User talk:Hipal/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hipal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Smile

PSWG1920 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for removing the tags Seeyou placed. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

NP. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Ronz answered on my talkpage

Ronz can you re-add the tags and answer on the talkpage. They are currently missing and are very important. If you want to really help improving the article. Seeyou (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

List of PDF software - again

Hi Ronz, I looked at this page today and discovered a link again to Qoppa software (commercial software). When I have placed links to JPedal software (commercial and free software)they are removed. Yet Qoppa seems to survive. Your reasons for removing my link remains a mystery to me. You pointed me towards guidlines which were vague to say the least. For a company to be included as a link what needs to be done? Does an article need to be written about the company (I'm happy to provide one)?

Adobe remain on this page. They are commercial software vendors. They use the JPedal developer libraries (link you removed) for displaying pdf's in their ColdFusion product range. The JPedal libraries come in both commercial and free varieties, unlike qoppa. JPedal provides source code - Adobe doesn't.

A list of pdf software is always going to be contentious, but you can't pick and choose who remains on the page - that is subjective. A user viewing this page would be expecting a reasonably comprehensive list (as you would expect from an encyclopedia). This is not the case here. The software you list is not all free software. It is not the best performing software. So what is it? Some of the companies listed have "free software" but need paid support comtracts to use them. The page title says List of PDF software. I am not trying to be difficult here - if I was I'd just be reinstating my links several times a day - something I think is a waste of both my time and yours. But as things stand, you seem to be discriminating in your allowed edits.

Can you please give me some clarification of your decision here please?

Thank you FEQ (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An article about the product, not just the company. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Faerie Path

Hey - trying to figure out why you removed a link to the author's myspace. Currently the publisher has very little information concerning the book and upcoming books and the author has no other website or source of information. I feel that it is a relevant link and the only source of news concerning that book and others in the series. It is fairly standard practice to link to the author's website on a book page. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. The article is about the book, not the author. Best to focus on WP:BK issues first. Otherwise those articles should be trimmed down to stub articles, or even deleted. If the author's myspace page is that important for the articles, then something is very wrong with the articles. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

- Hey. I understand the distinction between information about the book and information about the author, but I still feel the myspace page is a relevant link. The reason is that his myspace page is not a general social networking page for the author. It is his way of setting up a webpage at no cost to himself where he can give information about the books and answer questions. Infact, HarperCollins, the publisher, has it listed as his official webpage. http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/31097/Frewin_Jones/index.aspx .--TParis00ap (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How about starting an article about Jones and including the link there? Such links don't belong anywhere else. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

- - I've thought about that in the past, but there just isnt enough information about him and he isn't notable enough for an article. I may dig around a little and see what I can come up with though.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Start with a stub. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wolfberry

Thank you! Apothecia (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

more wp:rs questions.

http://measuringworth.com/

spam or good? — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just that link itself should probably never be used except if there were an article about that website itself. As for the data and calculators on the website, I think they could be useful, though it would probably be worth discussing on WP:RSN or WP:ORN depending upon the use. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani RFC

Right now from my point of view, it's just a bit too early to start an RFC regarding his behavior. I haven't checked many of his edits though, but if you feel he's done enough disruption to the project, then go ahead and make one yourself. I don't really have enough reasons/arguments to support an RFC right now. ;) Eugene2x►^talk 21:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

NP. As I already pointed out, I just ignore him, and let him know it and why. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike Martin (Politician)

Ronz,

You have edited my page by deleting references that are listed in the article. I am writing this to you directly before I ask for a dispute resolution. I figure we can discuss this to come up with a fix between the two of us.

I am, as you might have already determined, Mike Martin. I created the article back when Wiki was going good. Someone had attempted to write it, but it was thrown out because it had no references. I wrote the details based on news reports and my own biography and made it as objective as possible. It has stood up to harsh scrutinity for years. One of my references has been hit more than 1,000 times as a result of it being included in the article. That was my biographical account of the incident that made me worthy of even being mentioned in Wiki. You have deleted that reference by claiming the author wasn't verifiable. Either you didn't check the reference site and the fact that I show in the referenced site that I am indeed the author, or you have become part of this big push in Wiki to eleminate all outside references, regardless of their support of the main article.

