User talk:Ronz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ronz is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. If all goes well, he will probably be back a lot earlier while making some small edits every once in a while anyway.

Contents 1 desk-trainer.com page 1.1 Wikistalking/interference 2 linkspam? 3 Linkfarming on White_Pages 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterStJohn#Please_consider_refactoring 5 Brevity 6 External links in guitarist articles 7 Notification 8 Coral Calcium (Consensus and Policy) 9 Regarding Open Menu+ 10 Got your message and......... 11 AfD nomination of List of outsourcing companies 12 Linkfarming on "Digital Asset Management" 13 Deleted Link 14 Ingredients or remedies? 15 Here we go again... 16 Bosnia Pyramids wiki page 17 Kosovo and NPOV 18 Link removal 19 Thanks 20 Just a note... 21 Corporate Branding 22 Bristolian 23 Let him go 24 Bates method 25 Wikipedia:PROMINENCE 26 Zachman Framework 27 Sovereign Deed 28 Linking 29 Your Edits and Revisions 30 Enterprise Architecture and Zachman Framework Links 31 Linkspam 32 Your editing of links 33 Zachman Framework 34 Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architect, Zachman Framework, and John Zachman 35 Enterprise Architect Wikipedia Page 36 Enterprise Architecture 37 John Zachman Link 38 Your last note 39 Additional dialogue 40 Your additional Note 41 Role of Ronz 42 spam not addressed 43 Advertisment 44 Why did you move the related reading? 45 Another administrator just left 46 External links on osteopathic medicine page 47 Comment 48 Chirotalk revert 49 In re third opinion listing 50 external links 51 Defender of the Wiki Barnstar 52 The mess that is Quackwatch 52.1 The return of pseudoskepticism 52.1.1 What should have happened 53 Question 54 External links and spam 55 Another retirement 56 papier mache floats...what was so wrong? 57 Suggestions 58 Personal trainer 59 Lean Accounting 60 CONFLICT OF INTERST 61 Sparx link 62 thanks u left msg despitr being busy! im busy too and this page means more to me than you. ican substanciate what i write. 63 Enterprise architect 64 SPAM? 65 Che Guevara 66 Ben stevens) 67 Bosnian Pyramid Project 68 notification 69 Zachman Framework - small rewrite - please consider notability and NPOV tags 70 Newmatilda.com page 71 Enterprise architecture 72 ANI 73 Spot vs Editor5435 74 Vertebral Stapling 75 "Fuzzy control" resource 76 Scoliosis 77 Spot 78 TMMI 79 Editor5435 & Spot ANI 80 PowerBeam 81 Potential rewrite of WP:SELFPUB 82 A request about a link ... 83 RFC/U 84 Depression and natural therapies 85 CMMI 86 WikiDraw 87 Bosniaks 88 How to handle WP:V WP:RS on Fractal Compression 89 discussion page Bates method natural vision improvement article. 90 Linkspam: number of pages? 91 Sandra Lee 92 Your Edit on the Invention page 93 Cabal case header change discussion page bates method 94 Sandra Lee (cook) 95 notice update 96 Bates Method and Civility 97 Deleting large portions of Edward de Bono 98 Hey Ronz! 99 I like your opinion here if you would 100 Would you check this out for me? 101 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus 102 RE: Assuming good faith 103 About mediation 104 could you please do me a favor? 105 FYI 106 Take a peek 107 Proposed deletion of Warren Patrick Casey

[edit] desk-trainer.com page

Hi Ronz, I don't have a lot of time to spend on Wikipedia, but I see you have accused me of vandalism, and I want to let you know that is certainly not the intent. I am a web designer and spend all day on the computer and I was having wrist pains, so I started to research carpal tunnel syndrome and solutions. I started on Wikipedia and then expanded from there. I happened across this desk-trainer.com site and did some of their exercises and it really helped a lot. Then I signed up and did more and my wrist pain went away. So, I thought I would like to share this and tried to write a company profile like I see so many other companies have on the Wikipedia site. If my tone and style was not that good, it was mainly because I am not associated with that company except as a fan, so I don't have all the background and stuff.

Now, they have a new site called carpaltunnelinformation.com which offers free exercises and I think this is WAY better than the Workrave software you guys list on the carpal tunnel syndrome information page on Wikipedia. I would like to add carpaltunnelinformation.com as a link or a reference or something because it is totally free and in my experience way better than Workrave on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpal_tunnel_syndrome, but I would imagine you will just flame me again.

I thought the idea of Wikipedia was the collective shared knowledge of the community, and I did do a little research besides my own experience - which is why I wrote the piece about the company. Then I found out that the exercises were created by this woman who has a really detailed site www.anatbanielmethod.com that explains the validity of the method - which is itself an outgrowth of the Feldenkrais Method which is also listed in Wikipedia. So, it certainly seems legit to me. I don't have forever to spend on this, but I thought I would make one more communication about it because it seems to me a lot of people could benefit from trying these free exercises, and I can't see any downside.

Am I missing something? Anyway, thanks for listening. VFRKen Chico, CA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vfrken (talk • contribs) 10:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain in detail on your talk page. It looks like I have you a uw-v2 warning when I meant a uw-s2. Both are vandalism warnings, but the s2 is specific to spamming, which you had already been warned about and you've repeatedly done after being warned and after your previous edits had been removed as spam. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Hey, thanks for all the feedback. Believe it or not, I did spend a fair amount of time trying to read up on how to use the system before I posted anything, but as you well know, this is an amazingly complex set of rules and procedures to the newbie. If you have a chance to respond, I guess my question would be, is there no way to share this info that I found so helpful and valuable unless it is in some kind of research report? I keep seeing the link to the Workrave software on the Carpal tunnel syndrome page as an example... And it is a really basic little thing that maybe is of some help, but I have had a much better experience with these free exercises at that other site carpaltunnelinformation.com and I thought the idea was that if it was posted other people would be able to check it out and perhaps someone else would have more time to research it further and contribute to it. For example, I did do a bit more research on the desk-trainer.com site and it is based on the work of anatbanielmethod.com and her site is loaded with info, videos, testimonials from MD's, etc. So, I was hoping some of her practitioners would be able to flesh out the content on that desk-trainer page because I don't have the time or the knowledge to do all that. My idea was to try to start the dialog because I am actually an engineer by training - and skeptical by nature - but I did enough research to convince myself there was some real legit science behind these things. But, I also have to make a living which means I am unable to spend too much time trying to share something I thought was a good thing. So, that was a really long question... which condenses to... is there any "approved" way to share a resource like the free exercises page which I think has the potential to help a lot of folks? Thanks for your time.vfrken, chico, ca (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, Wikipedia can be quite complicated. I'm glad you're willing to hang on despite all that you've encountered so far.

IMHO, the best way is to start a discussion on a single article talk page, then work from there. You've contributed most to Carpal tunnel syndrome‎, so Talk:Carpal tunnel syndrome would be a good place to start. You'll see that there is a great deal of discussion there already, and you might want to at least skim it before you start discussing your concerns. It looks like a well-managed article, judging by the to-do list. --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking/interference

Please note my comment on the Vfrken main page. Anthon01 (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I moved it to the appropriate page. Please stop wikistalking me. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded, pointing out that you are mistaken. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ronz, how about we collaborate here? I was trying to be helpful. From what I could gather this editor never received a welcome message. The history of his talk page shows a rebuke by you without a welcome message. Please consider WP:BITE in dealing with newcomers. A review of Vfrken edits shows that he is a new editor whose very first talk page contacts were rebukes with minimal help. For all we know this editor may become a regular editor to WP. I think he should have been treated with more tolerance as per WP:BITE.

From wikistalking: If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter." This is not what I intended. Please consider AGF. Anthon01 (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop harassing me.

You are wrong. Here's a lesson for you:

The editor was given an appropriate warning for the creation of the now deleted article. There was no biting involved, though the editor could have chosen a Level 1 warning instead of a Level 2. That warning was given 09:13, 20 February 2007. I didn't give the warning. Perhaps you should take your complaints to the editor involved?

I gave this editor a further warning for repeating the same inappropriate behavior on 18:21, 16 November 2007. The warning I gave him is written specifically for this purpose. I accidentally gave a uw-v2 rather than a uw-s2, but both are for repeat violators. I've corrected the warning prior to your involvement.

Your involvement in this situation is harassment, pure and simple. You stalked me when you were uninvolved, and named me, ignoring the other editor completely. Further, you escalated the situation by introducing WP:BITE while ignoring my offer to find an appropriate venue for discussion of the situation.

Please stop the harassment. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if this offended you. I am only trying to help here. Where and when did you make this offer to find a more appropriate venue? Anthon01 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please demonstrate you're actually trying to help by taking some proper action. Refactoring would be a good start. Rereading what I wrote that you already responded to will answer your question. --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What this appears to have been is a simple mistake on Ronz's part, having accidentally used uw-v2 instead of uw-s2. However, when a user is attempting to assist in a situation, it is best to assume good faith, instead of assuming that they're stalking you. Anthon01 appears to be trying to help, and is trying to make sure we didn't bite a newcomer. Stalking and harassment pertains to things such as persistantly reverting another user's edits, leaving unfriendly remarks on another user talk page, or things of that effect. Instead of telling a user to stop wikistalking you, it is more civil to politely ask them why they did what they did. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. Anthon01 had no business contributing there, and I'm in multiple current discussions with him about his harassing. He named me specifically, when it was the other editor who, if anyone, made a very minor mistake. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He didn't appear to have made a personal attack against you, and using your name in something that actually appears to be in defence of you isn't a violation of WP:TALK. I suggest you both just relax and work on articles, this conflict isn't helping anything. The newcomer knows it was only a mistake, he knows better than to add promotional information to Wikipedia now, and the problem was resolved. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. --Ronz (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really saying you're wrong, I'm saying you should both drop it. The conflict you're in is due to a misunderstanding, a couple of mistakes, and is rooted in alleged incivility. I honestly think that, regardless of whoever started this debate, conflict will help nothing, and in the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong. The problem itself was that a new user may have felt bitten - he no longer feels that way and is now ready to start editing constructively. You both should just steer clear of each other and edit. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. See User:Ronz. Anthon01 is working his way to a block as a disruptive editor. I have, and will continue to point out when and how he's doing so when he disrupts articles I'm working on. You're asking me to steer clear of him when he's actively wikistalking me?!? Bullshit! --Ronz (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should assume good faith. His ultimate intention was to help a newcomer, and he likely did not try to make you look like the person who did wrong. I'm sure he wasn't trying to harass you. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean I ignore what someone has done. I'm tiring of your ignoring the facts, and focusing on me. Please drop it. You're bordering on harassing yourself, by repeating your arguments while ignoring mine. --Ronz (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not focusing specifically on you, and I am sorry if it feels that way. I've left notes on his talk page as well, telling him to try and avoid interaction with you for a while. The issue appears to be resolving itself anyways, hopefully. It's unlikely he'll bother you again. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please question whether you're assuming bad faith on my part before responding further. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith with you, I think you made a mistake. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Lots of mistakes all around, most being ignored. The choices on which to follow up upon are telling, hence my asking you to question whether you're assuming bad faith. --Ronz (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! [1] I didn't accuse you of assuming bad faith, but asked you to think about it. I think you're trying to help, but are focusing on the individuals rather than on the actual discussions. --Ronz (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] linkspam?

