User talk:Hipal/Archive 18

About the Hard Life
Hello, Ronz! My name is Julia. I am an ASAP member (Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals). The link you have removed from the Vundo article is not a spam. This was the steps that really works great with the vundo trojan (please note: the OSAM is a freeware). You can ask the opinion of any computer security expert who knows how difficult to remove the vundo for a common user and who knows that in most cases antivirus/antimalware software could only find, but not disinfect the vundo infection. There is a lot of people who have problems with the vundo trojan and they are looking for help. And I just don't want to leave them alone with this problem. Please, could I put the link back? Thank you in advance. Rights2fly (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I appreciate your situation and that you've chosen to discuss it.
 * In my edit summary, I said "spammed", referring to the fact that the link was spammed to the article: it was added to multiple articles by a single editor that contributed nothing else to any of those articles (See WP:SPAM).
 * I suggest you discuss your concerns on the article talk page, but in general, I don't think it should be allowed because it is a link to a discussion forum, which is normally not allowed (See WP:LINKSTOAVOID). --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand you, Ronz. I hate the spammers too. But I never though I could be a spammer. And it is really sad.
 * I think there are some cases when this system doesn't work (I mean "adding the same link to many articles" isn't always spam, especially if "many" means three or four). For example, I have a web-page, where I add programs useful for the people (all of them are trusted and for the most part free and it isn't the advertising). And when I find something new I could add it (the same link) to more than one section at once, if this program fits (for example it could be: diagnostic software, file/disk utilities and secure file deletion as well). And that is why I though I could do something similar for the Wiki, if the link goes well with the content and if this really could be helpful (sorry, at this moment of my life I have no enough time for more, but I would love to help).
 * Thank you. I will try to add another link to the Vundo article (not the link to the forum). If it will be removed again by somebody, I'll discuss it on the article talk page. I hope I can do so. Rights2fly (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Sounds like you're getting the hang of Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Query re: list of portable software
Hello,

I noticed that you removed some links I posted on the list of portable software page, and am curious if you can tell me why you removed them - since they conformed entirely to the purpose of the page. I've posted on the discussion portion of that page and look forward to your explanation - I sure don't want to be a spammer (which I thought I wasn't, but apparently am.)

--Vieen (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'll discuss it there. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MedRevise.co.uk
Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active! With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Tadalafil
I recently received 2 new entries from you on my User Talk page.

The first is a message welcoming me to Wikipedia which I find kind of weird given that I'm far from being new on wikipedia - I've got contributions dating as far back as 2004 (approximately as long as you).

The second accuses me of having recently added promotional material to articles, which I don't find very accurate, not only because my most recent activity on that article is far from recent and dates back one year and a half ago, but also because the material that you have removed are two references links, that I had cited to support a fact mentioned in the article.

The original articles mentioned that Tadalafil (Cialis&reg;) had as an advantage over Sildenafil (Viagra&reg;) a much longer lasting effect, but without giving any explanation or source supporting the information. (As some other wikipedian complained in the corresponding Talk page). What I did is add the needed explanation of pharmacokinetics and, after discussing about it with other wikipedians, I added (although clumsily) the references that I could to support this fact : a citation of a publicly available French drugs database (Biam2.org) and links to ePocrates, an English-language database for drugs very popular among physicians (available both on PDAs and online) although its access was limited to registered health personal.

These are the two links you removed, titling your edit "removing refs that are advertisements - the information is easily available". I find the remove unfounded, at least for the reasons you mention. ePocrates is *not* an on-line seller of drugs. It's a drug database, available in English, which is already cited several times on Wikipedia whenever a reliable fact source is needed for a drug. I really don't see how this could be considered under the "advertisement" category. And, as I started this whole edit because of complain of undocumented fact, I hardly think that "information easily available" applies too. Specially on a web resource like Wikipedia which tries to produces checkable source for its content as much as possible (as illustrated by the abundance of "citation needed" tags).

I'm not campaigning to force a revert for this edit (It won't make sense : As judging by the fact that other editors have estimated the difference of half-lifes not worthy of getting mentioned on Wikipedia, my refs are thus superfluous). I'm trying to get in touch with you to discuss about this allegation of spamming you make about me that I found not really adapted to the situation and that I personally experience as verging on the defamatory side. I suspect that you might jump a little bit to easily to the delete button without taking time to discuss your actions, research the subject and/or consider alternatives. If you wish to accept my offer to discuss, my coordinates are available on my user page.

