User talk:Science&HiTechReviewer


 * }

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Naveen Jain
Please don't try to take your frustrations out on me. I've explained that it's a very poor article for new editors to try to edit, and I'm happy to explain further why this is so and what you should do if you choose to continue. --Ronz (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am actually not a "new" editor, but I appreciate your concern. My testing of this whole process will lead to an important talk on crowd-sourcing/quality of information. I am well versed in the history of high tech and a very well known entity, but not personally involved with these people.


 * My concern here and now, however, is the inability of a wiki user to correct factual errors, inferences, misinformation, and poorly sourced articles. I have read the discussion on the page back and forth from various parties, including yourself, on this bio. There definitely appears to be "history" here for whatever reason...


 * The quality of information is not decided by consensus or a democratic vote, it is decided on the basis of merit. That's how true scholarship works. It is the way she will be and that's the way it will come out. If an individual makes a self-aggrandizing claim, and a more modest approach would be pleasant, and the claim is justified, then so be it. I have met enough Nobel Prize winners in my life to know about large, but in many cases, justified egos. I will not refuse to list their Prize just because I don't like their ego. One needs to separate the personalities from the accomplishments. There is too much a focus on personalities, and this is not correct in such an article. Who cares if he has a quirky personality. Lots of people have quirky personalities. Lots of people have big egos. Lots of people are modest. Lots of people are self-deprecating. We need not list all these issues in the biographical information. They are subjective anyway, even if reported. And, who cares? You don't think Bill Gates has an ego? And, all the negative things that have been written about him? Do we report it all? I am a Mac person, so no ties there, btw.


 * Let's get some of these pages cleaned up. Jain's may not be the optimal place to start, but it is somewhere to start. Doesn't really matter. We can't improve things if the editing is blocked or unilaterally dismissed without good cause. Nor is it proper to unfairly hide behind Wiki rules when it suits one's own prejudices. This would not be an issue if I didn't notice that certain things got in, which didn't adhere to any standards, but other things of a much more important nature were deliberately left out. Providing proper context is the most essential and important part of information.Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding and, I suggest you review WP:AGF, WP:BATTLE, WP:RGW, and WP:NPA.
 * As I've already pointed out to you, I'm happy to explain myself further on anything that we've already discussed. As to the things that we've not discussed, you might want to try asking first, or at least follow WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see what is necessary to explain further. Your revision edits with regard to sourced edits, not only mine but others, using the cloak of Wiki, were not appropriate. You allow unreliable inferences, trivia to stand, but revert on topic and relevant edits. A formal complaint has been lodged not only through the channels of the site, but also through close personal connections at the very top. This sort of behavior just destroys the credibility of the site. It is most unfortunate that you gave ammo to the wrong side of the argument.Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Your revision edits with regard to sourced edits, not only mine but others," It sounds like you're saying that you've edited Naveen Jain in the past, and I removed those edits. Is that the case? --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying.
 * Please don't comment on my talk page if you're unable to follow WP:AGF and WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
I've asked for help de-escalating the discussions between us, and assessing how to handle you're being here to conduct an experiment: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. --Ronz (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This is not a personal issue, and just FYI, I don't have any vested interest in whether Jain is classed a "technology pioneer," or as a server in a fast-food restaurant, but you don't, for whatever reason, like this attribution. Similarly, you didn't want his affiliation with the X PRIZE Foundation or Singularity University mentioned, as you stated "overweighted." Such affiliations are completely justified on his page, if accurate and referenced. Dismissing his listing on the WEF website as a reference was also a similar issue. The point here is that you are quick to dismiss the positive and neutral statements, but also quick to accept the negative ones that have been pointed out. That is where the feeling of unfairness comes in with regards to the managing of this page.

