User talk:Hipal/Archive 17

Thanks for the welcome! Zeppomedio (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources of the research that invalids the Nielsen's "3-5 evaluators suffice for HE" assertion? I'd be very interested in reading it. Diego (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

See the article talk page. The claim that "further experts yield diminishing returns in terms of usability problems found" is false. --Ronz (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in this [1] It sounds a lot like what you went through along with others. Just thought I would bring it to your attention to do as you would like, respond or not. I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sad. --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is sad but with reading things I am now starting to understand what she is trying to do with the articles though I don't think that it will work for Wikipedia. She seems to be used to a board room like way of doing things, and I don't think that will work. Have you thought about putting up your ban for a week from Quackwatch with the details of what lead to it? I tried to talk to User:Elonka on my talk page about it since I didn't understand why you were blocked when you were obviously being misrepresented. Here is the conversation, [2]. The discussion seen was a comment I made at Shot_info's talk page about it. I tryed to explain the history of the misrepresenting and the bad blood on QW that has driven many editors away by the editor's behavior. You do know that Avb isn't active anymore, or I should say very little activity since the debacle back at the QW page, at least the last time I looked at his contributions. I think this whole mess needs sorting. I was surprised to see that there were three attempts for administration that failed prior to becoming one. It was an interesting read which you can find at the above link if you are interested. I think that the QW page should be part of this since the actions are the same in my opinion anyways. I would put it up myself but to be honest, I still don't understand why you were banned for the week. It is you choice to make and please know I am not attempting to pressure you in anyway to react here. I just think it would be good for the project all around to have the whole picture and since QW has already been mentioned a few times I think details would be appropriate. Well, like I said your choice to decide, whatever you do have a good day. I am spending the day cleaning and cooking for the family coming today. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the "board room" mentality and I don't think it's appropriate at all for admins to use. I'm absolutely appalled by her behavior in her RfC/U. She clearly doesn't follow the rules she expects of others, and I think a strong argument could be made that acts as if she has special privileges that allow her to behave so poorly. Very sad indeed.

When I'm done with my discussions with Coppertwig, I'll write a summary of them, summarize my concerns with Elonka further, then start a mediation request. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Drop a link on my talk page if you do please, I may have something to add to the conversation. Like I said I was lurking on QW and was shocked at your ban with what I saw happening. I saw what Levine did and I tried to explain to her that this was a tactic and that there was history for a long time going on with what he did. She didn't seem to understand what I was saying though. So drop in on my talk page if you do go to mediation or where ever so I don't miss it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the Health Freedom Movement talk page re. DivaNtrainin's edit. Could you also take a look at the [Codex Alimentarius talk page] when you get time? DivaNtrainin has removed what I consider to be a perfectly good reference (from the Guardian, a major British newspaper), saying that "this is not a quality reference." The Guardian easily qualifies as a reliable source WP:SOURCES with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and I would really welcome your intervention on this one too, if you have time. Thanks again!Vitaminman (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the ref meets WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. Thanks too for your intervention on the talk page.Vitaminman (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, created a cabalcase. See

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-08-03_Bates_method

regards, Seeyou (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've supplied sections rather than diffs, as it gives a better picture of exactly what was going on. Will suppliy diffs at the RfC as well, this is for your convenience and because you asked nicely :). [3][4][5].

Regards,--Ramdrake (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't thank me until you've seen how long the section are. I would recommend starting with the last one, it may be more telling of what I meant - and less tiresomely long. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Tired_of_the_gaming needs some attention (advice and discussion of consequences of decisions to date). --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I saw it after posting another comment at on the same RFC talk page, which you will probably not like very much either. I would point out, however, that my comments at the RFC are not "editorial disagreements" such as one would find in an article or its talk page. They are comments regarding a User Conduct RFC, in which I think one would expect to find comments regarding a user's conduct. In this case the conduct in question is that of the user who started the RFC, which I think is fair game, especially in light of the issues discussed in the various statements and endorsements in the RFC to date. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL still applies, as well as WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. It's pretty clear that others have similar concerns. --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand, although (as I just stated in another comment on the same talk page) my concern is that the policies in question be applied evenhandedly, which is kind of ironic in an RFC in which the primary issue is whether certain policies were applied evenhandedly. In any event, I think I have made my point and see no need to repeat myself. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear that one of the issues of the RfCU is whether policies and guidelines are being applied evenhandedly, especially WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I meant... but whatever. On to the next issue. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Words totally escape me on this one! [6] Have a good one, off to watch a movie. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Why did you remove all the vendors from the Run Book Automation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_Book_Automation)? That information was very useful, now there is only one vendor that appears in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.210.68.145 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

After looking closer at the reference for the remaining vendor, I moved it to the talk page for discussion. I removed them because they are inappropriate per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said the other day, it can't be a POV fork unless it expresses a POV. Show me where the POV is and I'll remove it.

