User talk:Hipal: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:30, 9 April 2007

Welcome to the Wikipedia user discussion page for Ronz.
To leave a message on this page, click here.

*Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( -- ~~~~ )
Comments which fail to follow the rules above may be immediately deleted.

RE:Fixed spelling after vandalism?

I've run across a number of your "fixed spelling" edits immediately after an article has been vandalized [1] [2] [3] [4], where you change the spelling of a word in what is obviously vandalism. Please be more careful with your edits. Thanks. --Ronz 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will keep an I out for vandalism. I usually run spell checks now and then. Would you recommend that if I see certain forms of vandalism that I remove it? Much regards. Wiki Raja 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that your spell checks are at least semi-automated, which could make it difficult for you to see what has been done in previous edits. I think removing vandalism is more important that spelling though. --Ronz 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will do both in the future which will mean spending a little extra time on each article for both spelling errors and vandalism. Regards. Wiki Raja 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cindery

Thanks for the notice, I've taken care of the G4 in userspace and given a final warning for spamming on the talk page. Happy editing to you! Teke^(talk) 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini3206

Ronz, u better revert to the older version of the article to see who has vandalized it. The earlier user tried to correct the senless word from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemini3206 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but your comment makes no sense to me. What are you talking about? --Ronz 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Use

Ronz - I have no vested interest whatsoever in the (link removed) referenced on the article. Simply stated, it had the best images I found displaying the subject at hand. Please help me understand how these can be incorporated into the page. - bwilliams

Responded to you on my talk page

I just want to let you know I responded to your post to my talk page. Thanks for taking the time for a newbie! :) --Crohnie 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your requests for Verification

I am happy to provide verification for anything I edit. What precisely do you want verification about? Thank you. Ilena 17:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're happy to provide verification, then why are you so reluctant to do so? I want you to verify everything that you assert when you said, "This is totally factual, I'm sorry it isn't kind, but it's all verifiable." You used this assertion to justify multiple, repeated WP:BLP violations. You're also using it to justify your uncivil behavior, your assumptions of bad faith of other editors, your disruptive editing, etc. I guess I called your bluff. --Ronz 18:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HCR

If only she would realise that her problems with Barrett and Fyslee are preventing her from being objective. I find it sad that every one of her edits is either "Trust me" type edits (with poor RS and/or V) and "Barrett is evil because I defeated him in a court action". It gets somewhat tiresome. Shot info 03:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be againt the COI rules. She is the Rosenthal in the lawsuit so she shouldn't be editing at all on these articles should she? --Crohnie 13:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's her, with a conflict of interest in almost every edit she makes. --Ronz 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too right it's COI, but again it seems one rule for editors another for Ilena. It is interesting that I'clast has popped back up to once again defend her. If only he was more interested in defending WP policies. Shot info 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color blindness

Ronz, in your diligent effort to clean up external links, you may have removed a useful link. I restored it. If you disagree, can you please follow up here Talk:Color_blindness#external_links? Thanks. Fred Hsu 16:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already writing up a more detailed description of the problem on the talk page. --Ronz 16:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you recheck the talk page please? Thanks. Fred Hsu 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link to the external links section. I also restored the link for the second time. Please do explain yourself on the talk page before you remove the link for the third time. Thanks. Fred Hsu 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained myself plenty. You're being a bit uncivil with this situation. --Ronz 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blog article vs. Published Article

Ronz...

I was just putting together my editor's notes on my published article on Digital Ethnography and saw that the reference I made [here] was considered a blog entry and edited (out) by you. While accurate, I am actually practicing Ethnography this year by blogging my written syndicated column Techlife, prior to it's publishing on my blog of the same name. I am giving readers a behind the scenes look at my writing process and creation process.

My lead article this month is on Digital Ethnography and it will appear in print form. I have linked to other print articles that I have published on Wikipedia before. (Though I am a noob, so I may have done something wrong.)

I would appreciate a bit more clarification on this and if we can revert it great. If not understandable. Thank you for your time.