Here are my justifications for including my references on my biographical short story and the article on Creation Science:

1. The short story biography is referenced in the main body of the article. 2. The short story is my rebuttal of facts listed in the article (that I wrote objectively). 3. My one bill, Creation Science, is mentioned in the article and a reference web page was included, giving my reasons for filing the bill.

I find it strange that you took out those two references because you claim the author cannot be verified, yet you left in chat pages of web sites with no validation of authors. I say there are better attempts of identifying me as the author in the sites you deleted than in the ones you left.

I ask that you review your last deletions of my site and return the article to what it originally was.

Waynemart - Mike Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynemart (talk • contribs) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Have you read the conflict of interest notice I placed on your talk page yet? I suggest your next step be WP:COIN, but you can choose whatever WP:DR method you'd like.

There have been multiple discussions about fanstory.com links, with the general consensus being that those links are never appropriate for Wikipedia.

Thanks for mentioning your concerns with the remaining references in the article. I'll look into the situation and do my best to correct it or at least identify the problems for others to address. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: [1]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani RFC (again)

I've decided to post one here. Are you able to find other users who have been in a dispute with him? I really am not too sure. Eugene2x►^talk 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The RfCU only needs two editors. From what I've read on his talk page, there are many more. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bully stick

When reverting you left the "penis" mention in the article. Was this a mistake or is that really what they are made of? Them From Space 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I was able to find, it's true. The only sources I could find were retail sites though. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Eww ok. Kinda figures that the spammers would want it referred to as a tendon. Them From Space 16:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I redirected it to a better article. It was redundant, promotional, and attracting lots of vandalism. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

3D CAPTCHA addition to CAPTCHA article

Hi Ronz, saw your discussion with some other users regarding the addition of a new type of CAPTCHA based on 3D renderings, and your (valid) response about the article not being written and verified by 3rd parties. I myself have come up with a similar technology, also based on 3D renderings, which was noticed by CNET (twice, once with the idea, the other time with the implementation). You can see the article here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10204300-1.html Would this suffice the addition of 3D captchas to the CAPTCHA definition? Thanks in advance. Marquinho (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Since this is your own technology, WP:COI applies. The solution is to discuss this in detail on the article talk page first, and being very cautious about adding the material to the article without other editors supporting the additions. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Thanks for the suggestion. Will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquinho (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Liqueurs

Hi. Please see Talk:List of liqueurs#Reversions. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Availablity for Mediation on TM article

I will be applying for formal mediation shortly. Please let me know within the next two days if you will be available for mediation or not. This does not mean you accept the mediation, but just that I can include your name as party to the mediation. Thanks. I realize you said you would not be available for much discussion but wanted to include you as a party to the mediation if you're interested.(olive (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Good idea. I don't have much to contribute other than my interpretation and experience with NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on my user page, Ronz. I doubt anything else will work. We'll see.(olive (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Glad I could help. I'll try to pitch in more when I have the time. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

From Viriditas' talk page

Ronz, hi. Regarding your note at Viriditas' page... I appreciate the work you've done, but I'm concerned that your methods might be exacerbating some aspects of the problem. Would you be willing to chat about strategies for working with this editor? I think we might have an easier time with Badagnani if he feels less persecuted. In that vein, do you think we could lay off on less important issues, such as the ice-cream picture, and really work on more important edits, such as the commercial link additions? Please let me know what you think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Looks like we're thinking alike here.

As I already pointed out, "People react badly to many things. That's the problem here." Badagnani reacts badly to perfectly acceptable editing and dispute resolution. He appears to always feel persecuted, no matter the situation. I've tried working with him. After trying multiple, different dispute resolution methods with him, my solution was to ignore anything from him that was inappropriate or disruptive, per WP:TROLL. When others had similar problems, I encouraged them to ignore him as well, and to focus on improving the articles and follow WP:DR. Unfortuately, those others escalated the situation, resulting in the RfC/U.

I'm always willing to chat about other strategies.

If you look, you'll see that I had offered multiple solutions to Ice-cream headache, the last few all being compromises. I've since moved on, though I'm going to continue to look for good opportunities where I can suggest ways to stop the gross disruptions and personal attacks that have happened since. I'm also planning on jumping in if anyone continues the previous discussions on what we want in the images there. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, trying to ignore people per WP:TROLL pretty much doesn't work. It doesn't generally make them go away, and you can't convince others to play along. I tend to take a direct intervention approach, but then again, I also tend to work with people that no other admin would give the time of day to. He's definitely not a troll, nor is he a vandal, and I hope I can persuade some of the editors surrounding him to lay off all of the personal remarks, because such statements are universally and uniformly unhelpful.

