Talk:Klong yao

Removed as advertisement
Do not remove notable, sourced information on a summary, unilateral, undiscussed basis again, as in this edit. Thank you for this courtesy. Badagnani (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an advertisement, sourced by their own, self-published website. See WP:SELFPUB, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. It's not notable.  It doesn't need to be discussed prior to removal.  However, it does require a better source to be restored. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and you are wrong. I never add advertisements into any WP articles, something you have accused me of again and again for nearly a year. Such a hyperaggressive and insulting manner of editing has no place at our project. The production of synthetic glong yao is a very new phenomenon, one that is highly notable. Restoring. Badagnani (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove notable, sourced information on a summary, unilateral, undiscussed basis again, as in this edit. Thank you for this courtesy. Badagnani (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've not addressed any of my concerns. Please stop edit-warring.  If you cannot find an appropriate source, the information will be removed, as similar information has been removed from Stick candy. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This notable, sourced information is important to an encyclopedic understanding of this topic. You simply blanked the information repeatedly rather than first discussing it in a thoughtful, collegial manner. I have been followed to numerous pages today by you, as you formerly did at dozens of pages you had not formerly edited months ago. Perhaps you enjoy following other editors in this manner and you are free to do what you like, but as for myself I have our project and its proper documentation of musical instruments at heart. Let's work together to make this the best, most encyclopedic article on this subject. Badagnani (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've not addressed any of my concerns. Stop making this personal and instead work together with other editors.  Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. This is not personal, this is about having the best, most encyclopedic article about this subject. Are you interested in that? If so, please restore the sourced section you blanked earlier without prior discussion, then blanked again, and again (then said that another editor engaging in edit warring). That kind of behavior is not what our project is about; it is about working together to make our articles the best and most encyclopedic possible for our users. Removing information about the recent production of this Southeast Asian instrument in the West really does deplete our coverage of this subject. Badagnani (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't understand." If you don't understand, then best not repeat your previous comments.  What is it that you don't understand?  --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Great way to contribute to the encyclopedia—bicker to death on whether or not mentioning a company who makes a product constitutes spam, on a stub article. --58.10.216.221 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had removed this comment as disruptive, and notified the editor at User_talk:58.10.216.221, suggesting that Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents is an appropriate place to discuss such concerns. I've collapsed it now instead. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)