DrYak (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I always give a welcome message to any editor that I encounter that doesn't have a talk page.
 * The links plain don't work for me using Firefox. I didn't test them to see if they work with other browsers.  When I found what I thought was the information you meant to link to, it appeared to be nothing more than standard pharmaceutical information that is easily available elsewhere.  If I'm mistaken on what the links are supposed to be linking to, then I apologize.
 * Whether or not I misindentified what the link was supposed to refer to, Epocrates, Inc. is linkspam and advertising.
 * The message I left you, Uw-advert1, assumes you made the edit in good faith. I'm sorry if you read it as anything different. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange, I just checked it now and it works for me with FireFox 3 under Linux.
 * The thing that makes difference from the average patient-oriented information available online, is that drug databases targeted toward health professionals also include additional technical informations, for example about the pharmacokinetics including where the drug is degraded and with which half-life. This, at the time when the "36 hours" information was still in the article, is important data to substanciate the claim. The average patient oriented online information doesn't give such kind of details and usually concentrate on informations that the patient must keep in mind (what to tell or ask the doctor, what drugs to avoid mixing even if sold over the counter, etc ...).
 * In addition to the online link, also included a link to the company making the database, feeling that citing the database's maker was important. Maybe that was superfluous. Nonetheless I would really had appreciated if you could have explained the motivations that lead you to think that the link was advertising (I don't know, but may some short sentence as in "the 'available online' link already provides access to the information and from there the make can be found. An additional link to the homepage is superfluous and a little bit out-of-context given the ads for the products")
 * I don't want to sound aggressive to you. But maybe adding some basic explanation specific to the situation in addition of simply copying a template would help people understand better you decision and limit the amount of "Why did you delete X or Y" messages that you seem to be receiving here.
 * Nonetheless thank you for trying to dedicate your time in order to make Wikipedia a slightly better place DrYak (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response.
 * I think the link may only work if you have an account with them when using Firefox.
 * I get these messages for the same reasons that everyone else does that takes on Wikipedia's spam problems: because a lot of people think that adding such links is appropriate. It's not appropriate.  A very small percentage of them ask for clarification.  I'm happy to do so.
 * The link is advertising per WP:SPAM. Such links are generally only allowed on articles specifically about the topic of the link. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuum (design consultancy) rewrite
I am rewriting the entry for the Continuum design consultancy and I would like to ask what specifically violates the conflict of interest code. I assume it is the references and media? I should refer to more third party sources and not to Continuum's own website, correct? Your input is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Forrelli (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're referring to regarding a conflict of interest. Did someone indicate it was a problem? If so, where? --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuum (design consultancy) rewrite
I have tweaked the Continuum page with neutrality in mind. Does this now satisfy the Wikipedia requirements ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_(design_consultancy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrelli (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work. It looks much better. I've changed the tag and noted that the second paragraph especially could use more work. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuum (design consultancy) edit
Verifiable citations have now been added to the second paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrelli (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health‎
Please accept my apology for incorrectly putting your name on the unsigned comment. When I went to correct the mistake I noticed that you had already fixed it. Thank you for fixing my error. TallMagic (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Think nothing of it. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ZRTP and KHAMSA citation
Hi Ronz,

yesterday i edited the ZRTP page by introducing the new ZRTP protocol extension that KHAMSA is doing in partnership with Philip Zimmermann to extend ZRTP also to non-VoIP protocols.