Perhaps the most helpful thing to do is to document issues on the talk pages. Any edit that goes back and forth more than one round should spawn a talk-page section, just so you can say what's wrong with the edits in a context other than the edit summary. Communication via edit summary tends to leave a lot to be desired. Also, being the first to ask the question on the talk page looks very good, and in a reputation-based system such as Wikipedia, that's important. In any such situations, if you need someone to weigh in at the talk page and add some comments about the edits in question, please feel free to let me know. I'm always willing to look at an edit and say what I think of it.

Thanks for hearing what I've got to say. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've had a lot of success with ignoring editors when no other dispute resolution method would work. I tend to be pretty good at starting discussions, very good at contributing to them. While it's better to make an extremely stark contrast between tendentious editors and yourself, I don't have the time to be on the lookout for all the tendentious editors out there, and then put extra time and effort into explaining even the most simple and obvious situations for whoever might be looking in, all just in order to make a case against the tendentious editors. I expect editors to know and understand basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or at least discuss them when they're not. I also expect editors to learn from their past discussions. I don't think I should be lowering my expectations any further. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope that I haven't asked you to lower your expectations. Thanks again for listening. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy to discuss alternatives. I've been rather busy lately, and haven't had the usual time I'd like with Wikipedia. It makes this situation all the more frustrating.

I really haven't bumped into you much, and don't recall if we had similar opinions or not when we did. I am extremely impressed with your handling of this situation though. Continued suggestions more than welcome. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yummy spam

(Bad faith comment removed --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.151.108 (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yeah Ronz, you really need to stop spamming articles...when did you change your ways?</sarcasm>--kelapstick (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Spam 4 types.jpg		Four types of Spam
		For your intense efforts to reduce the Spamocity of Wikipedia I serve up to you four different types of (potentially edible^{[citation needed]}) Spam. While I may not agree with your stance on everything I appreciate (at least most of) the work that you do here--kelapstick (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you would delete it as being promotional for canned meat! Keep up the good work.--kelapstick (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should start investigations at WP:COIN and WP:RSPAM? ;^) The humor is appreciated! --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:List of liqueurs. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. These four edits ([2] [3] [4] [5]) constitute four reversions, a violation of the three revert rule. Please stop. Bongo matic 03:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll report myself. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Farms

I'm guessing you did a lot of work on the WikiFarms Page. I want to let you know that I think it is great. I am looking for a Free Wiki Service that can manage WYSIWYG Tables to help run scheduling for a non-profit. Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Jared —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared999 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheree Silver

Hi, I noticed you recently edited the article Sheree Silver, which is currently undergoing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). You're welcome to comment, if you get a chance. Spring12 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning on it. Just waiting to see what comes of the effort to identify independent, reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty much listed all I could find at the AFD discussion. I updated the article a bit just now, but don't want to take it too far cause' of the RfC underway. Thanks for the edits, though. Spring12 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your question...

...although any further discussion should take place on my talk, my immediate response is that the only diff you provided leads to this post: "Multiple people argued to keep this list in 4 AfD's. A few spam fighters can't seem to let it go. Why exactly are you here? If you don't like this list or its inclusion criteria, and are not interested in this topic, then please let those who are interested continue working. You haven't contributed anything to this article. So why are you here? It seems to be just a desire for more deletion. No, seriously, why are you here? You seem to follow Ronz around. When I bump into either of you, the other soon follows. See WP:Wikihounding and WP:TE. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)". Can you show me where any of that paragraph is either a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA? All I was asking for is a diff where something actually violated those, because none of us who patrol WQA could see it using that one. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Link Farm in Comparison of hex editors

First thanks for all your work. Unfortunately, I was very frustrated that you removed all the links on the Comparison of hex editors page. I found them convenient for going to each vendor's site.

I really don't see the problem with having links to each product's home page. As long as they all have them it is not going to boost their relative link counts in search engines. I found that WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK were irrelevant or did not really apply in this case.