I want to see how the process works. I think the problem may stem from the fact that you are frustrated from past history on this page, which may be quite understandable, and therefore, you thought you got more of the same. In this case, however, you didn't. My bio on Wiki is many times longer than Jain's and has probably been up there a lot longer, but I wasn't trying to interfere with that, even though there are mistakes there too. The point here is can crowd-sourcing and the various safeguards work. Jim and I have discussed this on many occasions, and we often share the same podium and bar table. I would like to see this process work effectively. I was put off by the rush to remove what may be considered "improved" edits, but not a rush to remove obviously poor edits, such as the one about climate, the reporter's inference that Intelius crashed because of Jain's hype. Anyone familiar with the dot com crash, and I am familiar, knows that many many companies faltered, and there was general hype all around (but many companies faltered that didn't hype, but got pulled in the whirlpool. This is a complex issue, but to oversimplify it and use as a credible source this one's reporter's comment is not scholarship, nor is it accurate without context. That's my point. Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Science&HiTechReviewer: you are reminded to focus your arguments on issues related to the article in question, and assume good faith when dealing with other editors. While you may see things in one way, others may disagree, and it is important to build consensus for any controversial edits. If you wish to gain wider input on an issue, you may ask for third opinion or file a request for comment. Regards, Trebor (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. However, in this case, after a good number of attempts to just focus on the content, the editor has unilaterally interfered with the due process. This is why the attention has now been brought to an issue with the moderator.Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What specific objections do you have to User:Ronz's actions? Trebor (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of these are more meaningful than others, but it is the editor's objection to factual material. Some of which was posted by others not affiliated with me (I will only comment on edits made within the last week):

In general that Naveen Jain is associated with philanthrophic activities. This entire section was removed and after badgering put up as "neutrality is disputed." In doing some searches, and looking at the sources, which are not from Jain's own sites, but newsclippings, etc., i.e., well sourced, that it can be demonstrated that he is active in the philanthrophic space. He has won awards for his philanthrophic donations.

His association on the X PRIZE Foundation board, and the description of his title is disputed as being "overweighted." This sort of affiliation is standard, and is noted in the wiki bios of other X PRIZE board members, such as Larry Page, Dean Kamen, etc., etc. Same is true with his association with Singularity University. Both of these are neutral, and factual, and verifiable. Editor disputes without any sources to document the dispute.

As this is a fairly short bio, there is undue space given to things that are irrelevant and not in keeping with the biographical standards of wiki.

I have made suggestions that "He first worked for Burroughs Corporation (now Unisys) but was not acclimated to the climate of New Jersey.[further explanation needed][1][2]" That this issue relating to his not being acclimated to the climate of New Jersey was trivial and not germane considering other material that could be included and discussed in his personal life section, and in fact, takes up perhaps 1/3 of the personal life section. Should be removed as irrelevant.

"...Jain was featured in several business publications which noted his manic demeanor and pointed out quirks in his personality,..." Personality issues, such as "quirks in his personality" are irrelevant, and subjective. Many people have quirky personalities, unusual behaviors, fetishes, egos, and the like, but unless they are a convicted sex offender, etc. this type of character description is unnecessary, especially in a short article, even if true.

Another issue was the refusal to allow Jain to have the assignation "technology pioneer." A google search shows that Jain has been described this way by not only himself but others, but the issue is, whether this assignation is accurate or just self-referenced, i.e., others calling him that because he himself calls himself that. However, the same search shows that he has been the recipient of several very prestigious awards in this area, and in fact, has garnered perhaps the top two: The Albert Einstein for Leadership in Technology and he is a "technology pioneer" of the World Economic Forum. Both of these awards are given out by top leaders in the industry. The editor was dismissive of both awards, and stated he is not a technology pioneer. So, the editor can override these very distinguished awards? This doesn't feel right. I can't take away a biographical recording of Jim Watson's Nobel Prize, because I don't like his views on racism. Whatever one may think of Jain's character, quirky or not, he has earned the rank of being distinguished as a "technology pioneer," and also because he has built up very successful technology companies, and has patents related to Microsoft (it doesn't matter whether one thinks these are an advance or a backwards step). His record in this matter is clear and unambiguous. Yet, again, the spurious character stuff remains.

Let's not create a reverse toilet here, where only the bad comes in, but the good is flushed out. People and events are complex. Both sides need to be presented if one is to come to a fair determination. If one side is presented, then present the other side, unless the facts has been determined through proper and fair procedure.

Best wishes, and I hope happy editing.Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the most egregious problem is the following: "The Seattle Times reported that "InfoSpace's success was built on the hype of its charismatic founder."[1][10]" This is a totally subjective statement and unsubstantiated. Who's opinion is this? A single reporter for the Seattle Times? Is it a consensus view? Was it decided in a Court of Law? Infospace got caught in the bursting of the dot com bubble along with many companies, some built on hype and others not. There is no justificationfor this type of statement, yet the editor refuses to remove it. To single it out here, as quoted, leaves out the most essential and important part of information, which is historical context. Without the proper context supplied, and with the subsequent paragraph, the reader may come to a conclusion that is not entirely warranted.

This is a start. The page can be improved in many other ways too, but my issues here are not confined to just Jain's page (he is only an example), but to the process. I would like to see it work.

