User talk:Hipal/Archive 19

External Linking
Ronz - Thank you for the help & information regarding external linking. I was unaware of many of the polcieis. Your help is much appreciated, thank you! Courtney L Brewer 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtneyLBrewer (talk • contribs)

personal trainer
External links: removed per WP:ELNO

Links to the American College of Sports Medicine and the National Academy of Sports Medicine were both pertinent and helpful to the subject matter. They are neither advertising/promotion --nor were they too many links. This wikipedia entry is missing alot of helpful, nonbiased information. I agree that this site must maintain its integrity and be ever watchful of spamming and other abuses. Howerver, NASM and ACSM both have a reputable standing with the Board of Certification and serve as excellent sources on the subject. Please reconsider your removal of these links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.88.89.230 (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For QA purposes, I've changed the 'External Links' section to internal links under 'See Also'. I think this is more appropriate given that it will cut down the frequency of external link placement, blatant advertising, etc. I've included an editorial from NASM's Blog as a reference to the section discussing the establishment of standards. Although this is referencing a blog (albeit there is not interactivity in the blog), it is expert advice from a professional -- thus, I believe it to be pertinent and acceptable. Also, although it is from NASM as a source, it does not promote the organization, but rather, calls for consistent standards -both national and international. Let me know your thoughts on it. -Drewinfo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.88.89.230 (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Material Handling Industry
Ronz, You did offer to help me so now I'm asking for that help. I have noticed that the material handling industry as a whole doesn't have much exposure on Wikipedia (outside of spammers trying to make a buck). Material handling equipment exists in literally every manufacturing and distribution facility worldwide all the way down to the ma and pop grocery store and the home office. How do we include the material handling industry in Wikipedia? If one wanted to take on such a huge endevor (without any external links on any articles!) how would one start?

Please note: As crazy as it seems, this is my passion. I don't intend to profit from my contributions except personal satisfaction. Thanks Markj52 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit to IBM iSeries
Hi Ronz,

Valid edit, but I reverted instead of removing most of the other links from external links section. In meantime I'll scam IBM sources directly for their (non-vendor biased) directory of 'certified' iSeries/AS400 supporting products that can be used as an an external link replacing the vendor links in this section.

Shephardd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shephardd (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Such links are inappropriate and will be removed, as this one was immediately after your restored it. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

ITIL v3
ITIL v3 read like a blatant advertisement and makes pejorative statements. Any attempts to collaborate on the definition have been removed as soon as they are posted. It appears that the author of this wiki believe they are the smartest person they know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimchojhang (talk • contribs) 13:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is tagged as being too much like an advertisement. I suggest you discuss your concerns and possible solutions on the article talk page so that others understand how you'd like to address the problem. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Context
Thanks very much. Context. Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey Ronz,

Thanks for introducing to the Features of Wikipedia. I know all the features of it, such as this:

Anyways, thanks for helping me!

King Screamer (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to have helped. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Email
Check your email (when you get back!). Doug Weller (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This the last?
I hope so. :) I never seem to do those right.70.131.83.95 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with the article
 * The comment wasn't specifically for you, but a statment that we're making headway on Talk:Chris_Heimerdinger. Now to get the titles and citation info in... --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Threat to edit-war
I have opened a section on removing the tags on the Heimdinger talk page. I intend to remove them in 36 hours if no one is willing or able to support the tags with specifics76.238.22.59 (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're threatening to edit war. The rationale is there on the talk page. Please contribute to the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, its a request for discussion in an effort to reach a consensus to close out the tags - the conversation may be found here. I have to say I'm a bit surprised to see you reheader my section here and add such inflammatory language. You'll note at the link that nothing could be further from my mind.76.238.22.59 (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You gave the message to multiple editors after I gave the specifics you asked for. The title seems to fit well. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was given to the other editors in an effort to reach consensus, it was done at the suggestion of an Administrator - I've quoted the relevant text from C.Fred's talk page:

'' FWIW, I recommend that the IP make a new section in the talk stating that he is going to remove the tags as it seems that consensus has been achieved in the next few days. It's not going to kill anybody if the tags stay up there for a few more days. Ta Shot info (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)''
 * Hope that helps, Thanks!76.238.22.59 (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And all these discussions were made after I already gave the very specifics you asked for. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments being removed