Hi -- I noticed that you removed my link to northxsouth.com from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Outsourcing_Companies

And the reason you gave was "linkspam, not notable" ... can you explain to me what that means? Isn't that table a list of outsourcing companies and isn't what I added a legit outsourcing company? So why would it be removed?

Thank you for your attention, Ryan Bagueros

Addendum - I noticed that you took away a lot of my additions! And I really don't get it, why aren't these legitimate additions to wikipedia that I've made? I look forward to your response -- I'll be the first to admit that I am a total beginner with adding/editing to wikipedia but I use it a lot and I don't understand what's wrong with my contributions. Ryanbagueros (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanbagueros (talk • contribs) 02:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll reply on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I'm confused by two things. First, you indicated that you removed the company from the list because the list criteria includes having an article already on Wikipedia. However, that criteria wasn't there when I added the link. You added that criteria and then removed my link.

Second, there are a number of companies on that list that do not have an article already on Wikipedia, yet you didn't remove those.

I believe what I added is valid. Can you clear this up?

Addendum - I've gone through and read everything about what "LinkSpam" is on Wikipedia and I still believe the external link I added is valid. The page is a table of external links to outsourcing companies -- so it'll be difficult to maintain such a list without outward-bound links to commercial entities. I would like to add the link back in as I believe it meets the appropriate criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanbagueros (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanbagueros (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's standard inclusion criteria. See WP:LIST.

I removed two entries, then described why. Sorry that I didn't remove all the others. I've done that now.

I think it would be best to discuss the rest on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linkfarming on White_Pages

Thanks for your feedback on my talk page, and for adding the linkfarm tag to White_Pages - didn't know that was available. I'm kinda inexperienced on Wikipedia. Question: you suggested "stubbing" the article to end the edit warring, which I'd like to do. Any good examples you'd recommend? Thanks --Plausible_deniability (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to do it myself. Stubbing means to trim back an article to a WP:STUB, including adding Template:Stub. In the case of White Pages I'm suggesting that all the external links be removed, which would just leave the few sentences before the "By country section". The categories and foreign language links should be kept also.

Let's give it another 24 hours to see if any of the other editors respond. I'm going to copy some of this to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterStJohn#Please_consider_refactoring

Hi, I am trying to help get the two of you to be able to work together since both of you work on some of the same articles, well at least [2]. I think both of you need to work this out or at least come to some sort of peace so that editing together along with the others is doable. I hope I haven't over stepped myself on this. Please understand though that all I am trying to do is find a way for peace between the two of you since I believe you both have the same objectives, making the article a good one and within Wikipedia policies. If you want me to step out of this, just let me know (either on my talk page or via email) and there will be no hard feeling or anything. I just remember how patient and helpful you have been towards me and so I am just trying to help. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to work it out too. I welcome the help. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears he'd rather use the situation as an excuse to make further inappropriate remarks. --Ronz (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry what did I miss? I was working most of yesterday on Crohn's disease. I'm trying to make the article more readable to the average person and not so medical. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I found it and I left a message for all of you on Anthon's page. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brevity

I've been enjoying some of your very brief (but effective) comments in contested areas. It would be good if I could learn from them. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a useful skill for content discussions, but most find it annoying when a more personal tone is expected. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links in guitarist articles

Hey, just wondering why you reverted the editor who added external links to several Gibson and Epiphone articles. The links are to the official product pages of the manufacturers. I would not consider that "spamming". I request that you revert yourself on those articles. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor that added then added those links has made no other contributions to Wikipedia, fitting Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. Restore any you feel are appropriate for the article per WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, official product pages rarely meet WP:EL and WP:SPAM, as they are usually too promotional and have little if any useful information than that already in the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case you are incorrect. We generally keep excessively technical information off guitar articles for the very reason that gearheads can follow the external link to the manufacturer's page if they want details. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, it was spammed, so there should be absolutely no problem whatsoever with my removing them. Like I said, add back any you feel meet WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification

As per Wikiquette guidelines, this alert. Pete St.John (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That was my next step. You've saved me the work. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• as per Seicer &c, this RfC. Pete St.John (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, you're ignoring the most important advice you were given from the WQA entry. You really should read WP:DR carefully, and seek some advice on how to follow it. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coral Calcium (Consensus and Policy)

Hello fellow Wikipedian and Wikiproject member. The proposed Wikiproject: CCE (Commission for Collaborative Editing)[3] has received a request to review consensus and policy issues on coral calcium and talk:coral calcium. This notice is to inform you that coral calcium is now an active case for the CCE.

The purpose of this message is to:

1. Request your input in discussion, which may be necessary to establish satisfactory consensus while this case remains active.
2. Request background information on this case.
3. Notify you that there may be serious consensus and policy issues with this article.
4. Notify you that the CCE may be engaged in significant edits to this article over the next few weeks.

As a side-note, the CCE would like to invite you to join our ranks, I have reviewed your edits and feel that you would be a good candidate to provide On-Call editor services for us. Thank you for your time. --BETA 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Open Menu+

Why is Open Menu+ not notable? Brendenlong (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:List_of_portable_software#Unmaintainable_list --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Would it be possible to make an Open Menu+ article? Brendenlong (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, but think about WP:N as you do. If it's not notable, it will likely be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Got your message and.........

I am very calm and collected on things that I spoke of with Anthon and Antelan. I do have a couple of others backing me up right now. Here is what I posted; [4] and [5] plus this conversation.

I also find the following two threads on Anthon's page disturbing too. This one, [6] I was asked to go to this article and read it and catch up on the talk page because apparently there is a lot of controversy going on and my understanding is that there are quite a few trying to get other editors blocked or banned. I haven't gotten to it yet but I will. Then there is the next thread [7] I hope you see what I am talking about and that I am calm about all of this. I do not like the lack of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Also go to my talk page and you will see a response from Antelan about my comments to her. I guess I am tired of all the bickering and the poking of a stick to try to provoke editors into misbehaving already. Avb retired too, did you know that? He got tired of it all too. I am trying to get a hold of him to see what happened. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am just acknowledging your messages to not get baited. I've also seen you post this at others pages and want to say this is excellent advice, esp. in the environment going on lately. You be careful too. To me it seems like a tag team mentality going on which isn't cool at all. Thanks though for the reminders, it never hurts to be reminded about things. You have been really good to me and I truly appreciate that.

On a different note, I spent two days in early December in the hospital on bowel rest. Boy what fun, NOT! I was dehydrated and had serious problems with blockages and other things. Then the past week in a half I have had the joy of seeing dentists, not my favorite place but still beats the hospital. I had some major work done do to my Crohn's not allowing my body to absorb what's needed. Anyways, in about two weeks I should at least have a wonderful smile again! If you get a chance, would you check out the Crohn's disease article to make sure it's being done properly like external links, the lead, etc? I would appreciate it. I have been working on this article as much as my body is allowing and I am quite pleased with how it is turning out with the help of others. It's nice to be working with a few editors and no controversy to be seen! Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the baiting will run out it's course as long as editors are willing to help each other out when it occurs.

Glad you're getting some good care. I really admire your positive outlook.

Looks like I just stumbled on a spam/coi/advertising situation that included Crohn's disease. A. B. tracked it down and cleaned it up. I'll look at the article more carefully when I have a chance. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of outsourcing companies

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of outsourcing companies, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of outsourcing companies. Thank you. User A1 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linkfarming on "Digital Asset Management"

Hi

I'm curious as to why you keep removing references to Picdar's Media Mogul DAM system from the Digital Asset Management page? The reason you give is that it is 'non-notable', however the only grounds I can see for that is that the system is not well known in the US. Given the international audience of the Wikipedia and Media Mogul's success outside of the that country, I feel its inclusion in the list of DAM systems is justified. As a fully fledged enterprise-scale DAM system, Media Mogul is certainly eligible to be on any page concerned with DAM, but as one of the few systems not originating from the US its presence adds balance to the entry.

If these are not sufficient grounds, can I suggest that the Digital Asset Management page either be re-edited to talk about DAM in the abstract with no providers cited (I would propose a separate page of DAM System Providers, where issues of who is, or isn't, a 'notable' provider of DAM software can be resolved) or that the citations be changed to segregate US providers from European providers such as Celum, Picdar, and Digital Solutions (also absent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmartyn (talk • contribs) 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything has been explained. See WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LIST, Talk:Digital_asset_management#Providers_has_been_shruk_to_5_players_in_a_field_of_dozens. and Talk:Digital_asset_management#Article_was_mostly_lists_of_non-notable_entries. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Link

Please explain to me why the link I posted is spam and the others legitimate. I have read all guidelines and find your decision arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.113.88 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about it. Simply, your contributions to date, with the exception of the comment above, have been to add links to cioindex.com. See Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. Additionally, the links you've added are to pages that have a great deal promotional content while not being very strongly related to the topic of the article where you added them. See Wikipedia:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided.

I agree with you that many of the other links do not appear to be legitimate either, which is why I tagged the entire section for cleanup with the comment, "section needs cleanup per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK." --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ingredients or remedies?

