User talk:Hipal/Archive 26

Do you even watch her show? She says every single day "fast and flavorful" dishes" and it also always always always always always always always always always always always always has a cocktail, so thanks. :).. and also why the does that honestly need a reference? All you gotta do is watch the show... It's pretty pointless to require a ref when the answer is found weekdays on FoodNet... get real. Tdinatale (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me expand upon my edit summary further, since I don't expect you to go through the edit history to see all the BLP problems we have in the article:

Given the BLP problems we've had, it's especially important to provide sources, both to verify the information and to decide what context and weight we give to information. Your concerns indicated in your comment above seem to be about the trivia, which is fine. My concern what that you hit multiple issues that have been problematic per BLP in two quick edits.

The quote is a trivial matter. She's quoted with many variations of the catch-phrase. Given that it is in the lede section and not mentioned elsewhere, it should be sourced.

The cocktail bit should be sourced so we give it proper context and weight, while avoiding creating a WP:COATRACK for BLP problems. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still ridiculous. All you have to do is watch the show, she always says cocktail time, which is a characteristic of her show. Furthermore, if you want "reliable sources" all that was also featured in a Chefography episode that aired on Food network 2 weeks ago. I'd love to source it so I can revert your edit, but I don't know how. Tdinatale (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In that episode she also stated:

• Her layout changes from show to show to give her viewers a new idea each time
• Tablescape also changes from show to show to give viewers a new idea.
• That she started out doing arts & crafts and started cooking while in college, she persuaded her friend to try a bacon cheeseburger that she made who was skeptical at first, but ended up loving it.
• When her show first aired she is quoted saying she was "offended" by her critics and that it doesn't just insult her but "every woman in America."

...similarly im offended because im wasting my time here. she did say all that. Tdinatale (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia here, not reporting on anything an entertainer says and does. As I've said the article has regular WP:BLP problems, which take our first priority. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if you can explain to me how that affects a person's life in terms of libel and original research and/or isnt neutral because I don't get it. And that is significant because it's her own show. And if it's her own show, she decides what goes in it. Obviously that means something to her which she wants others to know . . . . Tdinatale (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you asking me to explain and why?

"Obviously that means something to her which she wants others to know" But it doesn't mean it's worthy of any mention at all in an encyclopedia article. Instead, we write article based mostly upon independent, reliable sources.

As I already indicated, the topic of cocktails is a blp concern, so any mention of it should be sourced per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey-lo. I was made aware of this by Atama, who posted to WP:AIV complaining of this user's COI vios. I've asked Atama for his side, and since you're also involved, I'd greatly appreciate any insight. I'll try to establish a discourse with Leveque in the meantime. Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for your message... But to be honest with you... You removed two links of mine and honestly, i am providing the users of Wikipedia with more details in regards to the subjects.

For Mauritiuspics, its an online Photo Gallery in regards to Mauritius. So i cant understand whats wrong.

For Gangatalao, I will really like to know where you got the information why its not the official website? and on top of it, the info available on Wikipedia is not correct in regards to the Ganga Talao.

I will really appreciate if you could clarify these points. I am sorry if they were indeed so bad links...

Thanks Kamal

Kamal2099 (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ronz,

I appreciate all you do to police the linkspam on wikipedia. However, the Value Chain Group is a not for profit trade org and we do not spam. The VCG is not aiming to push any product on anyone.

The "External Links" pointing to our open source material have been on this page for years. I only updated the links as we were updating and renaming some of our URLs.

Not being overly familiar with you protocol, I do not wish to butt heads with anyone, but please consider allowing these links to be reposted.

Thank you.

Scott Palmer Executive Director Value Chain Group, Inc. scott.palmer@value-chain.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottKarl (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for the additional information you provided.

For the seychelles one, its ok... That shouldnt be a problem... I agree with you.

But for the other two, i couldn't get it properly.

For the Gangatalao one, It would be strange to classify it as Tourism as there are prayers and ebooks in regards to the lake. There are pictures of course, Description of what happens there etc etc... There are even plans to have upto 8 Webcams for the next big prayer in February 2010. So i wouldnt really consider this as a tourism website.

For the Mauritiuspics website, I understand its a gallery, but its a dedicated one for Mauritius...