 * I'm not sure why you keep deleting all my comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.22.59 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've explained on your talk page, in my edit summaries, and it's in the instructions at the top of this page. Thanks for giving me the idea to rewrite the instructions though. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel like your being watched? :-)
and :-)  Shot info (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was already writing up an ANI report before he made the threat. Angels watching over me ;^) --Ronz (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I assume now that I have a bit further you are aware. Good luck with all of this and be careful please. ;) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not talking to me now?
Strange, you seemed so eager to make communications with me before, now you choose to remove my comments... --Hm2k (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as you can follow the instructions at the top, you're welcome to contribute here.
 * I thought it best to give it some time per WP:DR. You'll find information on what an WP:RFC is in that article, along with other recommendations and options on resolving disputes. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With regards to the Aspire One article, as far as I am concerned, there's no dispute to resolve. However, you decided to take this outside of the article talk. Unless you have something specific you wish to discuss with me, please don't communicate with me. If you have a specific issue with the article, use the talk on that article. --Hm2k (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly there's a dispute, otherwise the table wouldn't be there.
 * I think it's best to give it some time. If you get any communications from me in the meantime on your talk page, it will be on other topics.
 * I'll probably start and RfC soon. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Before Undoing changes
Before Undoing changes, Provide wikipedia reference code that says text that references Blog should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.139.82 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did. More specifically WP:ELNO #11, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just saying, it really sad that some of the good definition or content gets removed. Any ways it really doesn't matter to me as the losers are the readers who visit pages on wikipedia.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.234.166 (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing sad about it. We're writing an encyclopedia here. It's very bad content. It gets removed. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For starting the ball rolling. I found 10 mins to comment. Like you I am rather intermittent at present but I'll help if I can. Regards -- Herby talk thyme 12:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

why?
Why are you removing my site its not spammed or whatever you have been saying. It took me ages to set it up and i want people to actualy look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.187.91 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing the matter. Wikipedia is not the place such links, especially when it's your own. See WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK and WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "puritanism is the haunting fear that someone.. somewhere.. may be happy" H. L. Menkhen--76.64.63.11 (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but i was able to add links before and this is to help people, what about the other links there? And its not spam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.187.91 (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Alla tedesca
Hello - I think you may have tagged this user accidentally. My experience with him / her is that they are primarily interested in fighting spam. Thanks. E_dog95'  Hi ' 02:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused by what Alla tedesca is doing. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is a removal of all sources, without comment
 * Addition of a link, then removing another link added immediately after his.
 * Restored a linkfarm, then maintains the list to the ones he likes.
 * Yes, I'm confused. --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I did not know of or look at those edits. A lack of an edit summary on that removal is not a good thing. I just popped in here based on what I knew previously. This user had specifically asked for help about how to fight spam. Thanks for your time. I will back out of this discussion. Bye. E_dog95'   Hi ' 02:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that his English might not be very good, so he doesn't understand and is reluctant to join discussions. My next guess is that there is more than one person using the account. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtulaization Infrastructure Page
Sorry about the spam. I am just starting to get a handle on what is and is not spam. I have read the guidelines and I am going to join the antispam project. Part of what I was wondering was how long would it take for the link to disappear. It seems I have other people on my IP address working on wiki and it is being attributed to me. So I am trying to figure out who they are - much of the link spam is theirs. I think it is just and education piece. Helping everyone understand the guidelines and that we are all on the same boat here. Nobody wants to turn Wikipedia into a link farm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobryant (talk • contribs) 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey email me
This is Tobryant again email me at to_loulou@yahoo.com. I would love to get your help on some of the definitions I am working on. You seem to have mastered the wikipedia format so it would be nice to have a mentor of sorts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobryant (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Job search spam
Good work on cleaning up the job search spam from and others. I've requested that yourtopjob.com be added to the XLinkBot spam list. —KCinDC (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you beat me to it. Thanks! Career-related spamming is common, so the bot request is probably a good idea. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

== Not a bot Hi - I added the links you're referrng to, manually.

