application of IAR coincides with what we now know to be the proper application of WP:SPS. --Ronz (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Strategic management

Hi, Ronz. The whole article seems to have been lifted without attribution from a management textbook. I cannot follow up the issue (I'm barely active in Wikipedia), but certainly removing the notice is not the way to go, as this is a serious copyright issue. The standard copyvio notice is pretty clear in that respect: "Please do not remove or change this Copyvio message until the issue is settled". Cheers, Λεξικόφιλος (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been reviewed already. Thanks for following up. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Tag in Musical theatre

Please remove the ugly tag. It does not assist in the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not ugly. I'd appreciate it if editors would avoid such hyperbole.

Such tags should not be removed when a related dispute is ongoing. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My last changes

Hey i saw your message and i decided it would be best to delete it since i don't want to be blocked from wikipedia. I promise i will do my best to not make this mistake again. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramosa138 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please follow up at the ANI discussion I linked to your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Tag

It looks to me like you are the only one who wants this tag so you are being disruptive. I gave an edit summary when removing what I and others see as an unnecessary tag. Please abide by the consensus and take any disputes to the Talk Page rather than unilaterally placing tags on articles. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC and stop disrupting the WP:DR taking place. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I do and I'm not. All disputes should be taken to the Talk Page. At the moment the majority view is that the section should not be tagged. We work by consensus here. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is on the talk page, and I've participated in those discussions.

If you're unfamiliar with template messages, see WP:TEMP. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

PocketBook eReader

Hi Ronz,

At Talk:PocketBook eReader, I think you're going to have to explain, in simple, concrete, and specific terms, exactly why you think "mostly just a list of models" is a problem for an encyclopedia article. He's an inexperienced editor, and he isn't likely to acquire this knowledge if you won't explain it to him.

Specifically, telling him to focus on content and referring him to dispute resolution does not help him understand why you're unhappy with the article. You can explain now, or you can explain when there's an RFC tag on the page, but either way, you're going to have to explain it to him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to do so, but I don't. I hope someone else can come along and help. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I know you're busy and your time is limited, and I'm sure that many other articles rank higher on your own priority list. If you don't have time to explain your objections, then you should probably withdraw from the dispute, dump the page off your watchlist, and leave it for people who do. I'm sure that Jinnai can take care of the major problems if you want to move on to something more important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll stick to policies instead, thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy that says you aren't a WP:VOLUNTEER who can use your time however you deem best. Are you? Have you found a policy that requires you to persist in a dispute when you don't have time for it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. I am a volunteer, and I'll participate as I choose. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

PocketBook eReader page

Please choose a place to settle tag issue. I will wait for three days and than remove the tag. I'm generally waiting for you on the subject's talk page. Best regards, --Brainsteinko (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes problems don't get settled quickly. I suggest working on other articles, or maybe learning more about the policies/guidelines relevant to the dispute. So far WP:LAYOUT, WP:MOS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:DR, WP:CON, and WP:TALK have been brought up.

Let me add WP:SPA and WP:COI. While I don't think there's enough evidence for a WP:COIN discussion, I think it needed to be brought up given the promotional nature of your editing and comments. Perhaps you're just an enthusiast of the technology, and nothing more. Still, Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting a product per WP:SOAP.

If you want to remove tags, try to address the problems. Minimally, make it clear what you think the state of the article is for each tag. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for writing on my talk page. Lets keep the discussion in one place, e.g. here. There are four parts of the tag. #1 (references) I think I added more than enough good references. #2 (reorganization) was brought up by Jinnai, not you, and consisted of external links inside article's subtitles - question settled. #3 (notability) - you asked for a few more refs - done #4 (neutrality or advertisement) - hope it's settled too.--Brainsteinko (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding in such detail!

If you haven't noticed, I've made some rather bold edits under the circumstances recently, hoping they might get us moving along.

Let's remove the reorg tag then if Jinnai agrees.

I'll respond further when I get a chance. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And Yes I'm a technology fan promoting technology--Brainsteinko (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)