User talk:Hipal/Archive 22

Friendly advice
Hi Ronz. The following is only intended as friendly advice, so please don't take it as anything else. Your interactions with other users might go a whole lot better a lot more often if you don't mention WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, etc. so often. Perhaps you should try not mentioning them at all for a while, at least in situations where you are already involved. If I had saved the first reply I typed to your recent AGF message on my talk page, things likely would have gotten very ugly. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Obviously, some editors would rather just pretend that any behavior is appropriate here. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sent email
I sent you an email on a private matter. As for the CJ article, feel free to remove the info if you feel it doesn't add to the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Kinesis Myofascial Integration ‎
Good catch. Looks like I must have been viewing an earlier revision and completely messed it up. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. That makes sense. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Recreating wiki page
Hi Ronz,

I previously created a wiki page covering information on a computer program called iMindMap. It was removed from wikipedia due to Wiki's advertisement laws. As I am not intentionally attempting to advertise and do not want this to happen again any information that you can provide preventing my text or imagery from doing so will be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Rhodri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodri Harries (talk • contribs) 09:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Rhodri. Thanks for the note.  I'm happy to help.  If you can find a few independent, reliable sources first, it will be easy to create an article that won't be deleted again. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Selfpub removal, Steven M. Greer
Hi, I'm wondering what the basis is for the removal of "self published" references on Steven M. Greer, here and here. My reading of SELFPUB, suggests that such references are acceptable: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. They're not being used to advance extraordinary claims, merely that Greer is the founder of these organizations. Could you enlighten me? I'm not entirely familiar with BLP, refs and so on. Phil153 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My concerns are SELFPUB #1, #2, #6; WP:SOAP; and WP:UNDUE. Find some reliable, independent sources instead and it would resolve all these problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CAPTCHA section removal
Ronz-

You removed the section I made on the CAPTCHA page, citing WP:TRIV. I believe it falls under WP:IPC, though certainly the distinction between the two is often the subject of debate. Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Xkcd&limit=100&namespace=0&hideredirs=1 and explain how my edit is substantively different than the majority of those listed there. Please note that the list includes technical as well as less serious articles.

Thanks Ellensn (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Without a secondary source, I think it should be kept out. The article has a lot of problems with editors adding information sourced only by primary sources, usually for what appears to be promotional purposes. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think that it is substantively different from many of the other articles in this list to which I provided a link. Would you prefer that I place a reference to this in the body of the article under the section 'Characteristics'?
 * "Although a checkbox "check here if you are not a bot" might serve to distinguish between humans and computers, it is not a CAPTCHA because it relies on the fact that an attacker has not spent effort to break that specific form." ...to which I could add... "The popular webcomic xkcd included a spoof along these lines that instructs 'bots' to honestly state if they have emotion."
 * Ellensn (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'll look at the article talk page, you'll see that a solution has already been offered for these cases: find a independent, reliable source for the information. Otherwise, we're violating WP:V, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SOAP.  If you disagree, I think it would be best to get a third party involved. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion - I agree that this information appears to be trivia not directly related to the article, and, as such, is not required. It does not appear to illuminate the concept any further than the article already does. If it could be incorporated into the main text of the article, with a citation in a secondary source as to its importance, that would be perfectly acceptable, although it seems unlikely in this instance. On the other hand, I also agree with Ellensn that this does not appear substantially different from many of the other references to xkcd in the list he provides. In my opinion, however, many of these other references should probably also be deleted as tangential, or forming parts of indiscriminate lists. Anaxial (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. That was pretty quick and painless. Ellensn (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. I had never looked at the WP:IPC talk page.  Apparently xkcd is an exceptional case.  I didn't realise into what I was getting myself! Cheers. Ellensn (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! I think you've found the motto of all Wikipedia editors, "I didn't realise into what I was getting myself!" --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Paralegal
While an obvious COI exists here, I think the relevant parts of this reverted edit should be placed back into the article. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Good call.  I'd prefer it be sourced and trimmed.  Ignoring the spamming and coi, there are still WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTHOWTO issues. I'll give it a shot. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging
Hi Ronz,

Would you be able advise me on how to tag an article? e.g If a user would search for my article (Buzan's iMindMap)by typying an alternative name such as iMindMap, it would recognise the relation between the two and provide a link to the page.

Any help would be much appreciated,

Many thanks,

Rhodri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodri Harries (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rhodri! Mostly, you'll just want to create new articles that WP:REDIRECT to the current article.  In complicated cases, you may need to disambiguate between multiple current articles. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

More about the Peanut Allergy article process
Hi Ronz,

Thanks for your reply on the Talk:Peanut Allergy page. I've responded there as far as the article's content goes, so people can read.

In terms of procedure, and our collaboration, I still have concerns, which this page seems like a better place to work out.