I was looking on wikipedia, and found there were to good referrences in the Job intervew / covering letter articles to any "tips" websites. having just written some up, I felt they may be useful additions.

dave
 * It doesn't matter whether you're a bot. Lots of spam links are added manually. You're doing nothing but going through a bunch of articles and adding links to a site. And if you wrote the tips, you should read WP:COI. —KCinDC (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I added it to TWO articles. Jeez.
 * I don't see how these links are self-promotion, or conflicted interest at all - I literally get NOTHING out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.60.80 (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There were four articles, and usually when someone comes in and starts adding links at that rate and doing nothing else they don't stop until they are stopped. (And please sign your comments, by adding ~ at the end.) —KCinDC (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Aspire One issues section
There have been some changes to the issues section and I think perhaps the pov tag can be removed now, come see what you think.--Eloil (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How many independent, secondary sources do we have? Zero? --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Network Simulator
Hi Ronz,

Over the last several months, I have been regularly editing the section on network simulators and network simulation. During this period there have been several external links that have been added. After quite a bit of background work, and discussions with others here, we decided to retain the four most important links. First is a link to an open source project. Another link is educational. The other two are commercial in nature but date back to the 80's and the links are not promotional.

The essence of network simulation is to actually run a simulator and measure performance. Having no external links would be like a dead end to an interested user. Therefore, I think it is important we have relevant external links. Please reconsider your removal of these links.

Alla tedesca (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We should discuss this on the article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am focusing on the content here which is the first thing mentioned in WP:DR.

Firstly, I have already explained why I feel certain links are important in the article talk pages. Till, date I haven't received a technical response to the same.

Secondly, and as to why I have deleted other links, is because I felt most were spam / commercial in nature. They have editors who have only a single contribution. Furthermore, never has there been any discussion in the article pages as to why a new link is being added.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Alla tedesca (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message.
 * I've already explained myself. You haven't, yet you keep insisting that you have.
 * I've suggested that you seek help from a third party, and you have not. I'm suggesting it again. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have explained the reason for the links in the article discussion page. It is as follows

"There are four external links that have been around for a while. I am bringing them back up. The first one is NS-2, an open source simulator. The second, NetSim is used for educational purposes. The third and fourth - Qualnet & Opnet and well known and have been in use since the late 80's. Since the next logical step for an user interested in network simulation, is to get hands on with a simulator, I have reverted to an earlier edit which contains the same"

Further, in your own talk page, both E_Dog and Stoj have questioned your removal. From what I can sense, both seem to have some knowledge about the subject. Therefore, I see that as a vindication of my stand.

Please let me know your views.

Alla tedesca (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see those as reasons for including them, nor for removing the others. I'm looking for some basic understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines from you, and rationale for inclusion based upon those.  Instead, you offer personal opinions. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks!...
Dear Ronz,

I appreciated your welcome message and love... quicky Wiki!

Thank you for caring,

Mila.cridlig (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Avenue A Razorfish page
Hi. I saw that you deleted my changes to the Avenue A Razorfish page. I currently work for Avenue A Razorfish and am one of the company's official spokespeople. We are trying to update the site to reflect the recent name change and also add more current information. As much of the information I added is company info and not printed a book/magazine, it is hard to cite. How do you recommend I go about doing this so you feel like it is justified is staying up on the page? I appreciate your input. Razorfish1 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Razorfish1
 * Thanks for the comment. I left a message on your talk page about your username and conflict of interest. Those are important, as your account will most likely be blocked if you don't follow them.
 * Once you have a new username and are familiar with WP:COI, you should be using the article talk page most of the time. I'll be happy to discuss how to improve the article with you there. --Ronz (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz- Thanks for the input. I did try to change my username and couldn't find instructions on how to do that. Could you point me in the right direction? Thank you.
 * WP:RENAME --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Elaine Kim Tags
Ronz

Do you think the "tags" in the Elaine Kim page could now be removed as the article was substantially rewritten first by me, and then by another person. After that, it appears that many small things were further corrected by others. I have just added a few more references and corrected some dead links.

Thank you, Seireeni (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)