A problem that your change has created is that there are now "Spam pages" (or whatever they are called as I am not that familiar with Wikipedia jargon) appearing so that the hex editor entry can link to a Wikipedia page (eg http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/010_Editor). What would be more useful would be to remove the entirely spurious list of references on said page, which is fairly blatant link farming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.23.33 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Sorry about your frustration. Instead of spam links, you're saying we now have spam pages. Yes, that happens too. If a hex editor can be demonstrated to be notable, it deserves it's own page, with a link to the official site. If not, it doesn't. I'd rather have editors trying to determine notability of hex editors, than simply adding urls. After all, that's what Wikipedia is about. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You know.... doing this isn't a very good idea, at least not as far as I can tell. What do you think it'll do, make him change? It strikes me that it's more likely to just deepen his conviction that you're stalking him. How, exactly, is that helpful?

If he's edit warring, don't warn him. It won't mean anything to him, coming from you. Get someone else - either me, or another admin. Wouldn't you rather be more effective? Leaving him warnings yourself is a great way to be ineffective. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would give absolutely anyone the same warning who was in the same situation. I don't know what will help him. I'm now trying to minimize all the time I'm putting into his disruptions. If I had had more time, I would have written a 3RR report against him. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"I would give absolutely anyone the same warning who was in the same situation". I'm not sure that's a good idea, but you may keep your own counsel, and I'll respect that. I was just offering some friendly advice. Do let me know if I can help with any particular article situation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand and respect what you're doing. As I've already mentioned, I've given Badagnani all the special treatment I'm willing to give, and feel that too much of it was a waste of time. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope I haven't asked you to give anyone special treatment! Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It was my decision, because I was unsure (and still am unsure) if he understands others' comments in reply to his own. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Data mining - reinstating external links

Ronz, I am puzzled why you removed valid and useful external links from Wikipedia entry on data mining.

I don't know how much you are involved in data mining, but I have been working in this field for 20 years, and the links you removed are links to important sites which are very relevant to data mining.

For example, ACM SIGKDD is the leading professional organization for Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, that I currently chair. It is part of ACM and non-profit, and its mission is to support research and education in data mining. Why do you think it is spam to link to ACM SIGKDD ? Other external links are also to valid resources, including my site KDnuggets and other sites like AnalyticBridge.

Furthermore, all Wikipedia links are nofollow.

Gregory Piatetsky-Shapiro Chair, ACM SIGKDD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpswiki (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I see you've been editing Wikipedia for a while, but haven't edited very much during that time. I'm afraid that you've probably haven't become familiar with the policies and guidelines I've already mentioned, plus WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Could use your help/opinion

Hi Ronz, it's been awhile, hope you are well. I have a question since this isn't something I have seen before. Is this considered spamming? Since you do a lot of work on this type of thing I thought that you would be a great person to ask about this. From what I saw on some of the articles, this is being added, the photo I mean, with a paragraph about how useful it is as an alternate. My problem is that there doesn't seem to be refs included, at least when I looked at the Crohn's disease article which was the last one on the list of contributions at the time of this post. I am going to go back to the CD article and if there isn't any refs I will be removing it if no one else has. But that being said I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this for my future knowledge and help with clean up if that is needed. I have never put a warning on a users page before so I don't know if this is appropriate. The reason I don't use warning templates is mainly when I first came here they were used for attacking plus not being an administrator it really doesn't have any use. Well it does as it notifies others that there was a need for a warning. Thinking about it I should probably go and find the templates and read up on them again as I am sure they have change over time since I started here. Anyways, I am getting off track here, your opinion on these additions would be appreciated. Take care and be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, User talk:Eubulides has been taking care of some of the edits from the editor above. I have checked to see if s/he is going through them all but that's ok. I just wanted to let you know because I belately noticed your notice about being here infrequently. I also asked if Eubulides would edit the Crohn's disease article with hopes to have someone bring it to FA status. I hope you are well and sorry for the babbling. Take care and talk to you soon. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI I wasn't going to mention this but incase it continues I guess you should be aware. It is closed so no comments there are necessary. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Good to hear from you. Hope you're well.

Yes, that editing is problematic, especially the addition of unsourced information on an alternative treatment. Looks like Eubulides has it under control. Good call.