I would prefer the article to be titled List of homeopathic remedies since the so-called "ingredients" are often not present. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Remedies sounds better. I've tried to find the official UK list without luck. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again...

The SPA is back. Shot info (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems this is an issue.

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Oct_2#http:.2F.2Fspam.bd5.com
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_18#User:Flybd5
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)/Archive_1#Stalking_and_Harassment

Gather all the spam, accounts and COI and open a Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users--Hu12 (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to help very much with this. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnia Pyramids wiki page

Hi, I see you have removed the self-promotional ad for http://www.bosnian-pyramid.com/ I would not be surprised if the people behind this start editing this heavily. They have already complained about the page being biassed (they are died in the wool Believers). The main guy behind it is Nenad Djurdjevic who calls himself Hyperborean on his forum.

http://www.european-pyramids.net/wb/pages/about-us/co-researcher.php?lang=EN

I know both Colette Dowell and Irna, and I have to say I'm not convinced that it makes sense to ban Irna's blog and keep Colette's. Irna's blog has some really good valuable stuff on it. For instance: http://irna.lautre.net/A-correspondence-with-Dr-Barakat.html This is a discussion she has just had with the Egyptian geologist Dr Barakat and I really think it should have a mention on the Bosnian Pyramids page, but since you've already objected to a link to her site before I'm a bit hesitant. But it is solid stuff -- she sent me the correspondence a few days ago and there is information in it that I don't think has been presented on the web before at all. And she presents all of what Dr. Barakat has to say and he leans towards Osmanagic, so I don't think you could say it is completely biassed

Please let me know if I can put a link to her. Thanks Doug —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As valuable Irna's blog is to those interested in the current goings on with this colossal hoax, it will require some discussion on the article talk page. In general, blogs are to be avoided, "except those written by a recognized authority." (WP:EL). --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your main references are blogs, articles and sites of the people who are against the pyramid project (and you dont show their names) just a nicks, vert pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.169.154 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 February 2008

As you can see, I'm arguing against them. Please point them out. --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo and NPOV

Would you please take a look at this edit? It comes across to me as poorly sourced and blatantly POV (especially the edits in the subsection Kosovo after the war. I've already reverted once, but I'm trying to avoid an edit war and would appreciate another set of eyes. Thanks! Dchall1 (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time to help right now. I see you're discussing the matter with the other editor, which is the best first step. You might want to try WP:EAR if you can't work things out. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link removal

Good morning/afternoon Ronz,

I recently linked to an an initative that I am heading up to educate members of the Web community and the general public regarding predictive analytics. I noticed that you and possibly one other that I'm not able to identify (possibly an alias) removed the lnk suggesting that its promotional in nature. I am writing to you beacuse I respectfully disagree. I've spent the last 10 years in education and this initative includes indpendent sooures, educational resoources of the highest caliber and is for non commercial purposes. If you can take a minute to share with me your thoughts I'd apprciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcullifer (talk • contribs) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the other editors are just others that thinks the links were inappropriate? Have you looked through WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:COI? You haven't given me enough information to determine when this occurred. Predictive analytics is regularly spammed with inappropriate links. Best if you join the discussion on the article talk page that I started almost a year ago. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For the encouragement. I decided to hold off on leaving, and kind and knowledgeable editors like you are a major reason why. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 11:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note...

Hi Ronz, I think you noticed that I have been trying to track retiring editors of late in my sandbox. [8] I just wanted to offer you to make any additions or changes in status to this if you are interested in doing so. If you do, just remember to sign it because the bot will get you. Apparently the way I have my sandbox set up, signatures are required. I find it most disturbing seeing so many leaving. I really am sad about Avb but not surprised to be honest, he was having problems with a few editors as I know you are aware of and he just got tired of it all. Anyways, I wanted to let you know you are more than welcomed to add your ideas and what you see if you are interested. I hope you are well. I will probably be going off line for awhile myself here, hopefully this week or next, we finally got approved on a place and will, woo hoo, be moving into our own place here soon. So, keep me updated if you would and you have time, I would appreciate it. I thank you for always being so patient and kind to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate Branding

Hi Ronz,

After having edited the corporate branding site, I have noticed that you have taken down all my amendments. Could you help me find out what I'm doing wrong? - I'm only trying to contribute to the article.

(Majken Schultz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.45.152 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please contribute to the discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bristolian

Hi Ronz, Thank you for the welcome messages, etc. I'd just like to say that I totally agree with you about neutral point of view. I'll do my best. Bristolian46 (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let him go

No point in encouraging him. Nice to see them over trying to alter NPOV, but heck, Wiki is basically doomed - time to leave it for the POV-pushers. Shot info (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No. He freely admits his behavior is problematic. --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What I still find incredible is the lengths they'll go to defend their inappropriate behavior. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the jungle. Baegis (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm far too familiar with it than I'd like, and I don't plan on staying long. The trolls like the attention, so for the most part I leave them alone. Every once in awhile you do have to call them out, despite all the mess they make in the process. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bates method

Hi there. Want to help me move Better Eyesight Magazine to a more neutral source? I've made a start. Famousdog (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the changes I was recommending, and noticed a wikibook version of the book is available, so no need for the google books link. Looks like a lot of cleanup and organizing could be done, and we're going to need some brakes on the trivia obviously. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:PROMINENCE

ScienceApologist has created this redirect to create the impression that the issue is prominence, and not undue weight. At Talk:Deadly nightshade and Talk:Rue, ScienceApologist uses redirects of his own making to change the sense of the Wikipedia policies and consensuses (sp?) to imply that the connections made to Homeopathy and/or related articles is not prominent. He has also stated that "plants are studied academically through the science of botany. This argument applies because it is about the plant and only uses of the plant that are prominent can be mentioned per WP:PROMINENCE." But his redirect goes to WP:UNDUE, which discusses presenting minority viewpoints in a way that puts them on an artificially equal plane as the more widely held view. It most certainly does not prohibit a mere mention of an associated term, even if that association is not scientific. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. His use of the redirect really has no bearing on if or why it should be deleted. Further, I think you're reading way too much into ScienceApologist's use of the link. I think a bit more good faith would go a long way here. --Ronz (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zachman Framework

Ronz

Thank you for your comments regarding the Zf.

We have a person who continuously is trying to use the wikipedia by changing the entry to promote his marketing company. ZIFA.com and now EACOE.com

We have tried to put general interest links to related material and clean up the commercial material especially the non existent Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement which is the marketing division of Pinnacle Business Group Inc.

The January 28 changes are a direct reflection of this issue.

Removing External References with the replacement by Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement is not right.

Can you give me some ideas on how to neutralize this material ?

There are many authoriative references and citations of this material and we are trying to move that body of knowledge and references forward.

Stan Locke Managing Director Zachman Framework Associates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaframe (talk • contribs) 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. I can start looking into the situation though. What editors and what articles? --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've found what you're talking about. Yes, I noticed this a while back. It looks a bit larger than I really have time for, but I'll start the work and get help if necessary. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereign Deed

Tis listing was inaccurately modified on January 31 where much of the content on the company was taken down, media criticism inaccurately characterized and links from non-credible sources where posted on the site. The accurate site should be restored as it was only there a few days ago. Please fix ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.67.235 (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linking

I am not sure why you are involved in Zachman related activities. John Zachman has two organizations that are the ONLY authorized sources for Zachman Framework Information. The two organizations are Zachman International, and the Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement. Please go to these sites, and you will see for yourself.

Therefore, these links should be encouraged, rather than inappropriately deleted. There is a tremendous amount of mis information about John Zachman, the Zachman Framework, and Enterprise Architecture. These links are an attempt to set the record straight.

What is your knowledge about John Zachman, the Zachman Framework, or Enterprise Architecture that would suggest your determination of the proper links are appopriate? We just do not know who you are?

Thank you for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockezachman (talk • contribs) 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Edits and Revisions

I am not sure who you are or what your expertise is, but I do not understand what you are doing with respect to Enterprise Architecture, and the Zachman Framework. The most notable, and experienced people in this area have two web sites, www.zachmaninternatinal.com and www.zifa.com. If you look at these web sites, you will see John Zachman on both sites. Either leave the links in place or erase them all - they should be left in place. I am not sure who is playing around, but, if you go to the web sites suggested, you can make your observations.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockezachman (talk • contribs) 00:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise Architecture and Zachman Framework Links

Ronz:

If you are going to leave one link, that is in appropriate. John Zachman is the Chairman of ZIFA (www.zifa.com) - just look at the site. He also runs his own consulting firm - Zachman international, which as the link www.zachmaninternational.com). This "link war", as you can see was started very recently - please do the tracing. This can be resolved easily by checking your recent history, as the zifa link has been there for years.

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockezachman (talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've written a report to get others involved, and linked to it from your talk page. Please read through WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI carefully. As I see it, none of the links should be in any of the articles, other than a single official page for the article John Zachman, if one exists. We'll see what others think. --Ronz (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

I'd like to know more about the linkspam removal procedure. For example, why did you remove this [9] edit here? If you don't mind me asking. BETA 04:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Help_with_Zachman_Framework-related_links.3F. --Ronz (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your editing of links

We have been watching your editing and tuning of links for the Wikipedia entries for Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architect and Zachman Framework.

Let me review the situation. I will start with Enterprise Architect and Enterprise Architecture. Both of these Wikipedia entries are written by SPARX Systems, a commercial vendor for Enterprise Architecture tools. All of the references and links (IBM, TOGAF, Open Group, etc.) are to commercial sites. These sites sell Enterprise Architecture services, tools, certification, and methodologies. The Zachman Framework link activity just started - within a few weeks. The Zachman International site sells cd-based books, and seminars. You can easily trace the source of this link episode and address the situation. If you are going to continue your edits, we hope that a clear understanding as to your process, will be provided. Today, you are choosing to selectively allow these sites mentioned above, and not others. I believe a consistent policy on your part is what is required.

Many people use Wikipedia as an "alternative" to Google or other sources. Who is complaining about these links? I hear only groans that valuable information and the ability to quickly get at valuable links is now missing.

Thank you,Lockezachman (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zachman Framework

Ron

Thank you for your work on cleaning up the ZF entry. I have been reading through the changes for the last week and staying out of the fray, preparing compliant WIKI content. However, I think you see what I meant by this scandleous behaviour !!