Sardaka (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is that it's a pov fork. Thanks for the reminder. --Ronz (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, you say: "we determine NPOV by finding and following independent, reliable sources. Where are these sources? I'm not sure the article has any." I beg to differ. There are currently citations from American Journal of Optometry, Archives of the American Academy of Optometry, American Journal of Ophthalmology, Optometry and Vision Science, Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (a rather prestigious journal in which I have published), Ophthalmic and Physiological Optometry and Journal of Vision (the highest ranked vision journal according to Impact factor, and one in which I have published (twice)). That's not to mention the more journalistic sources, that include Time, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe. Regarding refactoring my comments, I prefer to let what's been said on talk pages stand, rather than censor myself. Famousdog (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And as I said, these sources are drown in a sea of poor sources. --Ronz (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(saved for wherever the discussion continues)

• Keep until replaced with something better: While it's clear that RfC/U is misused, it serves a useful and sometimes essential venue: for documenting and discussing disruptive editing patterns and similar behaviors that are too complicated for simple discussion in WP:ANI. The incivility problems (and worse) that are so common result from our inability to properly enforce WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS, and WP:NPA. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the QW talk page under where Elonka posted the link to the RFC. I think if you want it to be seen you need to go to the link and post it there. This is just a suggestion. There is a section now there about Quackwatch that is well.... --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given all that Elonka is going through, I thought it best to make it relatively unobtrusive. If people are actually reading carefully, they'll see it. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense, I understand what you are doing and think it's very nice and a polite way of saying it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you please let me know why you insist in deleting contribution of goobiz.com (a non reliable contributor for you) about its contribution to "Bridge the Business Motivation Model (BMM) to SOA" ?

Thanks

Bruno Rodin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.250.174.42 (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for contacting me about this. I've been trying to notify you about the situation, but being new to Wikipedia, you may have missed the notes. User_talk:Bruno_rodin and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.goobiz.com.2F. both have discussions about the situation. In a nutshell, the information source does not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, the link has been spammed across multiple articles, and appears to be have been added to promote a persons work and business interests. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am on it. I am making a list and once I get a few more will get a CU done. Right now just keep an eye on it as usual. KnightLago (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that will get a few more people to take a look, but a CU needs to be run to block the IP address or range just like last time. That is the only way to get him to stop. KnightLago (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Biff714 KnightLago (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I changed your edit at Joseph Mercola; I was trying to clear the sockpuppet detritus and hastily tossed the pearls before the bathwater, or something like that. My bad. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I guessed. Not a problem. Thanks for the explanation. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Please see DivaNtrainin's latest comments re. the Codex Alimentarius article, and my response, on my talk page [7]. What do you think? Vitaminman (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A reliable sources has been provided. Seems like DivaNtrainin and the WP:SPA ip are just trying to make a WP:POINT. I suggest ignoring any discussion that isn't relevant to improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will do, thanks. Vitaminman (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources, feel free to return it. The section appeared to be the subject of an edit war where neither side was producing references, and so I just chopped it all out. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Close - they were sockpuppets of a blocked editor. Thanks for getting back to me! --Ronz (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good thing, [8]. I don't know if you saw him around, I just noticed right now in a response he made. I think and hope he will be able to help things around here that to me have gotten really strange of late. Also have you seen this essay? [9] It was started by Elonka recently and has been busy ever since. I guess this is the next catch term to watch out for. Hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to see Newyorkbrad is back.

Yes, I've been working on Tag team. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Then after a couple of exchanges on the notice board, editor goes to the talk page and:

• creates a topic called "decision to withdraw" ; it is not a question, but rather a statement explaining why he is withdrawing and that it has to do to not enough good will on my part and how i favor censorship or something to that effect. I believe there is a better way to express disagreements and his public way of "caution" to future editors regarding me is not positive and appropriate. If we feel a person is not behaving within guidelines of wikipedia, I feel we should get assistance. That is why I am contacting you, for your opinion and assistance. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Battle
• Can this particular "discussion topic" be retained, but moved to what I imagine a more appropriate place, say that those who want to discuss the article truly can? and if the user wants to vent his frustration with me and indicate how i don't have good will or exercise censorship, than that can be done in perhaps a mediation forum? Hrannar (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

What would you do if someone did this to you?

BACKGROUND INFO Despute began here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Battle/Archive_2#Neutrality

Until finally, the user archived our discussion and moved it to the notice board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kathleen_Battle

Hrannar (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but I'd like to know why the "network emulation" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_emulation) has references to the 3rd party products removed?

All except for one product that it is... ns-2. Very dodgy.