I also have some sensitivity to people who are still alive, and therefore, special care and prudence needs to be taken with how things are phrased.
 * I appreciate and commend your intent to make our biographies of living people as fair and balanced as possible; it's a very important and worthy goal. Additionally, your comments above are exactly the right way to go about arguing for changes to an article. However, User:Ronz is entitled to disagree with you, and can argue against your points; we must assume he is editing in good faith and has no underlying interests, until there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you continue to disagree, it then becomes a content dispute (which is entirely normal), and if you cannot resolve the issues you can follow the paths recommended at dispute resolution. I cannot see anything wrong about User:Ronz's conduct in dealing with this matter - and indeed he has not reverted the latest edits and is discussing on talk. I am not commenting on the content dispute here; I am just encouraging discussions based on content and not on editors (or editors' motives). Regards, Trebor (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Trebor. This is not a personality issue here. I neither know Ronz or Jain. I do not want to get into "intent" here either, as I do not possess the power to see into the mind's of either. What I am sensing is that there appears to be a bias in the filtering of what is allowed through and what isn't. These issues have been pointed out on a number of occasions now. Of course, he has a right to disagree, but the issue here is that this is not a "consensus," there is no vote. He has the one vote, and he decides. This is why I needed to "bump" it up, as efforts to provide sources, explanations, etc., were dismissed, and with cause that was not in keeping with either the standards of Wiki, nor with the standards of material he allowed to be posted. There can not be a double-standard. Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, judging from the talk page of Jain's article, Ronz has been engaging in discussion with you and responding to your comments. There is no consensus on the talk page yet, and the standard practice is to leave the article as it is until consensus can be established (if you haven't already, you may wish to read about the BRD cycle). Note that Ronz has no special control over the article, it can be edited by almost anyone (except IP editors and very new accounts). If he disagrees with an edit, he can revert it, and then should discuss the matter on the talk page. I would encourage you to continue the discussion, and follow the procedures recommended at dispute resolution if you cannot agree. Trebor (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see this process work. I am encouraged at this point because of the dialogue and the understanding of my points. I will wait to see if the helpful factual revisions that I have suggested will be made and stick, and that this page (among many others!) will earn an A rating rather than a C-. Starting with the suggestions above will go along way. Jain is not sufficiently important in the scheme of things to spend a lot of time here, and I would like to move on to other bios and events. Thanks again for your helpful comments. Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt I'll be working with you much. I'd much rather work on other portions of Wikipedia instead of a highly controversial article that you are using as an "experiment." I'd much rather work with editors that are far more cooperative and respectful of Wikipedia's behavioral policies/guidelines.
 * Do you want to learn how Wikipedia works? User:WLU/Generic_sandbox is the best introduction that I've found, and one I regularly recommend to anyone trying to learn Wikipedia quickly.
 * Also, I wrote a reply to you yesterday, that I placed on my talk page so as not to distract you from the very productive discussion you were having with Trebor. That reply is here. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've fallen back to blaming me . Please take your complaints to an appropriate venue per WP:DR. You might want to contact Trebor to see if he'll help again. --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I will file the appropriate complaint, as you are ignoring my concerns and edits. There always appears to be some "excuse" with you of why you will not make the changes. I spent a lot of time providing detailed source material, reasonable requests for edits and changes, which are not controversial, but yet, you refuse to take action. Since you are the one with the One Vote, then, the buck stops with you. If you made any good faith attempts to correct the stated errors, you wouldn't cause controversy and get your own intentions questioned. It is the continual merry-go-round that is getting tiresome. The constant arguments over trivia and symantics, but no applied equally in your decision making process. it is the continual waste of time on these forums rather than just doing your job. Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard‎ message
Administrators' noticeboard is not for content disputes. You may like to consider Requests for comment. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To elaborate upon that: administrator intervention is only for issues relating to user conduct - we do not have any special abilities to rule upon content. Ronz does not own the page - it can be edited by anyone (except IPs and very new accounts) - and per the BRD cycle, he has the right to revert any changes and request they are discussed further on talk. Your repeated accusation that he acts as a "One Vote" filter is false - even if he wanted to, he does not have the technical capability to prevent changes being made to the page. I strongly suggest you try to gain wider input on the content, by asking for other editors to review the issues at Third Opinion or Request for comment. The best way (and the only way) to show that you are correct in your beliefs is to gain consensus on the issue; this is the Wikipedia method, and even if you disagree, you must abide by it. It pains me to say it, because I sincerely believe you are operating in good faith, but if you continue to personalise the issue and wrongly accuse other