I now have a new problem in that someone has taken the userID of LockeZachman and is making these indescriminate changes to what you are doing and effectively impersonating not only me but Zachman.

This person is bound bent and determined to continue. Is there a way I can trace the IP address for the userID or request a password reset so I can gain control of this userid.

Thanks

Stan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaframe (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. While there is a way (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser), I don't think it applies in this situation. I'll keep an eye out best I can. At this point, I'm going to continue to assume this is just a minor misunderstanding. However, you might want to read through Wikipedia:U to decide if you think there is a problem with his username. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architect, Zachman Framework, and John Zachman

Ronz:

Unfortunately, you do not seem to have responded to any of my notes to you. We have tried to figure out what your issue is. You allow some commercial links and do not allow others. You allow SPARK systems, who sells Enterprise Architect tools to be prominently displayed but not others. Who besides yourself should we speak to, to get fairness in treatment.

I would appreciate a response to my numerous messages to you.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockezachman (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm busy. Go to each article's talk page and start discussions about the links you're concerned about. This will bring the matter to the attention of others. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise Architect Wikipedia Page

Ronz:

I am going through each of the pages of concern to the Enterprise Architecture Community. I represent a group of about 60 of us that are quite concerned with what we see is inconsistent policies on four specific searches on Wikipedia: Enterprise Architect, Enterprise Architecture, Zachman Framework, and John Zachman.

We will address each concern in sequence. First - Enterprise Architect. The "header" on this page is:

This article is about the job title. For the UML modeling tool Enterprise Architect, see Sparx Enterprise Architect.

Sparx system sells Enterprise Architecture tools - this page is linked to them. If you allow this link, the it would seem reasonable to allow other commercial links, as you do in the References and External Links area.

Lets go though the links

Institute for Enterprise Architecture Developments (http://www.enterprise-archtecture.info/)

a commercial site

The OpenGroup Architecture Forum (http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/)

a commercial site and group offering enterprise architecture certification for a fee. Sponsored by many commercial companies, as you can see from their web site.

SharedInsights Enterprise Architecture conference (http://sharedinsights.com/)

a commercial site that does commercial conferences

Association for Enterprise Architects (http:/www/aEAassociation.org)

a commercial site ....

OpenGroup TOGAR Practitioer Certification (http://www.opengroup.org/certification/)

same commercial group as above, with the same concern.

You have routinely removed www.EACOE.org and considered this link spam. This is the organization that we use. Either all of the above or none of the above are spam. Can we get a consistent policy?

Lockezachman (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, best if you bring this up on the talk pages of the articles.

Looks like opengroup.org may have some spam problems in addition to your other concerns. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise Architecture

Ronz:

I am going through each of the pages of concern to the Enterprise Architecture Community. I represent a group of about 60 of us that are quite concerned with what we see is inconsistent policies on four specific searches on Wikipedia: Enterprise Architect, Enterprise Architecture, Zachman Framework, and John Zachman.

There is a commercial link in the header of this article, just like the Enterprise Architect link to Spark Systems - a commercial vendor of Enterprise Architecture Software tools.

We have consistently used www.ZIFA.com and directed people to this site because they have, I believe, 20 or so articles directly related to Enterprise Architecture at no cost. Yes, they have other services, but so does Spark Systems. At least ZIFA provides a wealth of information that we can use that is not commerical.

We would like to understand how you determine what links belong and what links you consider spam, and what is the consistent policy on this.

Lockezachman (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Spam" isn't always used consistently, which makes it a bit confusing. Spamming refers to how information is added to articles, rather than to the quality of that information. See Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer.

Additionally, there's the issue of the quality of the information added. The guidelines for external links are WP:EL. The concerns you have appear to be WP:EL issues, which are legitimate concerns, but different from the spamming problems. In response to your earlier concerns, I tagged Enterprise architect as needing external link cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Zachman Link

Ronz:

I am going through each of the pages of concern to the Enterprise Architecture Community. I represent a group of about 60 of us that are quite concerned with what we see is inconsistent policies on four specific searches on Wikipedia: Enterprise Architect, Enterprise Architecture, Zachman Framework, and John Zachman.

The John Zachman link.

You have repeatedly deleted this link, as of late, to www.ZIFA.com. Can you explain why? If this is "spam", so is www.zachmaninternatioal.com and I would not consider this spam!

Reference 3 - The Zachman Framework: .... published by Zachman Framework Associates, March 2003, is obviously a commercial link, as you buy an "ebook" authored by John Zachman.

Reference 6 - same commercial concern as Reference 6, and Data Stores, Data Warehousing, ... is no longer in print

External Links

Ambler, Scott sells his own consulting services - a commercial link

McComb, Dave sells Enterprise Architecture services.

We are looking of a consistent policy as to what link is allowed, what is SPAM and why.

Thank you again for your attention to this now urgent matter.

Lockezachman (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above about spamming and external links. Additionally, when dealing with references, other guidelines and policies apply, such as WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your last note

Ronz:

Your note:

   As I said, best if you bring this up on the talk pages of the articles.
   Looks like opengroup.org may have some spam problems in addition to your other concerns. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 

I believed that is what I was doing. Am I doing something wrong. I want to make sure that all of the links mentioned in this section have the same resolution.

Thank you,

Lockezachman (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is to take these discussions to the specific article talk pages, as you have started to do at Talk:Enterprise architect. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional dialogue

Ronz:

Your note:

   "Spam" isn't always used consistently, which makes it a bit confusing. Spamming refers to how information is added to articles, rather than to the quality of that information. See Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer.
   Additionally, there's the issue of the quality of the information added. The guidelines for external links are WP:EL. The concerns you have appear to be WP:EL issues, which are legitimate concerns, but different from the spamming problems. In response to your earlier concerns, I tagged Enterprise architect as needing external link cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 

Tagging is very different than removing. If you remove one as questionable, please remove them all. If you tag one page, we would expect the links to remain.

Thank you,

Lockezachman (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it because I don't have the time to go over them all myself at this time. Tagging identifies the problem for all editors to see. I'm hoping someone else will help. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your additional Note

Ronz:

   "Spam" isn't always used consistently, which makes it a bit confusing. Spamming refers to how information is added to articles, rather than to the quality of that information. See Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer.
   Additionally, there's the issue of the quality of the information added. The guidelines for external links are WP:EL. The concerns you have appear to be WP:EL issues, which are legitimate concerns, but different from the spamming problems. In response to your earlier concerns, I tagged Enterprise architect as needing external link cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 

We have read these guidelines, and we believe fully are in compliance, yet you removed the www.zifa.com and reference twice that one of our colleagues tried to add. What was wrong with the link?

Thank you,

Lockezachman (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Role of Ronz

Ronz:

Could you please tell us what your role is in Wikipedia? I see you have indicated that you are not an administrator, and you are not an employee. Do you have anofficial role in some sort of voluntary capacity?

Phogg2 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wha the....Ronz, I would be sending this one off to AN/I for them to sort... Shot info (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need ANI. This is just a case of a bunch of novice editors jumping into Wikipedia in ways that are problematic. I'll update the spam report.

To answer your questions, I'm just another editor here. I've been a member of WikiProject Spam for a long time now, so I know my way around these problems pretty well.

I think it might be a reasonable assumption for me to think you may have a conflict of interest with ZIFA. Do you have a professional relationship with ZIFA? --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for assistance here. --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz: Thank you. I didn't mean to put you on the spot, I just didn't know what your role was or that you were involved with Spam Project.

To answer your question, no I don't have a professional connection with ZIFA. I just have an interest in the Zachman Framework and use the ZIFA website as an authoritative source of many articles writen by John Zachman, as well as an official explanation of the Zachman Framework.

Phogg2 (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] spam not addressed

Hey...Ron..I've been following "scoliosis" for some time and you seem to have been actively editing this subject. There's a group called Scoliosis SOS which clearly is a commercial group which is linked in the external section and also there's a lengthy discussion regarding Schroth methods. Couple of things bother me. #1, Scoliosis SOS people are the one's doing Schroth method and that subject came up with scoliosis sos link. #2, the technique is taking up quite a bit of lenth in the management section then it deserves. Seems like there's an effort to use the article to promote this technique and clinic. Why is this being permitted? It is clearly spamming and there's conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyderlad (talk • contribs) 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. There's obviously lots of problems with how Scoliosis and related articles are being edited. I don't have the time to work through them all at this point. Best to discuss the problems on the article talk pages where other editors are more likely to notice and help. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisment

Hi Ronz,

It appears you left this message on my entry for Continuum (design consultancy) yesterday:"needs independent, reliable sources otherwise much of the info should be removed." I forwarded an old entry entitled "Design Continuum" to this new one Continuum (design consultancy). Do advert tags get forwarded with redirects? I have added 9 independent sources to the article since that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsena2 mich (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've looked over the article and appreciate the work you've done. I added the tag because I'm still concerned that much of the article is supported only by sources from the company itself and that in general it needs to be written more like an encyclopedia article and less like a p.r. piece. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, thanks for the quick response. I will keep working on it. Would removing some of the press references help? Though they are all facts and can be verified by the sources provided, it is understandable that there may be too many. Any advice would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsena2 mich (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you move the related reading?

Ronz you mention that because of the lack of references, you felt the list of related reading was therefore confusing at best. I do not agree; why would additional information offered, cause confusion?

I believe it is valuable to the reader attempting to understand the rather young area of EA.

As an additional idea or an alternative, apparently already suggested by maryEF it might be a fast resolution to the recent thrash of link adds/ removals, to put a clearly identified link from the article(s') to a clearly identified page of related companies involved. It is unfair to keep mention and link to the likes of IBM, VW, BP et al, when others of smaller groups are struck. By clearly stating that the 'practitioners' page is just that, the core subjects linking thereto would remain relatively clean and uncluttered with jargon of limited use and recognition. That might help to calm the seas on the articles' links. I realize this is incongruent with the spam/ COI regulations; but if any EA vendors or providers get face time on relevant WP topics then something must be done to level the field.

It might be useful as well to have a client-of-EA link to (external link?) a place where organization experiences with their EA programs might be discussed. It doesn't seem to be a valid Wikipedia function to be a forum or blog, that's why I'd think it would need to be external if offered.