Thanks for the ANI on that editor! --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes Eubulides does seem to be handling it and I deleted some that didn't have any refs to prove what was said. No problem about reporting to ANI. Watch out though, there was more vandalism to your user page that other editors reversed. Apparently someone is upset with you. :) Keep in touch and I will too. Nice chatting again. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand

I understand very little of your behaviour and words, so I am very confused.
I have stayed up much later than I intended giving polite and detailed logical explanations which, for reasons that you do not explain, you have reverted and ignored.
It now being nearly 3am, I am going to bed. Perhaps when I return in about 18 hours you will have restored my edits, answered my questions, and explained yourself a little bit more clearly, and we can make some progress on this matter.
As I said, I have no conflict of interest issues in this area, and as I have considerable professional experience in the area, I am therefore able to give neutral professional advice. Hopefully you will find this helpful.
Until tomorrow. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I hope you realize that I was the one that started the discussion. My first comments were to identify the specific policies and guidelines that I referred to in my edit summaries. It would be helpful for you to respond with specifics as to why you think those specific policies and guidelines are not being violated, but that is your decision. It would help move along the discussions more quickly. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was very pleased to read your various responses. Not only do they display "good faith", but they display a willingness to jointly work towards a solution. Such an environment is always more pleasant and more productive!
(as an aside: I like seeing all sides of the conversation in the one place; this conversation seems to spread over three pages (so far ;-). I don't have a particular preference for which "one place", just "one place". As most of the issues I'm discussing in this particular segment of "the conversation" are largely between you & me, I've replied here. But as I implied, if you want to do it somewhere else, that's OK with me.)
>Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. - Me too. (Thanks for saying so.)
>I hope you realize that I was the one that started the discussion. - Well, I thought I did, but now I'm not sure what you mean! I'm assuming you mean, "I started the discussion on the article talk page"? If so, then my answer is "Yes." However, I would note that having started it, you haven't said anything further since your first entry, so I'm a bit confused about calling it a discussion, and wonder if you are referring to something else?
>It would be helpful ... . Yes, I expect it would be. However, there is lots of stuff in those policy pages; I could be here forever addressing every point, and I imagine you wouldn't be interested in most of such a response. I would find it helpful if you were specific about which bits of the policy you wished me to address. However, in any case, I expect a more productive use of my time, (and probably involving less effort on my part!), would be to create wikipages for those cases.
So, very briefly, and using generalisations: Red links tell you nothing. In the field of Computer Science, the "standard" way to find out about a company is to google its name. Usually, if the company has a web site, that is the most useful (comprehensive & reliable) source of information. Yes you must have what we Australians call your "bull@*#% detection and filtering meter" turned up to high, but often that is the only, and usually that is the best, source of information. Yes, I know that's not ideal, but in such an information poor environment, you do what's necessary.

The linkspam [6] from my perspective is a very simple, gross violation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. Reformatting these as references doesn't change this at all, nor does your restoring them without addressing any of my concerns. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

>The linkspam [7] from my perspective is a very simple, gross violation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. - Well, from your pov, it probably is. But carrying on from my comments above, from the situation of reality, "You take what you can get". When it comes down to expediency and practicality, you have to make compromises and compensations. If you want to be pedantic and purist, in this field you usually come away empty handed, which is neither informative nor useful.
>Reformatting these as references doesn't change this at all, nor does your restoring them without addressing any of my concerns. - Well yes, you are quite correct, but as I've tried to explain, there are also other factors involved.

I hope you found that at least some of the above was useful. If not, please ask some specific questions, and I will attempt to address them. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just got your message. I'm hopeful that a good nights rest will allow us to settle this quickly and amicably. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Me too! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I hope this is all just a misunderstanding. You're tired, I'm very busy. I most likely will not have the time to address your concerns before you return. I hope you can be a bit more patient if that is the case. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can be patient. I would not say it is my strongest skill. But my experience is that there are very few things that are so urgent & important that they can't wait at least a little while. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now the hardest bit: Please note that my posting that you reverted was not intended to be an attack or intended to be just my personal views. I expressed those points in first person language because I was writing them, but they were (are) my interpretation of the general norms of the subsections of societies in which you & I are currently interacting. As such, my interpretation is that your response to the elected representative of the professionals in the Data Mining and KDD areas was not appropriate. I would appreciate it if you reread and considered my words in that light. I was attempting to AGF. Perhaps I failed miserably, but that was what I was attempting.