Dave Kaufman dave [at] dkworldwide dot com --Dkaufman1 18:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little more...On other posts I have indicated it was a published article in a Chicago Area newspaper. I did forget to add that to this:

Digital Ethnography A published article discussing KSU Professor Michael Wesch's term Digital Ethnography

Is modifying this acceptable practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkaufman1 (talk • contribs)

I haven't heard from you, but my editor is asking, so I am going to modify my post on the above page. Please keep the conversation alive here if need be. Thank you. --Dkaufman1 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

I now see you posted on my Talk page, a few more bits about the Ethnography post, and cited your reasons, which as you stated are the prevailing thought about external links. Read my reply on my talk page and hopefully that gives you even more information.--Dkaufman1 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Else's Request

Hi Ronz,

You recently removed content from the "Information Technology and Innovation Foundation" page because it was copyrighted. I have permission to access this copy, as I work for ITIF. Would it be possible to put the information back up? Thanks.

Hi Ronz,

You recently deleted content from the wiki for "Information Technology and Innovation Foundation" because you felt it was wrongly using copyrighted material. I work at ITIF, so I have the ability to use this material. Is it possible to have the material reposted to the wiki? Thanks. -209.190.197.131 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is stopping you. It's all a matter of the information holding to wiki guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Ronz 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're NOT Barratt! :-)

Unfortunately this form of harassment seems to be a common tactic of Ilena, I'clast and now Levine. Unfortunately for Levine he is an advocate for Ilena (as is I'clast) and it's damning for the trio to engage in such behaviour. Given that they are all pointing the fingers at everybody else (including myself it now appears) it is reprehensible that they engage in such behaviour. But then again, it's seemingly designed to make as much noise as possible to hopefully allow their unacceptable WP behaviour slip by.... Thanks for your kind words though. Shot info 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sarcastic nature cannot stop me from saying "DADDY" !!!! :-) although it will probably be used by those who should know better as an admission. Shot info 01:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! The laughs are appreciated. --Ronz 01:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that USENET now agrees with reality, inasmuch that you aren't my father after all. I wonder who it is? Shot info 01:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USENET agrees? I don't even want to know what that means. Has Ilena finally figured out we're both aliens? --Ronz 02:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try google groups. Apparently now I'm User:pbowditch. Bit of a change given that the (lack of) "evidence" conclusively proved that I was a blood relative of you...sorry Barrett. But I'm one of the Ragtag Posse or whatever that site you pointed me to was. BTW, Ilena gives some of her favorite editors a mention...I missed out :-( [[5]] in the blue about halfway down. Shot info 12:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief. I was afraid she figured out were are both Illuminati. --Ronz 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I just noticed that the "evidence" now has also changed (waves to reader) to include USENET. Prehaps I should point out it's google groups :-) O well, they have been incorrect a few times now, I wonder how many more times they are prepared to do that? Shot info 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As many times as they're allowed, it seems. How else will they keep their conspiracy theories alive? --Ronz 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ssshhhh! Be very, very careful about mentions of our connections with the Ill.m.n.t.[6]. (There are people here who have no sense of humor.) -- Fyslee (collaborate) 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your helpful comments on User_Talk:Djbwiki about notability and conflict of interest. Please see my response in Talk:Daniel J. Barrett. Djbwiki 06:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could be of help. --Ronz 14:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I've indefblocked her, becasuse I was tired of it too. She created an attack page today to try to out another editor. The ArbCom is voting to ban her for a year, so I may have to reduce it, but either way, I think she's gone for some time. It was getting too much. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement about spam warnings

How can you say it is spam? It is an informational site about office ergonomics, including "office chairs". Considering the site already has links from reputable sites including educational sites, the official google blog "safe ergonomics", the official google doctor blog which is on on safe computing and so on. I do not own the site, so how do I benefit from adding links to it? Why don't you take a look at who else is linking to it before you go ahead and remove it. I thought this was an editable encyclopedia where anyone could add useful information? I guess you must be all knowing when it comes to what is useful and what isn't.