Ronz, there is also a caution on COI that applys directly to the rash of Zachman related edits, from a note you left one of the editors:
Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;

2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;

  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

         and you must always:

  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb.jwav (talk • contribs) 17:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. What article(s)? --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about this: Talk:Enterprise_architecture#Moved_here_for_discussion:_Further_Reading?

YES That is the section -I apologize for not having referenced the article. EApractitioner 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another administrator just left

Adam Cuerden just announced he is gone on his ARB. Thought you would be interested. There seems to be a lot leaving lately. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Sad. Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am really becoming disturbed by all of the retirements. It's like those that matter and can take care of things just don't care or help. You're right, it's very sad. I don't even know this administrator but from what I read he tries real hard to keep things even and help the project a lot. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links on osteopathic medicine page

Hi. Thanks for the feedback on the Osteopathic medicine page. Which ones do think need to go? I was trying to make it comprehensive by including the biggest or most notable osteopathic organizations, but perhaps there are now too many? Bryan Hopping ^T 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting a discussion on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I must commend you on the change improvement in your tone. Well done.Anthon01 (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where? --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you initial comments on Levine and Peter's talk pages are less confrontational. As the discussion progresses things get a bit contentious, but your initial comments are less confrontational. Anthon01 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm trying, though I haven't been very happy with it so far. I'm reading The Anatomy of Peace (ISBN 1576753344), which is giving me lots of ideas to try here. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chirotalk revert

I had reverted your edit on the chiro talk page before reading your post. I would like to hear the opinions of other experienced editors as well. I'm not familiar with the mechanisms as to where to take my complaint so if you could explain the process I would be grateful.EBDCM (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're complaining about specifically. WP:COIN is for conflicts of interest, and is probably a good place to start. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems copyright infringement is OK because of claims of consensus. Does consensus of the community trump copyright violations. QuackGuru (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In re third opinion listing

I simplified the entry for the dispute about pseudoskepticism (which is between two editors at this point, others having retired from it) according to the Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute guideline. The links may be added to the article talk page discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 03:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] external links

Hi Ron,

I apologise for re-listing the external links, is it possible to list one virtual office link from the list? http://www.servcorp.net

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.189.28 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 16 February 2008

I don't see how such a link meets WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It shows a true example of what a virtual office is and the services they provide. If you search video sharing, you will see external links to "youtube", "dailymotion", etc. I don't see why a relevant virtual office link cannot be listed as an external link to wikipedia's "virtual office" document? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.189.28 (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the links on your talk page. Sounds like you're just trying to promote the link. --Ronz (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion would be best continued in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#New_editor_spam_record.3F --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		To Ronz earned, earn·ing, earns Hu12 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your tireless efforts !--Hu12 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate it coming from you. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The mess that is Quackwatch

Many have pointed out that Quackwatch is a canary in the coalmine that is Wikipedia. It's an article about a website that is reviled by some, appreciated by many. Here on Wikipedia, those that hold it in disdain have found a battle-ground where they can get their complaints against Quackwatch heard. Unfortunately for them, their behavior does not go unnoticed by both those who value Quackwatch, and those who value Wikipedia and it's policies. This has resulted in Quackwatch becoming a battleground between these three groups. The resulting disputes tell us a lot about how well Wikipedia is able to respond to pressures that threaten to undo the five pillars of Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The return of pseudoskepticism

Recently, pseudoskepticism became a topic of dispute yet again. As with many other disputes, this appears to have come directly out of another. And, like so many others, it started with incivility and edit-warring: Editors assumed bad faith and came to the dispute fighting. Attempts to get the dispute resolved by following WP:DR and WP:TALK have failed so far because too many editors approach the situation as a WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What should have happened

1. The editor who added the link to "pseudoskepticism" should have included some rationale in the edit summary, or in a corresponding comment on the talk page. This is especially important for such a controversial article.
2. The editor who first reverted this edit did both.
3. The next comment should have been civil and respectful, and responded directly to the reasoning for removal. For instance, I would have asked for further explanation on why it was removed. This was also an opportunity for the editor to add rationale for it's inclusion.

--Ronz (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Are you part of Wikipedia corporate or just a user? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.65.92 (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm an editor here, not an WP:ADMIN, and not a Wikipedia empolyee. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links and spam

Just pointing out that links to "Lists of links to manufacturers and suppliers" are discouraged, but not links to a manufacturer. While it does recommend against "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising", that's a judgment call, and a link to a manufacturers site is going to contain some advertising, it's also the authoritative, and often only, source for specifications and other information about the products. However, I did need to convert those to references anyway... scot (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another retirement

Hi, just thought you might be interested but check this out, [10]. I don't know this editor other than by name since he gets posted to multiple boards quite frequently, at least it seems to be frequent. His user page says a lot though about the type of editor he is, that I can only suppose that the project just lost another caring editor of the project. How many does this make now for retirement? I don't know, I deleted it and stopped tracking as it was getting depressing. Anyways, I thought maybe you would be interested, Happy editing! (I hope) and good health, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry here are some diffs so that you can see how the retirement came about. [11], [12] & [13] --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] papier mache floats...what was so wrong?

Hi Ronz, I was a bit surprised to see the section on Carnival floats removed from the papier mache article. I'm quite a new user and still learning. I'm not quite sure in what way it might have been perceived as promotional. The Carnival floats are a good example of use of papier mache for artistic reasons...why removing it? It is an old and respected art. Or maybe it was that I put links to the sites of two of these carnivals (I noticed they have been removed)? In case that was the problem, sorry about that, I honestly thought I was just adding references. In any case, how can it be changed so that it is not considered promotional or spam any more? I was also gathering info to add a section about other carnival floats in Brazil and Mexico, so you can understand my frustration. Would it be ok if I made a section in that article about papier mache Carnival floats in general all over the world? Could you please help me? Kind Regards, Gaius3" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaius3 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't contact you when I did the cleanup. The article has a history of being spammed, and it wasn't until 03:39, 18 February 2008 that I was able to go through all the external links and remove the inappropriate ones. Your edits, immediately afterward, included at least one previously spammed links, and none of them meet the requirements for references, WP:V and WP:RS. I'll move what you added to the talk page for discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

As someone who is currently devoting a large amount of time to the Che Guevara entry ... what are some of your suggestions to improve the extrenal links ? I am going to attempt to clean it up somewhat although I am open to your suggestions. Thanks Redthoreau (talk TR 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm impressed with all the work you're putting into it. I'll write a few more suggestions on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your suggestions and will work diligently on some of your concerns. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal trainer

Hi there Ronz, sorry to see our addition to the personal training page removed. Can you please explain why that was considered spam? We contributed a section noting a particular aspect of locating or finding the right personal trainer for each individual's needs. This entry was removed and noted as spam. I don't really understand why, so it would be much appreciated if you could explain why so that we do not waste time adding sections to any other pages that could be removed as spam. Thank you. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitnessdude (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the comments that Gwernol made on your talk page? What you provided were example websites, which are inappropriate per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK, when what was needed were reliable, independent sources that verified the information you added. Because so many editors try to use Wikipedia to promote their products and interests, links like those you added are routinely removed. If you think there's been an error or misunderstanding, it would be best to discuss it on Talk:Personal trainer. --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the reply. Yes I did see his comments, and I didn't know about all those rules by which each link must adhere to. I still think though that I was posting some new, verifiable content, with some relevant examples to support it. In this case the examples can't really be supported by any other means other than website links - as the whole finding a trainer to suit your needs concept is only done via the web. From my perspective that deserves its own section. I could definitely have added some references to articles about psychology and matching of trainers/clients and success rates. Even if the content was left there and the links removed, at least some useful content would have been contributed. Nevertheless, I can see it from your perspective as this whole section seems to be the target of a lot of spam and crap. It is a shame it currently only has a few sentences of actual content. When I get a chance I will post about this in the other talk page you mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitnessdude (talk • contribs) 13:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lean Accounting

I tried to make changes to the Lean Accounting entry. You removed my entry with the words "we can do without corporate mission statements". This was not a corporate mission statement, it was the beginning of an explanation about Lean Accounting. I am new to this and I did not know how to enter the information so I started with something simple, the vision for Lean Accounting. This is not a corporate anything. It is the vision published by the Lean Accounting Thought Leaders Group in 2006. I am hoping to provide a short explanation of Lean Accounting to enhance what is already written. BMaskell (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Brian Maskell

You're confusing me with Mayalld. Check with him. If you have some sources for that information, you shouldn't have any difficulty. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CONFLICT OF INTERST

There is a continuation of the following on both Enterprise Architect and Enterprise Architecture. That is the following:

Enterprise Architect" redirects here. For the UML modeling tool, see Sparx Enterprise Architect.

These entries of obviously commercial links and they keep reappearing. I was under the impression this is in violation of Wikipedia policy.

How do you prevent this from happening.

Greg Zorne (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't understand what's going on. There are no commercial links involved. The link that you removed is to Sparx Enterprise Architect, which is an article within Wikipedia itself. Please read and consider contributing to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Enterprise_architecture, where I've added you as a party. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The SPARX Enterprise Architect is not an article - it is a link to the SPARK commercial site - they are just getting around the commercial links - please look at the SPARK Enterprise Architect Wikipedia entry, and you will see what is going on.

Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.123.117 (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's most definitely is an article. It most definitely is not an external links. If the article is deleted, then the link will be removed. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sparx link

RONZ, you claim it to be fine to have a link to another Wiki page THAT IS EXPLICITLY about a commercial product, Sparx' Enterprise Architect. From all discussions, THAT target page ought not even exist! Given this rationale, any commercial product can create a page, then validly link to it from wherever in the wiki. This does not hold water, Ronz. EApractitioner 23:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb.jwav (talk • contribs)

No. The article has to meet WP:N. If an article is nothing more than an advertisement for a product, it should be deleted. The Sparx article is being reviewed for deletion for just this reason. --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See Articles for deletion/Sparx Enterprise Architect. — Athaenara ✉ 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I've added a link to the talk page discussion in Talk:Enterprise architect‎. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz, this at least brings an equilibrium.EApractitioner 05:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb.jwav (talk • contribs)

[edit] thanks u left msg despitr being busy! im busy too and this page means more to me than you. ican substanciate what i write.

tell me sir, what do you find libellous about a living person that you wish backed up before i write and i shall. i am the witness myself. Wikipedia should not suppress authentic info under someonne's pressure?? is it doing that? i can chose other forums which i dont want to. All i want a fair chance..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashipur (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise architect

What??? I don't think you meant that for me... Also, the Sparx Enterprise Architect might not make it through its AFD. Are you really going to insist we wait until it's deleted before we delete the otheruses tag? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. It's meant for all the COI-editors that have been edit-warring over this. If it doesn't make it through AfD, it will be removed. I'm not insisting on anything beyond the editors follow Wiki policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Its removal, though seems to work against COI-aligned editors, not for their efforts (of promoting Sparx). Can you elaborate, please? Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Enterprise_architecture - These editors either work directly for a competitor, or are editing as meatpuppets for such editors. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SPAM?