Well it's rather closer to midnight than I would prefer, so that's all from me for tonight. If I don't speak to you before, enjoy the Autumn/Spring equinox festivities. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help [Jeff Halevy] repeated [VANDALISM]

Hi. [Jeff Halevy] is being repeatedly vandalized. Just look at the provocative comments left in edits. I have attended many of Jeff's seminars and comments are ridiculous. Thx. -- Amanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.211 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It looks like the problems have been worked out. If there's anything you're still concerned with, please let me know what specifically. WP:BLP applies here, which means anything controversial or disputed should be sourced with the highest quality references. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

John Zachman and the Zachman Framework

Hi Ronz,

I allready have noticed some time ago, you have been protecting both articles for over a year from the attempts of the Zachman organization and associates to censor both articles, untill four months ago, I kind of took over.

Now I noticed you have put a lot of effort in it, and so do I, but the attacks keep coming. Phogg2 again, as if nothing ever happened, starts removing the illustration of the John Zachman article. It almost looks like he is just toying with is.

Now I wonder if you could give me your advice here, how to proceed. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at what's going on. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Has Phogg2, or anyone else admitted to working for Zachman? Have any ip's been identified as being Zachman's? If so, then this should be taken to WP:COIN. Otherwise, I think it would be best to update the talk page discussion so it's clear what's going on. Then WP:THIRD or WP:EAR would be good next steps. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep those options in mind. The situation is quite complicated, and since you know some of it, I am glad you can comment.

Phogg2 has made it quite clear, that he is in contact with John Zachman, and he is not happy with that.... Now I am not happy about the situation either. But their attempts to censor both articles is against everything I stand for.... But, maybe I have a solution here. I will propose it on the talk:John Zachman page, soon. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ronz and Mdd. I happened to see this discussion. Phogg2 has been cooperative in the past, and I exchanged some email with him. I don't fully understand his recent removal of the diagram from the John Zachman article, but discussion with him ought to be tried, in my opinion, before going to any noticeboards. We should find out if Zachman can assert a copyright claim on the VA diagram. If not, it is up to regular editors to decide if the VA diagram is useful in the article. One option would be to tell Phogg2 that we need to receive a copyright claim from JZ himself via OTRS if he thinks he owns the copyright to the VA diagram. I think this edit by Phogg2 is hard to justify: Image deleted. Not merely my personal opinion. Zachman International disagrees with its use as well. I think we should respect their wishes. This is a confusing mixture of possible rationales, none of which fit with our policy very well. I think I'll ask him on his Talk page about this. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Advertising for Lean Dynamics

Please do not delete section of lean manufacturing page that cites "lean dynamics"--removal of this will render the description incomplete and therefore misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabiw1 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the lean manufacturing article adds an 8th form of "waste" based on one book--so I'm surprised to see your comment that multiple reputable books and articles cited here do not constitute independent, reliable sources... could you please explain the standard based on this discrepancy?Nabiw1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC).

I haven't looked into it in depth. Books can be written by anyone and be of any quality. I'm asking for others' help in determining what reliable sources we have. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gamelan AfD

Done (and all the others as well!). Black Kite 20:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you know?

...about WP:DTTR? The reason behind it is that it tends not to do anything worthwhile. You know he won't hear it coming from you; you've probably just steeled his resolve against you. You should throw a curve ball occasionally, y'know?

Note that this is not a template - I'm talking to you for real. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm extremely familiar with DTTR, and strongly against it. I feel that editors should be treated equally and that templates should be used to present consistent and fair responses to the issues for which they are intended. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And you think that because... it leads to good effects? Which ones? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Documenting issues. Showing that editors have been made aware of problems in a consistent an fair manner. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I see. I disagree with that approach, but I see. I'd rather do something that has more of a chance of resolving the dispute than do something that simply documents that it happened, but I (honestly, not ironically) recognize that I'm unusual in this regard. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only way to resolve this is to ban or block him, so I'm just documenting some of the continuing problems. He behavior is getting worse, not better. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it? Which article(s) are we talking about? I mean, I don't think I'll have any sway with him, but I can maybe get other admins to take a look. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

He's no longer making edit summaries, but simply reverting edits he doesn't like in David Oei.

In Cellophane noodles he doesn't care that one supposed reference is a press release, while the other is blocked because it has hosted malicious software. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... has anyone made a report? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A report on what? --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

His current tendentious editing, without edit summaries. If it hasn't already been brought to some appropriate noticeboard, I'm willing to take it there.