I guess the three links below must have just come from people spamming again? Or maybe you are too quick to remove things in fear of it being spam. Well the title speaks for itself "Safe Computing Tips" Have a good day Ronz.

googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/avoiding-rsi.html eeshop.unl.edu/rsi.html http://dr-razavi.blogspot.com/2006/04/ergonomics-obeying-natural-laws-of.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.179.148.22 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've been very clear with my rationale in removing the links and explaining why I consider them spam. Who links to the site is unimportant, especially if there are people actively promoting linking to the site, as you appear to be doing, and doing nothing else I might add. This is the first time you made any attempt to explain why you've repeately been adding this external link to articles, and it ignores the basic policies that apply of which you've been notified three times now: WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#DIR. --Ronz 16:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Feldman Barrett secondary sources

I have added some secondary source info to Talk:Lisa_Feldman_Barrett. Thanks for your help and wiki advice. Djbwiki 13:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus another update today, showing 600-700 scientific citations of her work. Is that notable enough to remove the "prod"? Djbwiki 02:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Over IP

I added the link to dingotel because I thought it contributed to the article. The subject was used of voip and radio. The dingotel service is a method which uses voip to connect radios. The link provided did not do anything other than explain an implementation of the concept. It is not spam and was not intended to be. I have no link to dingotel other than I found it when I was researching uses of voip and radio for non hams. Rearden9 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but in both cases the links are inappropriate. --Ronz 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am afraid we have a difference in interpretation. Rearden9 21:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The issue isn't if you have any coi or relationship to dingotel (though such circumstances would make the situation worse). --Ronz 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a mediator is not necessary from my side. I do not wish to get into a conflict over this. It is not my hill to die on. Rearden9 19:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bosnian pyramid

Hi Ronz, thank you very much for the welcome. I just wanted to ask you a question about the policy concerning the external links in the page about the bosnian pyramids. You removed the link I have put there, saying that it is a blog by a "non-notable author". Well do I understand the need for reliable sources, but I thought that the fact that the article itself is based on reliable sources, and provide reliable documents like geological maps, could do; and I see that there is a certain number of anonymous blogs mentioned in the links on the bosnian pyramid page. So I am not sure what the policy really is, and I would not like to make mistakes again. Thank you for your explanations - and sorry for the bad english ! Ilinka Z 23:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a good argument for including the link. Repeat it on the talk page, then add the link back with an edit summary that mentions the discussion ("see talk"). As for the current links, I might be wrong, but I think all the blog currently listed in the article are by authorities and those blogs are used by references by very good sources. --Ronz 04:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your comments above, minus the greeting, to the talk page. --Ronz 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the answer. I see tonight that there is another text in english, an "open letter from the Bosnian scientific community to M. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, High Representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina". I think it could be interesting ?Ilinka Z 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I can't find any other copies of this letter to confirm that it's genuine. Any idea where it came from? --Ronz 19:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that : [[7]], [[8]] and [[9]]. It seems to me that the original texte in bosnian is this one : [[10]]

at the least it also talks of the pyramids and M. Schwartz-Schilling, and it is the same pictures that in the pdf. PS : I think it is interesting that I copy that on the pyramid discussion page.Ilinka Z 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MIFID

Hi Ronz,

Just wanted to understand your perspective on why do you think Wipro's or Tibco's content is not considered Spam, and why do you think Patni's content is considered one.

Can you share your insights?

Regards, Srik 203.124.139.195 06:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my comments on the discussion page are self-explanatory. You could easily make a good argument for removing the others you're suggesting, though because this is a current event, it's probably justified leaving some analysis from a consulting firm until someone provides links that don't have such coi and spam problems. --Ronz 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Strategy