How are relevant external websites spam? My Hazel Mae site is the #1 result in Google. I don't need Wikipedia for search engines, I know it's no-follow. My Hazel Mae website is the HUB for all Hazel Mae fans. It has interviews, articles, videos, pictures. You seem to be trigger happy if you see an advertisement on a webpage. I do pay for the website's bandwidth, hosting, exclusive photo rights, etc. You call it SPAM like I'm looking to get rich with a wikipedia External link I'd had up for years. I help build the Hazel Mae wiki site. 75.68.106.136 (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Join the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:EmmSeeMusic. --Ronz (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Che Guevara

I assume you have been following the Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara, although I just realized maybe you did not know about it. Well, we have decided to revert back to the March 10 FA version. We are discussing it all now, getting ready for the big event. It would be great if you would join us, or at least look it! Regards, Mattisse 23:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but just don't have the time. I'm very concerned that this is a violation of WP:CON though. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ben stevens)

Hi - if you look at the third paragraph (in the last version before blanked by Ben Stevens, the link seems broken or does not go anywhere - can you fix it so we can re-add the content? --Fredrick day (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

joling07-12-07? I can't find the full reference. Is it in an older version, that was later broken when someone deleted the original reference? --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnian Pyramid Project

Why u guys hate Bosnian Pyramid project, you are listing only articles from the papers. You are listing blogs of unknown people like main reference.

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.169.154 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what blogs you're referring to. I just removed a few, and wouldn't be surprised if there are more that should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] notification

moved from my talk Pete St.John (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Thrown into the briar patch! --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zachman Framework - small rewrite - please consider notability and NPOV tags

Hello,

I made an attempt to remove some of the POV problems with the article on the Zachman framework and added references to establish notability. I don't believe the article is perfect, by any stretch, but I do think we can meet the bar for Notability. I hope that I have met the bar for NPOV, but that is always difficult for a practitioner of the field that John Zachman essentially invented.

That said, I looked in the history to find the person who most likely placed the NPOV and Notability tags onto the article. That appears to be you. Can you review the article now? I'm hopeful that we have crossed the bar to remove those tags.

I am no expert in Wikipedia, so if you have suggestions for further improvements to the page, I'm all ears. Your guidance and insight would be invaluable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the help and the notification. I'll take a look and comment there. Thanks again! --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronz: Additional references have been added to the Zachman Framework article. I can't see any remaining statements that might need any more. Could you have a look at it and let us know if you spot anything? If it looks OK now, could the tag be removed? Thanks --Phogg2 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for the good work there! --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newmatilda.com page

Hi Ronz

I've just checked the page I created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Matilda

There are a number of issues with referencing and image copyright which need to be resolved.

The image in question is our company logo. We own this image and the copyright but I'm unable to insert the copyright tag. I've followed the guidelines but I'm still unable to re-upload.

I'm unclear on the problem with the referencing of details on the page and the links I have chosen. I have endeavored to link to other wiki pages wherever possible however there are some pages (particularly for our contributors who do not have wiki pages) which link to the newmatilda.com site. Can you suggets a way around this as we would like to include these details of contributors on the page.

Thanks in advance, I appreciate the time and effort made in improving our wiki page.

Regards Rod McGuinness newmatilda.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmatilda (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've avoided getting involved in image copyright problems, and am unfamiliar with the relevant policies and guidelines. Best I can do is find a way to get help from someone that understands the issues.

I haven't looked at the article in some time. I'll take a look and see what I can do to help. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise architecture

Hi Ronz, This page is heating up again, and there are some edits by new people who may not be used to our system. One, User talk:Mkernatmkerndotcom, already managed to get himself blocked for vandalism. This man appears to be an expert in the EA field, though he didn't make a very graceful entrance. I won't be able to catch up with that page for a while, but I hope we can try to harness the energies of the new people, since the article needs better information. If it gets extremely confusing we could try full protection until people start using the Talk page, but I hope that won't be necessary. If you see funny stuff happening there I'd suggest we not immediately worrying about spam issues; give them a little time. It's possible we could open up a new COIN item if a centralized discussion is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good advise. I'll stay away from the article and just try to help with the discussions and COIN. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

Obligatory notification: ANI Pete St.John (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Into the briar patch I go again! --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spot vs Editor5435

Hi Ronz thanks for helping me with Editor5435. I would appreciate it though if you would take off the kid gloves. Note how he put an attack on me at the top of this page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TruDef. Note the basis for my accusation of fraud: [14] (ditto here: [15]). Finally consider the stock activity: [16] that corresponds to the beginning of Editor5435/Technodo's editing of the page. Spot (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I started a report here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor5435_.26_Spot. I'm extremely busy and may not have time to do anything further with this today. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to defend myself against the insinuations Spot has made against me. The company (TMMI) issued a press release in December, 2007 and another in January, 2008 about its fractal compression development activities which coincided with a minor rise in its stock price. I was unaware of any renewed development in fractal compression until 2 weeks after the last announcement when I realized the Wiki article was out of date and inaccurate. I made my first contribution 23:39, 26 January 2008 under my old under name Technodo. My browser lost its cache and I couldn't remember my password so 3 days later I created a new account Editor5435. I have not logged in as Technodo since 05:04, 15 February 2008. Also, I have been accused of page blanking after I attempted to remove a page I created myself that everyone is screaming for its removal. As for Spot's continued harassment over (TMMI) on the fractal compression talk board I would like to point out the article has no mention of TMMI or TruDef, so its a pointless off topic discussion.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot is still harassing me in my own talk page over off topic comments and accusations about TMMI. I have asked him on numerous occasions to stop. TMMI is not mentioned anywhere in fractal compression. What can be done about his annoying persistence in harassing me?--Editor5435 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not harassment for me to defend myself against your attacks. If you don't want me to talk on your page, then don't talk about me. Furthermore you have only once, today, asked me to stop. I have only edited your talk page twice. Spot (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am only defending myself against your ongoing libelous attacks against me. The fact I have discovered your frequent abuse and violations of Wikipedia's COI and NPOV, not to mention notability issues is a separate matter which I have reported to Wikipedia administrators. I have asked you on numerous times to stop your harassment on the fractal compression discussion board, you have since expanding your level of harassment to include my personal talk page. You persist with this nonsense about TMMI, a subject that is not even mentioned in the article about fractal compression. Your ulterior motives are transparent.--Editor5435 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What have I said about you that's libelous? Spot (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to one of your talk pages, or the ANI. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vertebral Stapling

Hi- I added some info regarding vertebral stapling & you removed it for advertising?? It is a medical procedure performed at hospitals - becoming much more widely available. Please see the link to Boston Children's Hospital http://www.childrenshospital.org/clinicalservices/Site1171/mainpageS1171P4sublevel10Flevel17.html

Plus I added several research articles regarding the procedure. I am not advertising it! It is a proven medical procedure which is saving many children from wearing a back brace 23/7 for many years and often inevitible fusion.

Please allow some info regarding this treatment option on the scoliosis page - it is not experimental or chiro like spinecor or scroth. If you have a personal issue with vbs, please learn more.

thank you, Vertebralstapling (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the notes on your talk page yet? Your username matching a promotional website is enough to create great concerns about your edits in light of WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, etc. Let's get these concerns resolved first. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Fuzzy control" resource

I'm puzzled that in this edit you removed a link to download a "further reading" resource as spam. How is that spam? Shouldn't we make it easier, not harder, for the user to access such resources? I agree that the link wasn't inserted very well and it needed to be changed to fit in better, but it didn't need to be deleted entirely. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:24.208.184.79. My concern is that 24.208.184.79 appears to be editing solely to promote Kevin M. Passino. If you think the book is good further reading material, then a link to the actual book itself (that indicates it's a 500+ page pdf) would be useful. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scoliosis

Hi- I am wondering why you removed all of the info which was added to inform people about Vertebral Stapling. This is a surgical procedure performed by leading orthopedic surgeons in the United States. Please explain why you won't allow this content to be included. Are you a chiropractor?

Carawinslow (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)carawinslow

Ron report this to the spam project.

Accounts

Vertebralstapling (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
Carawinslow (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)

carawinslow, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is excluded.. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site--Hu12 (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Carawinslow is the second editor to add this information with an obvious WP:COI. I've moved the information to the article talk page for discussion.