It's a huge innovation in security environment, why you removed it from the web page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpietrosanti (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 September 2008
 * See the information I left you on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bates method RFF
Hi Ronz. I have requested feedback on whether the Bates method article now has a Neutral Point of View. Just letting you know in case there is anything you want to add. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I think we're making progress, but lots still to do, especially when it comes to WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I got a reply there saying that the NPOV noticeboard is the best place to ask this. Not sure whether or how soon to go ahead with that. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. WP:NPOVN is relatively new.  I'll be interested to see what feedback results. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed a note there that says: "Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature." So I guess that is not the place to request a thorough NPOV review either. The only outlet I have found for a thorough review would be a Good Article nomination, which at this point is probably not a viable option. I guess I will wait and see if anything more comes of the RFF and beyond that, leave the ball in your court as far as requesting help, since you could better specify what the issues are. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's disappointing. An RfC might be helpful. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't get the impression that an RfC is an avenue to request the kind of review I had in mind. We could ask "Does the article overall now have a NPOV?" and get several responses, but that would not be the result of an in-depth examination of the article and its major sources. I am still hopeful that the RFF will yield something, but other than that, perhaps the best answer is to continue to discuss specific issues (avoiding whole-sale deletions without agreement), for which there would be several potential avenues of Dispute Resolution. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting Seeyou's unhelpful edits. I had been considering whether to do it myself. As you noted elsewhere Seeyou does not seem to be fluent in English, so I'm trying to take it slowly with him/her on the talk page. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've always been very mixed about how to handle Seeyou.  The language barrier is definitely part of the problem. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ping
I have a question for you and since I am embarrassed about the question I took it to you off line. It's a weird question I think so I would appreciate your clarification and comments. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Adaptive Audio Talk page edits
Ronz - made some edits to the Adaptive Audio talk page. Could you take a look when you have a chance? In particular, I posted suggested replacement text to try to make the article more "wikified" and proposed a new link to another Nancy Jamison article. Thanks,

D3innovation (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops - just saw your Nancy Jamison comment - thanks. Please disregard above note except proposed text part.

Thanks D3innovation (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ronz - any comments on my proposed edits to the Adaptive Article? Do you think it would be okay for me to go ahead and replace these, or if you are okay with it, would you mind doing a cut and paste? THere are 3 sections I suggested for replacement on the talk page. THanks again for your help here. D3innovation (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My perspective hasn't changed: if we cannot find good references, the article should be deleted. Everything that is not verifiable can be removed at any time per WP:V.  While I appreciate the work you've done, it could come to naught if not referenced. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I read through the Wikipedia definitions for what qualifies as references. I think the magazine articles and issued patent attest to the validity of the article under these definitions. I see where it says Academic press, published books, newspapers, magazine articles etc all qualify in descending order of precedence. Why would this not be enough? The definitions are not specific as to details on how many articles etc. - it just says they can qualify as references. Also, an issued patent has more rigorous reference and prior art checking than many university papers.


 * 24.184.95.40 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - that was me (D3innovation) above - forgot to sign in when I posted this D3innovation (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Patents are almost totally useless here. They verify what is listed in a patent application.
 * As I mentioned earlier, you should find other topics edit in order to learn about Wikipedia without the frustration of working against a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have edited other articles, but this is the one I do not want to see deleted. Especially if there is something I can do to make the article conform to WS. I disagree strongly about patents simply listing what is in an application. I have written and been granted many patents. I have also paid a lot of money to attorneys to write them for me. A patent represents what the USPTO will allow in an application, but ONLY after VERY thorough research on the USPTO examiners part about prior art, prior patents, references in trade journals, newspaper articles and the like. If every patent simply represented what was in an applicants application, everyone would claim every piece of IP in the world - which would be meaningless of course. A patent receives very close scrutiny by outside, independent, non-COI counsel before being granted. Even then, issued patents are subject to challenge in the courts if there is a COI against it in the industry. THis si why I believe issued patents are at least as good as academic press. Is there a strong and reasonable argument against what I just said here?


 * As an additional reference I'd like you to consider, please see this web site's published book called the Voice Compass -  http://www.voice-compass.com/english/main/home.html  There is a full chapter on Adaptive Audio in this published book (written by an independent, neutral party with no interest here) - the problem is that it is just not visible without purchasing the book. If the author were to make my chapter visible online, would that be a good additional reference?


