User talk:Hipal/Archive 12

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)

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)

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)

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)

Linkspam
I'd like to know more about the linkspam removal procedure. For example, why did you remove this edit here? If you don't mind me asking.  BE  TA  04:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. --Ronz (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 (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 U to decide if you think there is a problem with his username. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Spam.
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

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

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. -- Crohnie Gal 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.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 Third opinion guideline. The links may be added to the article talk page discussion. — Athaenara ✉  03:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
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)

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)

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)

What should have happened
--Ronz (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

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)

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)

Another retirement
Hi, just thought you might be interested but check this out,. 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, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry here are some diffs so that you can see how the retirement came about.,  &   -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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, 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)

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)

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 Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, 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)

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)

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)

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

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 Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. --Ronz (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara
I assume you have been following the 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)

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)

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)

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)