Also, I replied to your post on my talk page. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

He and GraYoshi2x have been reverting each other on multiple articles. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've posted at WP:ANI#Edit warring, if anyone cares. Hope you don't mind that I mentioned your name as someone who knows something about the situation. I suspect I'm done for the night, anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, for notifying the parties for me. Silly of me to forget. OTOH, Badagnani has made it clear I'm not welcome on his talk page, so... -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but those formatting edits he made were quite sensible. Comments at the same indent level as those directly above them make for more difficult reading. I think a little bit of refactoring for readability is desirable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't that he may or may not be trying to make a sensible edit, but that he's not communicating his intentions and edit-warring over it. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but in a case where the edit makes sense, I think it's advisable to let it slide. You've got plenty of ammo without standing on ceremony over two colons. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I pointed out, all I'm doing is documenting the problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And all I'm doing is make suggestions that I think are good ones. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see a problem. He just edit-warred. I documented it. Thanks for the suggestion. I have no intention to take any more action on this specific event. If he edit wars over something that I once again think is no problem, I will likely document that event as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we understand each other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lockbumping.org

Just letting you know I already recommended it for blacklisting... See here: [8] Subverted (talk • contribs) 03:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Gamelan

I would really appreciate if you could expand the explanation for the notability tag at the gamelan outside Indonesia article please - at the article talk page - it would be appreciated -

where NPOV comes into it
where N comes into it
where OR comes in

I realise that you might have a particular issue with articles - but it is not clear from what you have written at the AFD List Afd exactly what is going on Satu Suro 15:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. Gimme a few minutes. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Done! --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

a4m established

you have listed a4m as established in 1993. can you reference that date with any article of any kind. the organization is celebrating there 17th annual conference in April of 2009. if 2009-17= 1992. you have the data wrong and should up date it to be accurate. I am asking that you cite your reference proving the date of establishment. you should also include whom the company was founded by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.134.3 (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume the NY Times article verifies that. 2009-17+1=1993. I'm assuming at the first annual conference, they were not a year old. --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Neural network software / Neural Network - (rv spameed)

Hello Ronz,

You have deleted my external link addition to this two pages : Neural network software / Neural Network I'm sorry to put these links and that you considered them like spams. I think it's pretty good that there's kind of "regulation system" on wikipedia.

I understand that maybe you don't have time to look more in details my website www.neuralfc.com. The fact is that I'm not trying to sell or advertise for something. I'm a student in a French engineering school and I try to contribute to the community by proposing a totally free software (Excel Macro actually) that uses Neural Networks. These wikipedia articles helped me to build it, so I assumed it wasn't a problem if I let people know about my software through Wikipedia.

I hope you can better understand my behaviour with this small explaination. Many thanks.

Ludovic D.

Thanks for your note. What the articles need are reliable sources to verify the information in them and to expand the articles further. Unfortunately, it is a problem when editors try to use Wikipedia to notify others about software and products, especially their own. The most relevant policies and guidelines are WP:SPAM and WP:COI, which go into much more detail about these issues. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam concerns

Hi, I am not trying to spam. I am adding links to the Fales library in an attempt to facilitate interested parties to more information. There is no commercial interest in this. Fales library is an open library to researchers. Thanks, I hope this clears it up. Kelsievans (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Kelsi

Thanks for responding. We've had problems like this in the past, which is in part why I've asked for help. My concerns are not that there are commercial interests, but that your editing fits WP:SPAMMER, sometimes going beyond just adding links but instead adding new section in article that are little more than promotions for the library. Let's see what others say. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam

Oh ok, I will try to contribute information as well. I want to help people know about the individuals as well. I can also remove the section titles if that helps.Kelsievans (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Kelsi

Deleting my comments on gamelan ensembles AfD

Would you mind explaining yourself? — Gwalla | Talk 05:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If I did, it was unintentional. Let me check what it is you're talking about. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Maybe I had been reading the previous copy, then edited it without first renewing the page? Sorry. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Talking with you

Sorry about not responding sooner. I would like to talk to you about these things, but I have very limited time I can spend on Wikipedia and for the past few weeks it has all been taken up with fighting these sort of battles. That in itself is my biggest concern about the orthodoxy that you and others have been showing in policing guidelines. I'd be happy to discuss this with you in more detail when things settle down. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I look forward to when you have time to talk rather than battle. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)