 * I guess on a broader perspective, I am struggling to understand what it is you are trying to establish via these references? Is it the legitimacy of Adaptive Audio(AA)? Is it that the technology exists and is in use? Is it the technical feasibility or fact that experts in the voice communications are aware about AA and would want to read about it in an encyclopedia? Because I think I can verify all of the above. I am just not clear on what it is we are trying to establish here. D3innovation (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very familiar with patents and very certain that they're use is limited to what I described.
 * voice-compass.com promotes itself as a promotional entity. Basically, they republish press releases and information sheets.
 * We're trying to establish some WP:N criteria, and WP:V along the way. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you do agree issued patents require the patent examiner to do an extensive patent search, prior art search and media search before issuing a patent, right?
 * You are correct about voice-compass.com. However the Voice Compass compendium is, as the site says "The voice compass is the compendium for Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and looks at the domain of voice, i. e speech applications on the telephone in full detail.". This is not a book of press releases and marketing materials. Readers would not pay the $180 USD for it if it were. They can get those materials for free themselves.  It is a 500 - 600 page, published book on Information and Communications Technology. The AA chapter is like other chapters in the book - about IT technologies. What is wrong with that?
 * D3innovation (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ronz - should I be contacting you here, or on the AA Talk page? Or does it matter? Thanks 24.184.95.40 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article talk page is best so that other editors can see and participate in the discussions. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll post there from now on. What about my comments on 17:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC) above? Do you want to answer it here, or should I cut and paste it to the Talk page? D3innovation (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably best to summarize as well so editors don't have to read here to understand the questions. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I cut and pasted the relevant questions this earlier this morning. What were your thoughts on my last comments above?D3innovation (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I hadn't looked. I'll do so now. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Thanos5150
First of all I have no idea what you are talking about regarding sockpuppetry. I have forgot to sign in and made edits but make no attempt to deceive or hide anything, but regardless in the discussion pages which your "evidence" points to, I have signed all comments with thanos5150.

Secondly, as far as the 3RR Warning, the problem is that while it was flagged and being discussed the section was deleted which is not acceptable. That edit had been in the article for several months unchanged yet suddenly the whole thing was deleted because I removed the POV word "fringe" to describe an author? The appropriate action would have been to leave it unchanged until a consensus ruling had been made to remove it but this was not done. It was Doug Weller who continuously reverted edits as you can easily see by removing the paragraph. Did you give him this warning as well? I doubt it. All I did was revert it back to its original form of the last several months.

You have made it your missionn to stop disruptive edits but I think you are seeing something you don't really understand and are making an inaccurate judgment based on the facts.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I made no accusations of sockpuppetry. In fact, I made it clear that the ip in question is you and that you sign your edits when using that ip.
 * WP:3RR is very specific. It is doubtful if you will be allowed to do what you did again without being blocked for it.
 * I've asked for verification and independent sources as required per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pallet Rack "spam"
Ronz, You recently deleted and tagged a link on the "Pallet Rack" page as spam. This link led to the Rack Manufacturers Institute, the organization that governs the manufacturing of pallet rack. Virtually every manufacturer of pallet rack in the country belongs to this nonprofit organization and submits articles and reference letters on a regular basis. All the information you would ever need on pallet rack is there, which is why I used them as a reference. I am not a member, in fact I have no affiliation with them whatsoever. They were there because they in fact were used as a reference in the article. I hope this clears things up. I will put them back as a reference assuming you have no issues. Thank you. Markj52 (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting a discussion. Such links almost always qualify as promotional per WP:SPAM and rarely meet WP:RS, so I doubt if there is any way it can be kept in. This should be continued on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for External Links
Ronz, Thanks for the pointers. Unfortunately I dont' see how these links go against any external link guidelines. In fact the guidelines specifically state that DMOZ links are one type of link to consider and you deleted that. It also states that neutral sites that offer additional information especially .org sites should be considered, and you deleted those also. All links aside, if I am writing an article and I use information from a public site, that source should be referenced at the end of the article. You deleted those also. I am trying to provide the internet community with more information than is currently available on Wikipedia. I have been a DMOZ editor for over 6 years in the material handling categories and I have information that would be useful in Wikipedia. I don't have any ulterior motives. I'm not trying to sell anything. This is all pertinent information not spam. I am new at this but I am getting discouraged quickly. To date, every article I have come across in Wikipedia in material handling has been written by hacks intent on promoting their own stores. I am trying to clean this up and bring my 12 years of consulting knowledge to this database. I do need help and direction but deleting all my work is not helping me. I would welcome your guidance, if you would like to give it. Markj52 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest discussing the matter on the article talk pages, because the circumstances differ from article to article.
 * DMOZ links can be acceptable, especially when the article is poorly referenced (as these are) and when the DMOZ links are highly relevant (which is what I'm concerned about). --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No More Links
You started here making some unfortunate mistakes and you got frustrated. Sounds like you're on the right track. Let me know if you need help. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)