Hi Ronz. With regards to the 'digital strategy' article. Can you please hold off on removing any COI edits until 3/13? The messages you left indicated 3/13 was the deadline. They did not mention anything about 'having enough time' would be defined as 3/12. I am actively working on this article and would appreciate the full time allowed. Thanks again. --Zyaar 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have the full time allowed. I'm addressing the issues that need to be but you're unfamiliar with. Sorry that you're having to learn a great deal about wiki policies and guidelines in a very short time. If you can focus on the notability issues, I'll try to address the other issues that might otherwise get the article deleted. --Ronz 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ron, thanks for the response. One question I have for you, with regards to the Role of personas in digital strategy section. I noticed you removed it due to COI. My question is... why throw the baby out with the bathwater, if you believe I have COI (which I disagree, but I certainly understand your position on this), fine, feel free to remove the footnote I included to my book. But I included two other sources from Forrester which back up the ascertions in the paragraph (i.e. this is something real, it's something notable). I'm not going to put the paragraph back in, but I would like to, at least understand, what Wiki policies this is violating (again, assuming you chose to remove the entire paragraph versus just removing the footnote to my book). Thanks again.--Zyaar 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think these are serious issues that could cause the article to be deleted. You're an author of the book, and you used that book as the sole source for the section. Now you've provided additional sources for that section, though you've not changed the section in any other way, and these sources have not been verified by anyone yet. Additionally, there are problems verifying the sources you've provided so far. As the article stands, the coi issues are pretty minor and we can focus on the notability issues. You might try getting other's involved with the article or just helping you out as a new editor. Black Falcon made a helpful comment on the talk page, so he would be someone to ask for another opinion. --Ronz 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points all of them. Two questions for you. Given the links I've added to the references. First, where do you think we stand now with regards to the article? Second, with regards to the comment about Black Falcon, can you provide some help as to how to ask him specifically? Should I just leave a message on his talk page?--Zyaar 01:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, leave a message on Black Falcon's talk page. As for the rest, I'd really like to have other editors take a look. --Ronz 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks :-) AvB ÷ talk 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I just want to thank you for you help and information you are giving me on Quackwatch. You have been very helpful. Thanks again, --Crohnie 11:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, please go here (garlic)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Garlic#Recent_Edits_of_.22Medicinal_Use.22_Section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan2012 (talk • contribs)

RFCN Poweroid

Please see my comments at Athaenara's talk page, and at the submission at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. (I can't make a link to the submission - do a find for 'poweroid') I could only spend a couple hours or so checking this out, but the couple edits I looked at in depth made me very worried about the progression of events here. Please add your comments to help me understand better. Shenme 07:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at User talk:Athaenara. --Ronz 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTQ external link spamming

Thanks for deleting some of JVLock's link spamming effort of that business trends website. I went ahead & deleted every mention of the site on every entry he added it to. Edited to add: take a look at the "Contact Us" page on that website: JvLock, the name of the user spamming the link, is the email address name of the Business Development guy. Interesting... Christian B 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He went back and reinserted them after I have him the warning, without acknowledging anything. He really likes those links. He's not going to be around much longer if he continues. --Ronz 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at [11]. Analysts In Media, Inc. is the publisher of Business Trends Quarterly. --Ronz 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where to find the time...

is the problem for me. The minor expostulation there took me over two hours to do, checking and rechecking (English if nothing else). I like to understand the background, before making statements that might hurt people. That one took quite awhile too, and summarizes so small. (sigh) And that's why I put the caveats before at RFC/N, that I'd only checked some places, and appearances seemed contrary. I know what I'd like to do, I just don't know that I can spend the time doing it. I'm sorry, I can't make any promises.... :( Shenme 06:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Not a problem if you dont have the time. --Ronz 14:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Sally Kirkland

I am still learning but would you please check out the article for me about external links? Thanks, --Crohnie 13:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

I appreciate what you're doing by refactoring some uncivil comments at Talk:Garlic, but could I ask a favor? It might be best to leave a placeholder, like "[incivility redacted]" or "[personal attack removed]" - because if you remove one editor's attacks, then sometimes it seems that another party is overreacting, without the context. Just a thought. MastCell ^Talk 01:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually leave something to indicate what I've done, but I think this is an exceptional case. Theeditor has repeatedly ignored efforts to address the issues, but instead responds with more incivility. Further, after over a week of waiting for mediation, it appears it will not happen any time soon. --Ronz 03:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Info

Please provide your full contact information so we can send you relevant information to end the repeated editing out of our entries. BSAU 02:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. We will follow Wiki guidelines and policies. Asking for my personal contact information is inappropriate. --Ronz 03:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. Fyslee (talk · contribs) is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks. You're so right. You wouldn't believe how neutral it looked when I wrote it though. :-D AvB ÷ talk 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Club

Just found this while googling, [[12]] Shot info 01:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial design

Ronz,

I was merely cleaning up a mess that I noticed regarding the Schools of Industrial Design that someone posted in the "canadian" section... the external link is not needed, however the link then to carlton University should be examined too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.5.213 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the section is a mess The Carlton link is an internal link, so WP:EL doesn't apply. I'm hoping some other editors will give their perspective on what to do with the section. --Ronz 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Disagreement about spam warnings