And to finish it off, both website doesn't provide any service or product for sale. So we are not even using Wikipedia as a link exchange service but instead to provide more information to the specific users.

Waiting for your answer.

Thanks Kamal

Kamal2099 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Could you take a look at the List of Enterprise Architecture Tools and the EVA Netmodeler a new User:Mirkoki started, and which is further developed by (same (??)) new User:Riverdusty. It seems like spam to me, but I am not so familiar with this kind of spam (or not). Thank you -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for the message. --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for your respons. Maybe you can put it on your watchlist as well. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be watching both. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ronz,

I appreciate your response. Please keep in mind, the posting of material about the Value Reference Model, etc, was not originally entered into Wikipedia by this office. What led me to change the one link was an analysis of site traffic via Google Analytics. Really the material is unchanged and is merely a further explanation of what the VRM is.

However, I have erred in that the link www.value-chain.org/framework/value-reference-model/ was supposed to be open to the public. This is fixed.

Both links posted on Wikipedia lead to pages that are (now) completely publicly open informative pages and not subject to any form of registration. The only reason we have registration for 85% of our site is to validate email and keep out spammers, etc. Deeper divers are asked to pay an annual subscription to our library. Dues are requested in support of our mission as a not for profit trade organization.

We feel the offered VRM material further explains what VRM is and is a unique resource. Putting all of that onto Wikipedia seems counterproductive.

The link to the homepage allows for those interested to learn more about the Framework BoK and the VCG mission. We do not actively pursue a sales cycle unless explicity contacted.

Please let me know if you have other concerns. Thank you.

SP —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottKarl (talk • contribs) 13:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was just on that page and I put it in a more appropriate area. I was not the original manufacturer of the link

Gaelen S. (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. You certainly had me confused. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider this in view of the article's evolution since that time. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean editors are working on improving the article rather than insulting each other? Progress! Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ronz,

Not sure what happened to a third message I sent last week so I am not sure you saw it.

We would like to re-insert the External Link to the full explanation of what is the Value Reference Model.

This is the preferred link as discussed: VRM Framework: http://www.value-chain.org/framework/value-reference-model/ OK??

No problem with not inserting the link to the homepage as I understand your point. My precedent was set while viewing related org SCC links under "Supply-Chain Operations Reference" but it seems to under an 'issue' banner.....

Here also is a link to a recently published article "Value Chains, Value Streams.." that may be relevant: http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/FOUR%2004-009-ART-Value%20Chains-Brown.pdf - if linking over to BP Trends is an issue, VCG can create a page with the article. Please let me know.

Again, thank you for all the help and direction.

ScottKarl (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC), VCG

Replied on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ronz,

I will follow up with your suggestion to have the article I referenced run through the article talk page. Thank you.

Just to confirm, it is ok for me to post a link to our website for more detail on VRM than is currently on the Wikipedia page? The page is open.