I'll write a spam report. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How can I possible have a vested interest in a surgery which is performed at hospitals (including Shriners - which is non-profit)? The reason Dr. Betz is mentioned several times is because he pioneered the surgery over 5 years ago, and is the surgeon who is training other orthopedic surgeons in the procedure. He gives credence to it being a viable option for patients with scoliosis. He is the Chief of Staff at Shriners Hospital in Philadelphia - a NON-Profit hospital. I DO not have any vested interest, other than trying to raise awareness for a relatively new surgery which may save children years of wearing a back brace. The articles I supplied are from medical journals - not opinions. I completely understand if this info needs to be reviewed before it is posted - but please do not accuse me of having an obvious WP:COI when this is not the case at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carawinslow (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're denying that you're Cara Winslow, then I'll ask for further help in investigating my concerns. Otherwise, I'll stick by my claim that it is obvious. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not denying who I am - but how do I have a vested interest?Carawinslow (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

vertebralstapling.com "Copyright 2008. Amanda Pompa, Maria Follenius and Cara Winslow. All rights reserved."..External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote vertebralstapling.com ..--Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly did not mean to promote it, it is only meant as a support for people who are interested in learning about vertebral stapling. I really would appreciate your consideration of including some information about vertebral stapling as an option to the treatment of scoliosis. I do not profit from this in ANY way - I am just trying to get info out to people who are struggling with a diagnosis of scoliosis for their child. This is a fairly new procedure and it is hard for parents to learn about it.Carawinslow (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spot

Ronz, its inappropriate for you to include someone's personal nickname in the "Other meanings" list in the Wiki article about the word "Spot". The entry is not notable in the context of the article. It is by no means a common meaning for the English word "Spot".--Editor5435 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand you're frustrated with your experiences with Wikipedia. I suggest you find other articles to work on, articles where you have no conflicts with the editors. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TMMI

The link is NOT spam, its relevant to the article on Philip Taylor Kramer, stop with letting personal influences effect your editing activities.--Editor5435 (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"stop with letting personal influences effect your editing activities" Follow your own advise. You're likely to be blocked again if you don't. How many times have you added that link to articles now? I don't believe any of them met WP:EL. Overall, it looks like WP:SPAM when you repeatedly add the same link to multiple articles against WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The link is entirely meets the requirements of WP:EL since its relevant to Philip Taylor Kramer, his company, his life's work. You sure have a double standard allowing Spot to shameless promote his own personal web sites yet you delete links that are relevant in other articles. How can you possibly say TMMI link isn't relevant to Philip Taylor Kramer? Do you have the slightest idea of the subject matter or just go around butchering articles you have absolutely zero understanding of? I don't understand what's going on here.--Editor5435 (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editor5435 & Spot ANI

Hi Ronz, the incident report you originally made about Editor5435 scrolled off the top of the page. I saved it here as per the instructions at the top of the page. Do you know if this is somewhere admins will continue to find it? Spot (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PowerBeam

Ronz,

What's the deal? I would like to know the reasoning behind removing our blurb about our technology from the Wireless Energy Transfer page. My understanding is that this is a fact based system. And the fact is we have developed a way to transmit electricity safely using lasers and no one else is doing this but us. The public has a right to know that this is being done and that such technology exist.

I want you to know that the reason I posted this particular paragraph that you removed on March 2nd was because Popular Science had written in article about wireless electricity in their February edition and when I contacted the reporter to ask why we were left out, her answer was "oh wow, I didn't even know you guys existed. When I searched wikipedia as a reference check you didn't come up." This was even more to my surprise as our inventor told me he made a post months prior that was no longer there.

If there is a issue with the wording or manner in which the paragraph is written or presented, then reply to this message and we can talk about how you feel such information should be presented.

If you removed because you are working for a competitor then we have issues! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerBeam (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential rewrite of WP:SELFPUB

After repeatedly questioning PSWG1920 (talk · contribs) as to why s/he wants to rewrite WP:SELFPUB to allow more liberal use of self-published sources without receiving a response, I decided to look in edit history. That's where I found this discussion in which you participated, which provided what seems to be the answer. In light of this, I thought you might be interested in discussing the potential rewrite of this core policy. Dlabtot (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably be unable to contribute. FYI: the username "PSWG1920" refers to Perfect Sight Without Glasses. --Ronz (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A request about a link ...

Hi, it's been awhile, we moved finally so take note of my new email address since it has changed and my computer is finally up and set up with everything.

Anyways, you know alot about spam and advertisements that shouldn't be allowed so I would like your opinion when you have time about this one at the IBS article. [17] I would appreciate it if you would take a look and give me your opinion, of course when you have the time. I would like to know if this is allowed or not because spam and advertisements I still haven't gotten a good handle on knowing what is acceptable and what is not except of course the very obvious. I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC) PS: Wrote this in a rush and didn't spell check, etc., sorry for any mistakes. :)

Good catch. I'm hesitant to allow links to home pages unless it's very strongly related to the topic of the article, or provides information directly related to the article. In this case, the editor who added it has a WP:COI given that he works for Vivid London Limited, which lists theguttrust.org as a client and whose name appears on the home page of theguttrust.org. I hope he hasn't added more such links elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I saw your comments, so I took a look. After comparing Vivid London's list of clients to edits by Neil Evans (talk · contribs), I spotted a series of other WP:COI issues ... adding a link for Herbie Frogg, making a series of edits to the Totte Mannes article, adding Vivid London to the Vivid DAB. --71.227.150.109 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid that would be the case. This should be taken to WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I would never of caught all of the rest of it. How did you find all the other locations that were added? How did you know this editor worked for Vived London Limited, is it on his user page? I didn't got to his page or contributions or anything, I just deleted it from the article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

He mentions and links Vivid London Limited on his user page. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The information on Totte Mannes is on the official artists website, the link on the Jermyn Street page is totally legitimate (please check www.streetsensation.co.uk and you'll see the store in question on the street twice!) and as for the IBS page, I though the link to the UK national charity would be useful. I thought the whole purpose of Wikipedia was to add collective knowledge together, it seems strange that depending on how you acquire your collective knowledge that it can suddenly be deleted on a whim by one or two users who deem it COI. Neil Evans (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow WP:COI and you'll be fine. --Ronz (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I thought I was, I declared my interest (hence my detailed userpage) and I have attempted to edit articles in a way that is non-promotional but in a way that adds recognised facts. I have read through WP:COI and will attempt to ensure that further edits reach a happy medium between the adding information and ensuring that items are never promotional. I would like you to reconsider some of your revisions though. Neil Evans (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC/U

There is currently a RfC going on that you might be interested in. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Depression and natural therapies

Hi. I notice you restored the pov tag on the above article, saying few of the issues have been addressed. Which issues do you feel haven't been addressed, apart from POVfork, which is an issue in its own right? I revised it to make it more NPOV, as I said on the talk page, and I can't see any particular probs with it at the moment; if there is a prob, I'd like to know so I can fix it.

Sardaka (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CMMI

Hi Ronz, Why did you remove the reference to the official CMMI book, which is part of the SEI software engineering series, that I added to the CMMI article. CMMI was augmented to cover the acquisition of software, systems, and IT. The added references is the only official SEI book that covers this CMMI topic. I would appreciate if you'd add the reference back in. (Huberthofmann (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See your talk page, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiDraw

If wikidraw is a web site to create mind maps or mental map of wiki content: why is not an external link valid in the article of mind maps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.131.147 (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bosniaks

Greetings. I've noticed you are one of the editors who has edited the Bosniaks article. I was wondering if you would have any input into a few "revert wars" happening lately over there. Here's a diff. Personally, I think the changes are biased, a little racist/xenophobic, but mostly, they are wrong.

P.S, I've sent this message to a few of the users I've seen in the page history to try to get a discussion started. 121.222.199.140 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've noticed that the problems are heating up there again. I'm on break, but I think it shouldn't be too hard to get others to help given the history of the article. --Ronz (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to handle WP:V WP:RS on Fractal Compression

Given these threads a and b and the reversion of any edit based on good sources without counter-sources (most recently), how should I precede? Thanks, Spot (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't have the time to look at the references, but the points in the discussions seem to be based upon WP:OR rather than other sources/references. I'm still on break, so don't have time to help much. I suggest getting others involved. Use WP:RSN to get feedback on the sources. The RFC didn't seem to get any response at all. Look through WP:DR to find other ways to get others involved. WP:MEDCAB might be worth a try, but I'd concentrate on getting more editors involved first. --Ronz (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] discussion page Bates method natural vision improvement article.

To Ronz, Which alinea and which line in WP.Talk validates your removal in the discussionpage of the bates method / natural vision improvement article ? ( In my opinion my contributions are not of topic ! They are new topics. The topic is constant improvement of the article.) So again which alinea and which line in WP.Talk. Have a nice day. Seeyou (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take it up with someone else. I've made myself clear in your RFC. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam: number of pages?

I'm feeling dumb, and reading the two applicable pages are not enlightening me. Is this linkspam? First 8 edits adding the site www.e-turkeytravel.com with various texts. I look at WP:LINKSPAM and then WP:LINKSTOAVOID and wonder, what 'definite' definition did I miss? Shenme (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I looked at your user page, but then looked at your contributions, and you're "still here". Can't hide from your fans... :-) Shenme (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely spam. He's adding the same link (and a promotional one at that) to multiple articles while adding nothing else. Even if the link wasn't inappropriate in itself, it should still be removed because of the way it was added. The editing behavior definitely fits WP:SPAMMER. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the 'pattern' determination that throws me. I am unsure of myself because once I felt semi-strongly one way and you another, way back, on a computer-knowledgeable guy, who added/edited text, but that was also putting in lots of references to his and associated (client?) websites. Gray areas are hard - breaks are needed - have a rest if not fun. Shenme (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandra Lee

I responded to your request for help from an admin. The article is already semi-protected, so I presume that what you wanted was action on individuals rather than on the article. Frankly, there wasn't much here that called for an admin.