 * You explained WP's CoI guidelines to me. I integrated this into my re-submission, but have not heard if this is to your satisfaction - that I have exercised extreme caution, as demanded by WP CoI rules; that public input has been solicited, with time given for response; and that the proposed book links are comprehensive, not selective (they list all 3 of the 3 scientific adult trade books in print), so there should be no room for CoI;


 * I have submitted that the article needs to be edited, because the current links do not responsibly serve the public - they seem randomly chosen, and include fairly one-sided sources; I have asked and not received an explanation of how they got added and kept, in terms of the research that went into them, the credentials of the author, and your experience on the subject of peanut allergy (as opposed to your clear experience with WP procedure);


 * I believe the proposed book and group links fix this - direct readers to the only sources more completely informative than the WP Peanut Allergy article, and to their closest local service group - and that, given my training and extensive study of this matter, I am in a position to verify that the proposed information is comprehensive and representative. It would be good to be able to address any concerns you may have, to verify this.

Thank you again Ronz. Cheers,

Billy AdamWikiabilly (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Link removal - Imposition
Hello Ronz, I recently added a link to the Wikipedia entry for Imposition that points to my online Imposition service. You removed the link, I restored it, then you removed it again.

Can you please provide justification for this move? My website is free to all users, and provides a real-world demonstration of how a printer's imposition works, as well as allowing users to try it for themselves.

My website does not ask for any money, nor does it have any advertising.

A user that may have been told that their file needs imposition before printing may look to Wikipedia for information, but aren't they better served by being referred to a free online resource that enables them to actually do the imposition as well?

I can't speak for the other links on this page, but I am at a loss as to why you would remove the link to my site.

Can you please explain, or remove your objections to this link.

Regards, brrayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brrayne (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up with me directly. You may have missed it, but I already pointed out WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT.  Basically, Wikipedia is not a forum to promote such services.  See also WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ronz, I did not miss it. I do not believe my site link contravenes any of these rules, hence my note to you. My site is not spam, is free to use and is of great relevance to the topic in question. If mine was a site that explained the process of imposition, you would not have an objection. Is your objection that my site demonstrates this process rather than explaining it? I just did a search for Unix time and have found a link to a "Unix Time Generator". This is a website that calculates the current Unix time. By your guidelines, this site should be removed too, correct? Wikipedia is littered with external links to sites that demonstrate the topic in question. Why has mine been singled-out?


 * Brrayne (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest further dispute resolution that involves others. WP:THIRD or WP:COIN would be good places to start. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding in more detail: Because the site is your own, there are WP:COI and WP:SPAM problems.  Because the site is a service for creating impositions, there are WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK problems.  Because it requires registration, there are EL and SPAM problems.
 * If the site just explained the process, did so in more detail than the current article, and wasn't your own site, it would be helpful given the current state of the article.
 * Yes, Unix time has multiple external links that are problematic. Thanks for pointing this out! --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

References on Stick Candy
Hi Ronz, I just wanted to let you know that I removed the reference list in the middle of the talk page for Stick candy. If you add any references below a reference list (as I have), they do not show up, even if you add a second reflist at the bottom. I am going to remove it again with an explanation on the talk page (I briefly did so in my edit summary, I must have been unclear).--kelapstick (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's probably the best solution given that some editors might not know that it would need to be moved if they add any references below it. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI I have asked a question about using pages like this as reliable sources at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard--kelapstick (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll explain the tags unrelated to WP:RS and WP:V on the article talk page, since you have concerns about those as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern was the excessiveness of the tags, a simple "citation needed" would have been sufficient, three tags was a little excessive. In the interest of keeping my question neutral (and I hope I did) I left out my personal opinions on the issue, and the tags.--kelapstick (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Had to laugh
Hey Ronz, first let me say that I do admire your anti-spam efforts. That's a noble goal for the site. Now, I just had to laugh (literally out-loud) at the recent turn of events at stick candy. Well played, I must say. I was kinda watching from time to time, and seeing things get so close to 3R, and was wondering who was gonna get "the block" lowered. I still think you're interpreting some of the WP:RS and WP:V things a little too strictly, the wording is such that it (along with the well loved, oft quoted, IAR and Bold links) allows exceptions to the rules. But, that's not really what I came here for. I do admire your long tenure here, and your many valuable contributions - so please don't take this the wrong way. I think you came down a little too hard on CoM (ChildofMidnight.. or whatever). (S)he's a very new editor here, and I think what you dropped on her talk page comes very close to "WP:Bite". I mean really, Stick Candy? It's not like a hotly contested BLP, political, or religious issue. I see she came back pretty hard and all, but maybe you landed a little hard too? Huh? A little over the top? Maybe...just a little? Again - I have to say, I really admired that tag and page protect move - shows real skill and knowledge of the community and how it works. Don't let the little things get you too worked up - it's only a website after all. There's no reason we can't all work together to contribute to the community. Well, that's all really, ... have a good one ;) — Ched (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree.  I'd hoped that ChildofMidnight would respond better.  When she didn't, I decided page protection would be a better solution than requesting a block for such an inexperienced editor.
 * When it comes to spamming, I think the only solution is to interpret the relevant policies and guidelines strictly. We need to be careful with what exceptions are allowed.  See User_talk:Ronz for the flip side - a good faith attempt to add a link that's inappropriate for multiple reasons by an editor looking for exceptions that he'd like to apply to his own efforts. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked IP 195.227.12.254 and my contributions
Dear Ronz,