Inappropriate external links These were not, I was adding real links that if you looked these where free infomation links that help people, But like that will make any change to your thoughts, as adding links like (links removed)

I wouldnt mind if it was some sort of porn site I was adding and others, BUT it or they are not, this is just another site that is like dmoz.org that allows some crap stuff in and then not good stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.198.184 (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, but you have two editors that disagree with you. The two links above are no better than what you added. Please review WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Ronz 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Technique

Hi, I categorised your revert in the Alexander Technique article as dodgy because it rolled back not one but twelve edits, including many that were helpful. I did not know your motives — which, judging by your indignation, must indeed have been honourable — but the outcome was clear: damage to the project with an innocuous-seeming edit summary, a wolf in sheep's clothing. My edit summary was not so much a criticism as a note to the effect that there had been an inaccuracy in an edit, and that I had repaired it.

We obviously have the same aims here — advancement of the sphere of human knowledge, that sort of thing. Let us not lose sight of this fact :-) --pmj 09:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also true of this revert: I'm sure you were well-meaning in removing the section (it's unreferenced, therefore doesn't fully meet encyclopedic standards); however, it's best to discuss these types of things on the talk page. Anyway, thanks for the guardian position you seem to have taken on the page—I doubt it'd be as good an article without a bit of debate. ;) --CA387 06:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stopping anyone from discussing it. It just appears to be a waste of time to do so. --Ronz 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Talk:Stephen_Barrett

Your point is well-taken and I tried to clarify my point on that talk page. Regards.RalphLender^talk 17:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of portable software

Hi!

A quick note to say thanks for the changes to List of portable software - it certainly needs some attention!

Two thoughts though; wouldn't it have been better to leave the external links in for those systems which don't have a Wikipedia entry? I would have said it would reduce value to readers if they just have the name of the application, with no other information to go on (i.e. some means of finding out more; typing the name of the software into something like Google would produce a lot of irrelevant hits due to the use of pretty generic names for some of the packages)

I think the main problem with this page is that there's a lot of software listed on it which isn't actually portable - many of the applications have to be installed on a PC and then copied over to a USB drive - at which point it's claimed that they're "portable" (e.g. not that long ago, someone added "World of Warcraft", on the basis that if you installed it, copied all the files from the installation directory onto a removable drive and applied a software crack to it, it would work "portably"!) Nuwewsco 23:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, the links don't belong per WP:NOT#LINK. This is an encyclopedia, not a reference as to where to get portable software.

I agree that the list shouldn't include non-portable software, but that's only going to be possible if the definition of portable is agreed upon and isn't changed. --Ronz 23:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett - "zealous advocate" again

Actually I (slightly) prefer the current version as edited by I'clast, since this is supposed to say something about Barrett. The rest can be found in the linked King Bio article. I suppose the current version could be called worse from Barrett's POV but I believe it is much closer to the sources. (FWIW, I also believe the entire para needs to go since it's WP:SYN and arguably OR. But I'm not about to delete it...) AvB ÷ talk 17:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than not making explicit that Barrett's on the board, I like it also. I'll give it a try then. --Ronz 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an improvement to me :-) AvB ÷ talk 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree that eventually the section should at least be considered for removal because of SYN and NOR, but given how long it's taking just to discuss the certification povpush, I'm not holding my breath. --Ronz 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly... AvB ÷ talk 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just a quick thanks for your assistance. Nposs 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help

As we are new to Wikipedia, we violated fundamental rules and are now digging our way out of the hole we created for ourselves. Your posting of pertinent links to Wikipedia policy will help us recover. Thanks for your help. --Save OU Sports 15:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports[reply]

Glad I could help. --Ronz 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link controversy

I restored relevant links that you had removed from the Health freedom movement article. I did not spam and the links were well integrated in the article text. The article is far from a “mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files”. I get the impression (from reading on this Talk Page) that you are interpreting the EL policy in an unnecessary strict way that makes the articles less useful for the readers. MaxPont 16:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this problem is minor and easily settled, but I think it would be easiest with some outside help. --Ronz 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