I've given two people 3-day blocks. I've given a lot of warnings that you could have given yourself. It took me over 30 minutes wading through this, seeing what each person had done and what warnings they had already received. Some of these were IPs with exactly one edit, and that not recent, and been warned appropriately. In the future, when you ask for admin assistance, could you be a bit clearer about what you need? - Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm sorry that I didn't (and still don't) have the time to make it clearer. I'm utterly amazed that this has been allowed to drag out this long after multiple BLPN and ANI requests. I'm sorry that it took you so much time. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Edit on the Invention page

Hi Ronz, Thanks for your note. How do I view the change you made to the invention page? Also, specifically what did / do you see as a conflict of interest. I have not got a clue as to what that might be. I am having a hard time trying to figure out what you thought I did incorrectly that violated Wikipedia rules. Please tell me specifically rather than direct me to general pages with lots of rules about proper Wikipedia form that do not identify the specifc problem. In a nutshell, I am confused by what you did and would like to understand it. Please let me know. Thank you. --Sara USA (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I am shocked that you chose to delete my note instead of reply to it. It was just sincere desire to understand your action(s). So from your last note, are you saying that the problem you found was on those 3 pages and not on the Invention page? --Sara USA (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Shocked? Please note the the instructions at the top, "Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. Such comments may be immediately deleted. (See WP:TALK)" --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cabal case header change discussion page bates method

I have created a cabalcase. Have fun.Seeyou (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandra Lee (cook)

I stumbled upon the above article and noticed you seem to be fighting a large number of single purpose accounts pushing a similar POV. This set alarm bells off in my head and I had a checkuser run to examine the accounts. As a result of the CU, we found 39 sockpuppets from two IP addresses. Most likely from the same person who has a dynamic address. See here for a list of all the accounts. Right now the latest IP address is hardblocked for 3 months, and the accounts it created are indef blocked. The second address and its accounts have not been blocked yet, as they appear to be stale at the moment. Once I get some time tomorrow I will go through those and decide if I should block them as well. I have added the article to my watchlist and am going to monitor it closely in case the socks return. If you notice anymore accounts pushing the same POV let me know ASAP and hopefully we can deal with the situation in a quicker fashion with less work. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Thanks for the help! --Ronz (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for being unclear with my explanation. What I meant was that since only 1 IP has been active the last few days, he should be blocked rather than putting protection on the article (since that would effect all IP editors). I see that he was blocked yesterday, so right now I think the best thing we can do is wait. If he should come back using another IP, let me know and I'd be happy to protect the article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I didn't notice the recent editors have also been blocked as socks. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] notice update

I replied to you update at [[18]]. You know how I can make an internal link with that ? --DynV (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bates Method and Civility

With reference to your edit at 19:33 on 11 May 2008 when you wrote "Please read and follow WP:CIVIL when you write your edit summaries - removed as off-topic, promotional", although it wasn't clear whom you were addressing as "you", it was my inclusion of further reading which you removed. I see this is some sort of test of my civility, since

1. The article in question is the "Bates Method". Presumably we accept that this is the "topic".
2. All the books to which the references were removed were about the Bates method. One of them was called "The Bates Method". It's the same Bates and the same method.
3. It is usually taken as an axiom in mathematical logic that things are equal to themselves, that is, that "The Bates Method" is the same as "The Bates Method".
4. The phrase "off-topic" must mean that the topic to which you took exception, the books on "The Bates Method", was different from the topic of the article, "The Bates Method".
5. With the utmost civility, could I suggest that there is a logical contradiction here? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You can suggest whatever you want. I see no contradiction. See WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPAM applies only to those who are pushing some commercial interest. I have no commercial interest in any business related to eyesight. WP:NPOV is indeed an issue throughout this article. None of the books and papers currently referred to in this article are themselves NPOV, which is a pity, but inevitable. I don't think I have ever read anything about Bates method which I felt to be NPOV. By including references to those four books I was not endorsing them, just drawing attention to the fact that they exist. The existence of a considerable modern literature promoting Bates Method is an undeniable fact, relevant to the discussion of the method, and ought to be included. Exactly how to include that information in the article is a matter for legitimate debate amongst the editors, and if you are willing to discuss it sensibly, I will be happy to co-operate. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"WP:SPAM applies only to those who are pushing some commercial interest." Read it again. --Ronz (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"None of the books and papers currently referred to in this article are themselves NPOV, which is a pity, but inevitable." Which indicates a WP:FRINGE topic. If we cannot find independent, third-party sources to support much of the article, then it needs to be trimmed back. --Ronz (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting large portions of Edward de Bono

Hello Ronz,

Please see my notes in the discussion on Edward de Bono:

Was it necessary to delete large portions of my work without discussing it first?

Do you think that the article is so much better simply because there is now less of it?

What do you think might be the effect on authors to have their work removed with no attempt made at a constructive alternative?

--Pbachmann (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I was quick and dirty in trying to start some cleanup. Wish I had more time to assist, but I don't. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Ronz!

I am just popping in to say hello. It's been awhile since our paths have crossed. I hope you are doing ok and that our paths cross again soon. Take care as always, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks. I've been meaning to drop you a line, but I'm just so busy these days... I've seen you doing some good work here recently, asking good questions and directing discussions back on track! --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I like your opinion here if you would

"here" The comments made by Levine sounds uncalled for and rude. Am I over reacting, and yes I am upset by the comments made. The Rfc was made and many outsiders commented including myself. I don't edit this article, I just usually watch because I am interest in the article for personal reasons. I am not against chiroprators at all and actually was being helped by an editor to understand what was happening or going to happen in RL so as I was not surprised by anything. This editor is well respected by me and others but for obvious reasons I am not going to name this person. I found the changes helped me personally understand the profession much better than the previous version which is why I commented in the first place. Your opinion on this would be appreciated. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but never mind, I don't work on this article and I let my emotions get involved which is usually when I take a break from here. I've calmed down since my initial reading and I am ok with it, that doesn't change my opinion though for the record, but it isn't important. I guess I needed to vent or get a reality check that I was reading correctly. Thanks for listening to me though. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic has been a big POV mess for a very long time. It's sad to see the same old trolls continue on the path to being banned from Wikipedia completely while setting a horrible example for other editors. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would you check this out for me?

[19] It is an attorney site that I reverted as an advertisement. The person just readded it and I don't like to revert more than once on something like this. I'd appreciate your help, thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they were good faith edits, but the link obviously fails WP:SPAM. He's replaced it with a better link, though I think it needs a better one per WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, very much appreciated. You know spam better than I but I knew the lawyer site was an absolute no. I just didn't want to get into an edit war over it. I again appreciate your helping out. I haven't gotten to the newer one yet but I will also take a look so I can see what it is and how it doesn't fit in with WP:NPOV. This is how I found out I can learn policies and so far it seems to have served me well! :) Have a good day, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

I'd appreciate your input on this, since you are familiar with these problems from this user's other account. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to notify any other editors that you think would be able to contribute to this, as I'm only familiar with one of these accounts contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Assuming good faith

Yes, ok, I didn't assume good faith on this particular comment, I'm sorry, I just presumed (in bad faith) that you were becoming frustrated with the discussion. I formally appoligise for my lack of good faith.  Atyndall93 | talk  01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will get back to this at some point, if necessary. I'm hoping that others with get involved, such as yourself, and help get the problems resolved in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About mediation

Judging from your comment on Seeyou's talk page, you do not wish to participate in this discussion, which I fully understand. My suggestion is that your problem may need formal mediation to solve. Before I tell Seeyou to go ahead with formal mediation (as he/she wishes to do), I extend the courtesy of asking one last time if you wish to participate in the discussion, possibly solving the problem before it goes to formal mediation. A continuous silence of more than a week will imply that you do not wish to participate in the discussion, if you wish to participate, please say so. Thankyou for your time.  Atyndall93 | talk  05:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued silence?!! Until Seeyou can actually conduct dispute resolution in a civil manner, there is no dispute resolution. Your efforts at arbitrating from the role of a mediator are appreciated, though I believe Seeyou is just gaming you and the system to help him continue his attacks on other editors. When Seeyou can act in good faith towards others and be civil, I'm sure any dispute resolution he then tries will go much differently. --Ronz (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

a continuous silence not continued silence - meaning that not replying to this message will make me assume you do not wish to participate, not you have been silent during this discussion and continuing to do so will make me assume you do not wish to participate. At the asking of PSWG1920 I would like you to please consider this proposal. If you agree with it please just say Yes and will be implemented and the case will be closed. If you dislike it please say No and give a reason why you dislike it, not that it is against policy (as I have discussed before, it doesn't apply), remember, simple improvements to it, like removing punctuation or shortening it and then adding an infobox at the top explaining the shortened version are all acceptable. Happy editing!  Atyndall93 | talk  08:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's part of SeeYou's continued warring and should not be tolerated by anyone. I'm sorry that you have such a low opinion of behavioral policy that you've allowed him to continue this charade. Perhaps you should drop this as you certainly are not acting as a mediator. I'd be happy to give you some assistance on what mediation means: start with being impartial and limiting your involvement. Mediation is not about compromise, but about getting the parties involved to view and treat each other as human beings worthy of respect. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll refer Seeyou to formal mediation if he/she wishes and personally I wouldn't go as far as saying Seeyou is "warring", he just wants some headings (and that is all the mediation case is about). Also, I have read WP:Mediation a formal document that outlines what mediation is, it states mediators are not obligated to utilize methodologies set out herein, besides that I don't understand how I am not being impartial so and limiting involvement is not even mentioned there; Seeyou and Famousdog were prepared to compromise so I did have to talk to you more, giving the inpression that I was being "hard" on you. Also, going as far as saying that Seeyou is not treating other users as human beings worthy of respect is going a bit too far. I have been watching the discussion between the two of you (well, all of it that I can find) and you both have barely said a word to each other, unless you are communicating via other means. You also didn't answer the question but it doesn't matter anymore. Thankyou for your continued patience throughout this mediation.  Atyndall93 | talk  22:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Seeyou when I wrote, "but about getting the parties involved to view and treat each other as human beings worthy of respect" but about some real, basic training in mediation. Again, you're making assumptions of what I think of Seeyou that are only making the situation worse. --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately I respect your opinions enough to not get angry. But don't worry, you won't have to deal with my inability to treat others with respect again and my bad mediation skills, next time i'll remember to never volunteer to help others, it only leads to trouble :-D.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's going to be your attitude, then you should avoid such mediation. Again, you're making incorrect and negative assumptions of me - not something you should be doing as a Wikipedia editor at all, let alone a mediator. You're are trying to push a compromise on a mediation request that is nothing more than harassment, retaliation, and gaming the system. Your good faith attempts to deal with Seeyou have been taken advantage of to continue more of the same. I'm sorry that you're upset, but I've done more than enough to deal with Seeyou - taking it all the way to an RfC. His continued attempts to disrupt Wikipedia will eventually get him banned. --Ronz (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 07:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'd like to help, I don't know if I can commit the time that may be required to help. Go ahead and I'll do my best. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Created formal mediation request. If you want to agree. Agree. If not, do nothing. The link :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/bates_method&action=edit&section=5

Seeyou (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Take a peek

I just got here to see this,[20]. Take a read of this talk page, it's really sad reading. I've been seeing this kind of attitude a lot lately and hope it's just a 'moment' that needs wiki breaks for returns. Just thought you would be interested, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I've contributed there a bit. The discussion fizzled out after awhile. Looks like the recent discussion is trolling more than anything. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Warren Patrick Casey

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Warren Patrick Casey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. All those Wicked Tinkers articles need to be merged into a single article. --Ronz (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)