editors of vandalism, you will be subject to sanctions. I hope it need not come to that. Regards, Trebor (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely trying very hard to operate here in good faith, however, this one adminstrator/editor, is thwarting any attempts to improve the page. By refusing to correct inaccurate statements, and continuously arguing against the inclusion of standard material, it has the same effect as vandalism. If you read over the extensive discussions on the talk page, his page, my page, etc, you can see that any improvement is moving at the speed of dark. Again, if there were not a double-standard applied. If he feels so strongly about these affiliations, why, when pointed out, is not the contentious material removed in the very least, that falls well under the wiki standards he speciously advances to cloak inaction. I can only make suggestions for improvements. The page is blocked from my making edits. Yet, this one editor/admin has not only blocked my edit over the past week, but also blocked the efforts of unconnected others, who appear to also have been making some worthwhile suggestions. This is a one-way filter. Scholarship is not decided by a democracy or even fairness, it is decided by merit. The same is true of science, and true here too, and again, we are writing about a living personality, and so one needs to be prudent. If this is so "controversial," then remove all the controversial parts, not just the ones that fit one's particular bias, one way or another.... In editing other sites, and looking at other sites, I can not find any examples of the sort of pedantic arguments used to block credible and important affiliations and awards. Standards, if held, need to be universally applied, regardless of the individual or event. One can't pick and choose. It effects the credibility of the whole enterprise. Information, Misinformation, and Disinformation are what I talk and am now writing about in the Internet age, and how the latter two are contributing greatly to the din of the former. This is that kind of nonsense.Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You will be able to edit the article after you become autoconfirmed tomorrow - you need 4 days and 10 edits because the article is semi-protected. Your accusations against Ronz are misguided; as I said before, he cannot act as a barrier to edits. Once you are autoconfirmed, I strongly warn you against edit warring on the page. It is a quick way to get blocked. I understand you feel strongly about the issue, but you have to accept that others will interpret things differently, and you also have to stick within our rules. Trebor (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe I am advocating anything that is outside of Wiki rules, and in fact, quite the contrary. Yet, those very same rules need to apply to everyone. That is what I am addressing here. I am not looking for "war," as that has no interest to me. I am looking for excellence, and that is something entirely different. While i am well aware that a person's perception may differ, Reality is that which exists independently of your perception or beliefs. Sometimes Reality may be in keeping with your perceptions, and then, sometimes it may not be, and you wouldn't know. Gee, I wonder if I said that in a talk at TED? So, I would just like to see this page corrected, so that one can move to the improvement of other pages. I am not advocating edits there that are either controversial or subjective. I am just frustrated that one person is able to undo or block the process in an unscholarly way.Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of templates from Naveen Jain
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Naveen Jain, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It was only because I accidently made a correction on another computer in my home, which wasn't "logged in." Thanks for the heads-up. Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that Sinebot is a bot, i.e. a continuously running piece of software that notices unsigned talk posts and leaves those messages. It won't understand your response to it.  Most accounts whose name ends in "bot" (like Miszabot (talkpage archiving), Cluebot (vandal reversion), etc. are used by bots rather than humans.  67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice 2
Your editing is being discussed here. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have proposed at ANI that you should be blocked for a violation of the WP:Three revert rule, since you have reverted at Naveen Jain four times on 31 December. If you disagree, you are welcome to comment in that ANI thread. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
I've reviewed your edits, the discussions on the noticeboards, your talk page and sundry other discussions. It seems to me that your "experiment" is at best cover for tendentious editing and at worst a smokescreen for POV-pushing and possible sockpuppetry. In short, you seem to be here to create drama, not to document it. Put succinctly: cute, but enough. Guy

(Help!) 02:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You are completely off base, and you and the various efforts to interfere with proper edits will now be handled at the executive level. I will not waste any more time dealing with this cabal. Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Executive level"? See WP:BASC for the relevant arbcom info, for whatever good it's likely to do you.  I'd be opposed to Jimbo intervening beyond commenting at ANI and to arbcom.  A case could be made for unblocking you if you could tone down the arrogance a bit, modify your "experiment", and work up some understanding of why your edit warring was inappropriate.  67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Science&HiTechReviewer, I would like to have a private conversation, please. Since you don't have email enabled I would ask you to email me, guy  chapmancentral co uk. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the interesting discussion, I have unblocked this account, please feel free to email me directly if you would like any help dealing with interactions with specific editors. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Speak soon. Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)