I was very much surprised when contributing to the Wikipedia article “e-Health” resulting in a warning and message from you, saying that it is not possible any more to contribute to Wikipedia from this IP address.

I fully understand your concern of avoiding spam on Wikipedia, but we think that, after consulting the rules for external links, our links are fully legitimate. The pages we set links to are research projects publicly funded by the European Commission, e.g. www.ebusiness-watch.org or www.good-ehealth.org. They have no commercial interest whatsoever. I found that the link to the e-Business Watch Website on Wiki articles such as “e-Business” or “electronic commerce” has a high topical fit and offers extensive additional information, case studies and free data sets for researchers and others who are interested in the topic. All information on this site has to be fully unbiased, as it is an official site of the European Commission. The same is true for the e-Health link.

However, as I am rather new to Wikipedia and do want to fully comply with its guidelines it would be very helpful to get some further guidance on our current status (mine and of the blocked IP 195.227.12.254) and how to avoid further problems. In general it would be very helpful to be warned before contributing not after spending a couple of time with adding to Wikipedia.

So please be so kind to give me some advice how I can further contribute to wikipedia without receiving “conflict messages”? What kind of blocking did you conduct on our IP? Are we now on the spamlist?

Many thanks and looking forward to your answer with best regards

Nomob (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing this. To clarify a few points first:
 * No one has been blocked.
 * No one is being prevented from contributing to Wikipedia.
 * I'm not aware of any of the sites you mention being added to any spamlist.
 * That said, I hope this is just a matter of getting to know the relevant policies and guidelines already linked on your talk page. I'm happy to help explain them in detail and answer any questions you may have on them. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: comments on Badagnani's talk page
I think this edit and its edit summary are over the top. The page is protected with your tags in place. I suggest you let things cool down a bit. In fact, I think it would be a helpful act of goodwill to refactor your comment from that editor's page. He certainly has a gruff style at times, but there's nothing overtly uncivil about his comments. Best to just let those comments go and not fan the flames. That's my 2 cents anyway. I would also point out that your own actions regarding this situation have been aggresive at times (the edit I mentioned being a case in point). Everyone involved seems to mean well, and I don't think there's any need to heighten the conflict. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. Yes, I've been aggressive.  I've also gone to great lengths to move on and come to agreements with others.
 * I hope you are starting to see my perspective on all this now. This whole situation is an absolutely absurd case of ignoring multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and ignoring multiple dispute resolution attempts.  Have you ever read WP:OWN?  I'm making it very, very clear what the next steps will be if this consistently improper behavior continues.
 * That said, I'm always open to suggestions on how to make my comments better. If you look, you'll see that I've changed them quite a bit already.  What to you think is especially problematic and how do you suggest I change it? --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would just suggest not templating anyone, not even new people, who are making good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Leave a personal note. Confrontation is almost always met with confrontation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. At the time of your starting this discussion, there was no template. Obviously, I had already thought of this and had done it. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as policy and this dispute in particular goes, I disagree with your interpretations and description of the situation. That being said, as long as you follow policy you're welcome to pursue any dispute resolution processes you think are appropriate. My personal opinion is that you will have more fun and success pursuing other endeavors, at least until the block ends. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Disagree all you want. If you want your disagreeing to matter in any way, then take some time to explain yourself, or ask questions. --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to repeat what I mentioned before, I suggest removing any antagonistic comments from the talk page in question. You're welcome to thank that user for their contributions to the encyclopedia, or let them know that you checked out their work and respect their substantial contributions to Wikipedia, but I don't think there is anything to be gained by templating them, criticizing them, or pursuing administrative review of their actions. That's my opinion of course, and you're free to do as you see fit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I fail to understand what it is that you consider "antagonistic." It appears that you found Athaenara's comments to be "antagonistic" but not Badagnani's.  I don't see any reason to try to fathom what it is you mean when it appears to be opposed to any reasonable interpretation of WP:CIVIL.
 * I asked for specifics. I wish you had given some. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Athaenara was offering a 3rd Opinion, and I cited those guidelines in the relevant discussion. Several editors have suggested to you ways in which you are being antagonistic. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish, but I think you will have more fun and success collaborating with other editors rather than taking them on in confrontation. Feel free to archive this discussion at your discretion. I'm not trying to make any kind of point and I don't have any hard feelings. People disagree on here all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Athaenara made a perfectly civil comment, which you did your best to dismiss while questioning her civility. I think you need to stop lecturing on subjects where you don't take the time to understand the issues, history, policies, or guidelines.  Ask questions, or clarify your perspective instead.  You've been here three months, and you're quickly on your way to administrative review.  No wonder you're against my attempts to get Badagnani to behave properly.  You're afraid of being called out on your own, similar problems! --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Aberdeen Group
This is not a spam change. I know Aberdeen very well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.60.130 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 21 February 2009
 * I don't know what a "spam change" is or why it's relevant to the editing in Aberdeen Group. Independent, secondary sources are preferred to self-published, primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