Stoj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.16.20 (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be better to discuss on the article talk page. I left the link to ns (simulator) because it is not an external link. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, a while back you suggested I reconsider my username. Just wanted to say that I took your advice, and thanks for the tip.KyoukiGirl (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad I could help. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

KPI Global Technologies, Inc. is a legitimate company in SOA. It is not "spam". —Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloSOAWorld (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the note I placed on your user talk page, or read WP:COI and WP:SPAM? --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are YOU to decide that this link doesn't belong. As a reader, this blog is a tremendous resource for all things SOA. I read religiously. It is a much better resource than the other external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.34 (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are YOU to decide that this link doesn't belong. As a reader, this blog is a tremendous resource for all things SOA. I read religiously. It is a much better resource than the other external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.118 (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of SOA related products, 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. ==

--RichardVeryard (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the VHACS linkspam... I did it once already but it came back promptly. I was going to have another look soon... samj (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's an ongoing problem, then it might be useful to make a list of the editors and ip's adding it. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I've been working on a Wikipedia tool to help editors find their "WikiNeighbors" [10] -- do these results seem reasonable for you? Appreciate any feedback you might have. Thanks! Zeppomedio (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not sure what's reasonable for me, because much of my editing consists of cleaning up spam. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

68.175.102.177 is consistently spamming, as you have observed/warned multiple times. I've added template uw-advert4 - is there something else to be done? samj (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the ip is blocked already. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wikipedia reference info. Dezignr (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of citing project companies for the article 'Tom Hardy (designer)', I clearly understand your concern with using a reference document whose data may originate simply from a self-serving form. However, the reference cited was a special, high quality Auburn University one-time external publication distributed to alumni, government and industry commemorating the 100th anniversary of the College of Architecture, Design & Construction (CADC) in 2007. The "fact sheets" were actually descriptive pages written by a third party who profiled 100 alumni that have distinquished themselves in their professions. Due to the external audience for the publication, it is my assumption that the university would want to ensure the content was correct to avoid any issues, especially with industry. Furthermore, the publication also included photographs of alumni work and a number of those 100 people were invited to present case study examples of said project work to students, faculty and guests. Mr. Hardy was one that made such a presentation of work from various companies on November 2, 2007. Therefore, given the aforementioned conditions regarding a verifiable source, it is my view the reference provided is adequate to substantiate the citing of project companies in said article and does not violate Wikipedia guidelines. It should be understood that inclusion of such information is not intended to be promotional, but is used in a pedagogical context to illustrate the breadth of professional contribution made by the article subject. I look forward to your response.

Dezignr (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at other biographical articles, you won't see such information, mostly because of WP:SOAP. In general, I think that lists of clients are inappropriate. In the case of someone like Hardy, what matters is the work he's produced and it's reception, not who the work was for. Also, have you looked at WP:RS? --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of the edits were indeed minor. Also, I removed the project list and associated source to avoid a 'soapbox' perception of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezignr (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Thanks for intervening with Hsmukler. You were right to haul them up about COI issues. I should really have done that myself when I edited the first time - I was a little too eager to get information from them about the source they mentioned! Anyway, thanks! Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up info about editing 'talk' pages. I'm new at this. Dezignr (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you found it helpful. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I am requesting to put a link in order to help people understand what actually is ADALINE NEURAL NETWORK. Please take a look to my post here: [11]

This is not a simply spam link. It have been done with research in 2 years from University Of Malaysia: [12]. The thesis can be downloaded there as well.

I just hope it can benefit more people as it has taken me quite a long time to understand it since never have wiki last time.

Any concern, please do not hesitate to email me at [ahyeek@gmail.com]

Thanks.

Ahyeek (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Ahyeek

Please see the comments on your talk page. I believe you have been warned multiple times about these issues when you were editing as 202.122.153.22 and 202.122.153.71. --Ronz (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been allowed to place the Genetic Algorithm links and never been warned. Please check the log. However, I found encourage and start to work out the Neural network example in order to benefit more people. Perhaps, can you help me on how should I modify the content in order to place a content in wiki? I found that in order to re-write the content in wiki again, it's rather point user to the existing content which I have been constructed in my blog. Ahyeek (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has been adding the very same links to the very same articles at almost the same time. If this is just a coincidence, I'm sorry for the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the warning on your talk page, but think the discussions should be kept as much as possible in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.silyeek-tech.blogspot.com --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a response on my "Discussions" talkpage (follow the Kacheek emoticon in my signature). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 01:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A proper preservation of edit histories requires an admin who can do the move right (by deleting the destination page, moving the starting page, and then reinserting the destination page content). Perhaps a WP:RFPM is in order. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I should have started there. The move is done, it's just a matter of cleaning up. --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronz. I'm working to add in text citations to make the article a little clearer and more referenceable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrennan17 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

While it's unlikely that someone can help, the tag should be kept until the info is referenced well enough to be verifiable. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I put something on WP:3 that may concern you. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the discussion? --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz,

Could you please clarify why you took down the "advantages" of Laser WET method section on this Wiki page? Your reasoning looks quite unclear to me and I do not understand what you are referring to when you say invalid references.

Also, the proposal for Low-power transfer by Geoffrey Landis is based on Laser power.

Laser powerbeaming as it is known has been limited due to expensive laser sources. The entire Wireless Energy Transfer topic is right now quite exotic and we have to be responsible to develop information for Wiki audience such that it addresses both advantages and disadvantages of each topic mentioned here.

Hoping a meaningful response.

Thank you. Visionary77 (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

See the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)