ScottKarl (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC) VCG

Sounds good. Posting the link on a talk page is fine if you keep an eye on WP:COI and how relevant it is to the article under discussion. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please unconfuse me, it is okay for me to reinsert the 'External Link' to www.value-chain.org/framework/value-reference-model/ to the Value Chain page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_chain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottKarl (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I'd hold off on adding anything back to Value chain and instead start discussing what you'd like to change on Talk:Value chain. --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Friendly request to please stop using the edit summary "Sigh". It's melodramatic and uninformative. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that it upsets you so. Given all the requests I've made of you to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I'm surprised that you've asked for me to respect your personal preferences on how I interact with others. Seems like you could have handled the situation over at Talk:List of gamelan ensembles in the United States much better. Once again, you demonstrated a lack of respect of WP:NPA. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Err no you retained one persons whitewash, irrelevant caution, removing verified wikipedia standard sources, Sports Illustrated, BBC, The Guardian, reference of USOC director Dr.Wade Exum, quotations from various parties including Lewis himself, on an article that one solitary person vandalised with a whitewash agenda. I have reverted the article prior to his series of vandalism, where there was no issue.--JackRodwell101 (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already told you. Discuss your concerns on the talk page. If we can't come to a resolution, then we can take it to WP:BLPN. First we need a description of the problems. Claims of vandalism and whitewashing do not help. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, the particular individual (named after him) removed factual material, committed a whitewash, and completely broke all neutrality. I did retain some edits of this said person (such as other medals won) while retaining the the rest of the informed, balanced, sourced fact based article that many people have contributed to without issue.--JackRodwell101 (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP concerns are almost always a priority. They are very serious. In contrast, your complaints are minor. Let's document the problems and get some help dealing with them. I've already asked for help at WP:BLPN. I suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page. I'm stretched for time, but I should be able to look into it in detail tomorrow. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You are breaching NPOV standards, verifiable sources, in what is a major theme to an athlete, with a precedent set of others. You have an agenda, and want to validate one persons vandalism, with a whitewash of documenatation, then start a discussion.JackRodwell101 (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My agenda is to improve Wikipedia. I'm taking this to ANI, requesting you be blocked for multiple BLP violations. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI#BLP_problems_in_Carl_Lewis. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I didnt edit Ronz, my PC is working slow so i had the comment stored and posted it twice, id assumed i hadn't sent it the first time hence the repeat post.JackRodwell101 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Edit summaries might have helped. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you get rid of my contribution to her page? I had a source, that identified what I typed. Please bring back my contribution to her page. You are not doing anyone any favors by getting rid of what I typed. I assure you, it is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm23avg307 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. You will blocked if you continue to violate WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI regarding the most recent exchange of edits in Beer Judge Certification Program... Based on both his behavior and a lookup on the IP address, I'd venture to suggest that User:83.161.192.227 is quite possibly User:Mikebe, whose opinion on BJCP is well known to others who have tried to work on beer related articles (see, for example, Talk:Beer style#mikebe). --mwalimu59 (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who the editor is. Please focus on content rather than on editors.

I tagged the reference, started a discussion, and no one has attempted to justify the reference. Given that, I've removed it. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As noted in that article's talk page, I concur with removal of the particular edit in question for different reasons. --mwalimu59 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I gave your userpage a week of semi-protection...seemed like it was getting too much love from the anons. Let me (or any other admin, I won't be offended:) know if you want longer/shorter prot. DMacks (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! They're sock/meatpuppets of Leveque (talk · contribs) --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ronz

Thank you for informing me of what is acceptable. Is there anything in my post that I can take out in order to keep the idea of my page in? DOTAC is strictly for a source that orgs. do exist for OT and the wide range of differences between however with the common goal of delivering the message of OT services to prospective students and the public.

Thanks for following up with me.

If the material could be sourced mostly through independent sources, then there should be little problem with it. However, you should take a look at WP:COI.

The best approach would be to discuss it on the article talk page, providing some independent sources and proposing information to add to the article. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted my additions to the references on a couple of pages, e.g., the captive insurance page. Please explain so I can avoid wasting time adding items in the future or correct any mistakes I may have made. Thank you. David Cummins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumminsjd (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 September 2009

Hi David! Thanks for contacting me about this. I'd already started addressing this on your talk page, which you probably hadn't noticed yet. Take a look, then I'll be happy to explain further. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I wonder if you could take a look at the Enterprise engineering and make the copy-edits needed. I recently removed the copy-edit tag, which I probably shouldn't. I would be great if you could make some improvements. Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look bad at a glance, though my first impression is that it looks a lot like a neologism. I'm not sure when I'll have time to look at it in depth. Anything in particular I should focus on? --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is just the English grammer...!? If you think there is no urgent need for copyediting the article, I guess I was right removing the copy edit tag, see here...!?

I am not asking you to improve the content. There is no doubt Enterprise engineering is a notable subject, and I just started this article with a few notable sources. There is still a lot of work, which I and or others will continu eventually. But this is not what I am asking you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'll give a look with that in mind. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I just noticed grammer: a common misspelling of grammar. These kind of mistakes (of mine) is the main reason for asking. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it a bit. It could use some help from a good wordsmith. The grammar is awkward in places and the language should be simplified for clarity. I'll tag it. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks. So it be it. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Comparison of open source DVD authoring software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of open source DVD authoring software. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fleet Command (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I am just starting to become more interested in Wikipedia and yesterday made my first contribution. I found an article about Ergonomics and thought it was a very useful about what consitutes a good ergonomic design. I think the company manufacturer ergonomic equipment but they write some really good articles.

However the reference got removed and im not sure why? and how do I get my contributions to stick around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahm23 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Responding on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)