blacklist
Hey Ronz, you know anything about blacklist server problems tonight? — Ched (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a clue. What's going on? --Ronz (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently a glitch somewhere. Maybe a new server they racked last week?  Not sure, saw whole bunch of ??? at the WP:WHITELIST talk, and even help desk - asked on mIRC, they said it was being worked on.  Thought maybe you dumped a bunch of blog sites at them ... LOL.  ;)— Ched (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

List of PDF software
Hi Ronz,

I am user FEQ and added an entry to the page (20th February) "List of PDF software" for the JPedal PDF developer libraries. Examining the history of this page I find that this entry was removed with your edit.

Why? This developer library is the only 100% Java library that is available under a GPL licence.

The page says "list of PDF software". It doesn't say list of PDF software that you like, or only free software. Our developer library is available in both GPL (free) and commercial varieties as are many of the other links that remain. What is your objection to this listing? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedic listing. The current list falls far short of this.

Adobe (commercial site) is listed on this page so I find it hard to fathom why my listing is not allowed.

Thank you

FEQ FEQ (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Wikipedia is not a directory.  While we allow lists, the entries in these lists need to meet some basic inclusion criteria. Editors are encouraged to write the article first, or demonstrate that the entry is important enough to list by providing an independent, reliable source about the software. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

universal design
newbie here wondering about a link removal. On the page, universal design, I added an external link. You (I think) removed it and I saw the following:

(diff) (hist). . Universal design‎; 19:24. . (-1,273) . . Ronz (Talk | contribs) (→External links: quick cleanup per WP:EL & WP:NOT#LINK)

How do I understand the comment? Was the link rejected as not suitable or was the entry incorrect?

Many thanks in advance for your reply. Konrad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konnie2009 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'd tagged the external links section for cleanup back in December 2006.  If you look on the talk page, you'll see that I left the tag because I was concerned that too many of the links were too far off topic.  Your addition motivated me to do some more cleanup with an eye to links being too far off topic. WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK are the relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Returnil
Edit summary:"......... promotional links"? Exactly which links are promotional? I think I kept it pretty much NPOV. TechOutsider (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
 * "Issues can be reported here. Known issues are listed here."
 * "Signup for the beta edition and testing is available here. "
 * These sentences and links promote these websites. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS
Hey Ronz, would you take a look at this when you get a chance. I removed citing wp:rs since the site failed WoT, SiteAdvisor, and Browser warnings as a safe site. I've run across this before where spam sites, and ones that are considered dangerous to computer are listed. Do I need to cite any particular section of RS, or is WP:RS good enough. (if you reply here, could you drop me a talkback tag) Thanks — Ched (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's off topic to the subject of the article, and linkspam. I cleaned it up a bit more. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. New Wikipedia commercial:
 * ''Troubled by spam?"
 * "See Ronz - "da Man"!"
 * LOL ;) — Ched ~ (yes?) 01:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and assumptions
Ronz, I am interested in hearing your opinion regarding the example I cited at Talk:Bates method. Why should we assume adherence to copyright on the part of Stephen Barrett, but not Meir Schneider? Or should we de-link Barrett's reproduction of Pollack's chapter from the references? PSWG1920 (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please respect consensus. If you have problems with other articles, the talk pages for those articles are the appropriate place for those discussions.  --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the talk page discussion I linked to, you'll see that the example I cited is from the Bates method article! PSWG1920 (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. As I already pointed out, "If you want to discuss basic copyright laws in order to make exceptions for WP:ELNEVER, then continue the discussions there. If you want to understand basic copyright laws and their application to more general situations, do so on the appropriate policy talk page. If you just want to learn about basic copyright laws, read the appropriate policy and article pages, then ask questions on the appropriate policy talk page." --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)