Please avoid making this kind of edit. It makes for big trouble, much worse than leaving it in. These are not personal attacks of the sort you are encouraged to remove. They do not rise to that level. Fred Bauder 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Give me some alternatives, some better guidelines, or examples of how to handle this type of harrassment. Reports to WQA, AN/I, etc go without response. Perhaps it's time for me to leave Wikipedia altogether if WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:HAR, etc. are just words. --Ronz 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional examples: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]I agree with Fred Bauder on this. You went far beyond what is acceptable for removing personal attacks. If the personal attacks are so severe that you need to make that many edits then you should be seeking other redress. Editing the comments of others is not appropriate. Making a reasonable complaint about your editing behavior does not constitute a personal attack. -Will Beback · † · 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm wasting my time

But I'm really tired of the harassment and editwarring that certain editors feel that they can get away with. I've said it before, and I'll say it again now, I don't know how to deal with them and I find it very troubling that few appear to be dealing with it at all.

There was discussion of article probation in the Ilena/Fyslee Arbitration. Has such a thing been done before? I'd like to learn what it means, and what's happened when it's been tried.

Also, if you didnt already notice, I disagree with your observations, but that's really only a trivial part of my reply [20]. --Ronz 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was, and remain, very frustrated when I attempt to edit disputed articles. We did not use article probation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. It was used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education but had to be re-opened and editing restricted. Essentially it is a warning that continued editwarring will result in editing restrictions. Fred Bauder 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Stephen Barrett

Hi Ronz, being a new editor I hope it's ok to ask you about your comment on Stephen Barrett talk page about talking in circles still. I suggested adding the little bit saying "and he was not board certified" to the end of the sentence. Do you think that just this little bit is still breaking with policy of Wikipedia and the discussions that have been on going on the talk page? I am still learning the rules here and some of them are at times very confusing to me so I am hoping to understand your thoughts on this so I can learn and if I am in error, make the correction appropriate. I thought this was a way to stop the feuding and compromise without any negatives falling into the article like the wanting of some to add that Dr. Barrett didn't pass his test and so forth. Would you please be kind enough to try to explain why you still think my suggestion is talking is circles? I would really appreciate hearing your input on this and I could learn some more hopefully. My learning curve is real slow so I stick pretty much to talk pages with ideas and wait for what the group on the page has to say. I have only edited something into an article two or three times so bold I am not! :) Again, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. Happy Holidays! --Crohnie 21:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned to you before, these aren't the types of articles that I recommend anyone use to learn about editing in wikipedia. You're in the middle of a point of view push that has been going on for years.

That said, I don't think you're talking in circles, only that you're compromising on policy. I'd have to go in circles to respond to what's been said, because most of what has been said is just repetition, and none of it is actually addressing the concerns that I feel are most important.

My solution to these problems, one that's usually ignored, is to look at what's been done in other articles. Try to find articles that are similar and see what other editors have done to address the situation. --Ronz 00:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 307: / Line 307: @@
 Please avoid making [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coconut_oil&diff=next&oldid=120905050 this kind of edit]. It makes for big trouble, much worse than leaving it in. These are not personal attacks of the sort you are encouraged to remove. They do not rise to that level. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 :I disagree.  Give me some alternatives, some better guidelines, or examples of how to handle this type of harrassment.  Reports to WQA, AN/I, etc go without response.  Perhaps it's time for me to leave Wikipedia altogether if [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:HAR]], etc. are just words. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
+::Additional examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coconut_oil&diff=120882244&oldid=120881653][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coconut_oil&diff=120982085&oldid=120962255][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coconut_oil&diff=121203820&oldid=121187713][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coconut_oil&diff=121204462&oldid=121203820][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coconut_oil&diff=121204772&oldid=121204462][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coconut_oil&diff=121207024&oldid=121206614][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coconut_oil&diff=121208305&oldid=121207024]I agree with Fred Bauder on this. You went far beyond what is acceptable for removing personal attacks. If the personal attacks are so severe that you need to make that many edits then you should be seeking other redress. Editing the comments of others is not appropriate. Making a reasonable complaint about your editing behavior does not constitute a personal attack. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 ===Perhaps I'm wasting my time===