User talk:Hipal

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Welcome to the Wikipedia user discussion page for Ronz.
To leave a message on this page, click here.

*Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. Such comments may be immediately deleted. (See WP:TALK and WP:AGF)
*Sign your post using four tildes ( -- ~~~~ )
Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Archives

---

1. - Nov 2006
2. Dec 2006
3. Jan 2007
4. Feb - 9 Apr 2007
5. Apr 2007
6. May 2007
7. Jun 2007
8. Jul - Aug 2007
9. Aug - Oct 2007
10. Oct - Dec 2007
11. Jan 2008 - Feb 2008
12. Feb 2008
13. Mar 2008 - Apr 2008
14. Apr 2008 - Jun 2008
15. Jun 2008
16. Jul 2008

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome! Zeppomedio (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Heuristic evaluation

Do you have sources of the research that invalids the Nielsen's "3-5 evaluators suffice for HE" assertion? I'd be very interested in reading it. Diego (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

See the article talk page. The claim that "further experts yield diminishing returns in terms of usability problems found" is false. --Ronz (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen

I thought you might be interested in this [1] It sounds a lot like what you went through along with others. Just thought I would bring it to your attention to do as you would like, respond or not. I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sad. --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is sad but with reading things I am now starting to understand what she is trying to do with the articles though I don't think that it will work for Wikipedia. She seems to be used to a board room like way of doing things, and I don't think that will work. Have you thought about putting up your ban for a week from Quackwatch with the details of what lead to it? I tried to talk to User:Elonka on my talk page about it since I didn't understand why you were blocked when you were obviously being misrepresented. Here is the conversation, [2]. The discussion seen was a comment I made at Shot_info's talk page about it. I tryed to explain the history of the misrepresenting and the bad blood on QW that has driven many editors away by the editor's behavior. You do know that Avb isn't active anymore, or I should say very little activity since the debacle back at the QW page, at least the last time I looked at his contributions. I think this whole mess needs sorting. I was surprised to see that there were three attempts for administration that failed prior to becoming one. It was an interesting read which you can find at the above link if you are interested. I think that the QW page should be part of this since the actions are the same in my opinion anyways. I would put it up myself but to be honest, I still don't understand why you were banned for the week. It is you choice to make and please know I am not attempting to pressure you in anyway to react here. I just think it would be good for the project all around to have the whole picture and since QW has already been mentioned a few times I think details would be appropriate. Well, like I said your choice to decide, whatever you do have a good day. I am spending the day cleaning and cooking for the family coming today. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the "board room" mentality and I don't think it's appropriate at all for admins to use. I'm absolutely appalled by her behavior in her RfC/U. She clearly doesn't follow the rules she expects of others, and I think a strong argument could be made that acts as if she has special privileges that allow her to behave so poorly. Very sad indeed.

When I'm done with my discussions with Coppertwig, I'll write a summary of them, summarize my concerns with Elonka further, then start a mediation request. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Drop a link on my talk page if you do please, I may have something to add to the conversation. Like I said I was lurking on QW and was shocked at your ban with what I saw happening. I saw what Levine did and I tried to explain to her that this was a tactic and that there was history for a long time going on with what he did. She didn't seem to understand what I was saying though. So drop in on my talk page if you do go to mediation or where ever so I don't miss it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

DivaNtrainin

Thanks for your comment on the Health Freedom Movement talk page re. DivaNtrainin's edit. Could you also take a look at the [Codex Alimentarius talk page] when you get time? DivaNtrainin has removed what I consider to be a perfectly good reference (from the Guardian, a major British newspaper), saying that "this is not a quality reference." The Guardian easily qualifies as a reliable source WP:SOURCES with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and I would really welcome your intervention on this one too, if you have time. Thanks again!Vitaminman (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the ref meets WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. Thanks too for your intervention on the talk page.Vitaminman (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cabalcase

Ronz, created a cabalcase. See

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-08-03_Bates_method

regards, Seeyou (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested diffs

I've supplied sections rather than diffs, as it gives a better picture of exactly what was going on. Will suppliy diffs at the RfC as well, this is for your convenience and because you asked nicely :). [3][4][5].

Regards,--Ramdrake (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't thank me until you've seen how long the section are. I would recommend starting with the last one, it may be more telling of what I meant - and less tiresomely long. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

Note to self: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Tired_of_the_gaming needs some attention (advice and discussion of consequences of decisions to date). --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"...the tension"

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I saw it after posting another comment at on the same RFC talk page, which you will probably not like very much either. I would point out, however, that my comments at the RFC are not "editorial disagreements" such as one would find in an article or its talk page. They are comments regarding a User Conduct RFC, in which I think one would expect to find comments regarding a user's conduct. In this case the conduct in question is that of the user who started the RFC, which I think is fair game, especially in light of the issues discussed in the various statements and endorsements in the RFC to date. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL still applies, as well as WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. It's pretty clear that others have similar concerns. --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand, although (as I just stated in another comment on the same talk page) my concern is that the policies in question be applied evenhandedly, which is kind of ironic in an RFC in which the primary issue is whether certain policies were applied evenhandedly. In any event, I think I have made my point and see no need to repeat myself. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear that one of the issues of the RfCU is whether policies and guidelines are being applied evenhandedly, especially WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I meant... but whatever. On to the next issue. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this mess.....

Words totally escape me on this one! [6] Have a good one, off to watch a movie. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Modifications to Run Book Automation WIKI page

Hi,

Why did you remove all the vendors from the Run Book Automation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_Book_Automation)? That information was very useful, now there is only one vendor that appears in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.210.68.145 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

After looking closer at the reference for the remaining vendor, I moved it to the talk page for discussion. I removed them because they are inappropriate per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Depression again (how depressing)

As I said the other day, it can't be a POV fork unless it expresses a POV. Show me where the POV is and I'll remove it.

Sardaka (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is that it's a pov fork. Thanks for the reminder. --Ronz (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

BM again

Ronz, you say: "we determine NPOV by finding and following independent, reliable sources. Where are these sources? I'm not sure the article has any." I beg to differ. There are currently citations from American Journal of Optometry, Archives of the American Academy of Optometry, American Journal of Ophthalmology, Optometry and Vision Science, Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (a rather prestigious journal in which I have published), Ophthalmic and Physiological Optometry and Journal of Vision (the highest ranked vision journal according to Impact factor, and one in which I have published (twice)). That's not to mention the more journalistic sources, that include Time, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe. Regarding refactoring my comments, I prefer to let what's been said on talk pages stand, rather than censor myself. Famousdog (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And as I said, these sources are drown in a sea of poor sources. --Ronz (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U MFD

(saved for wherever the discussion continues)

• Keep until replaced with something better: While it's clear that RfC/U is misused, it serves a useful and sometimes essential venue: for documenting and discussing disruptive editing patterns and similar behaviors that are too complicated for simple discussion in WP:ANI. The incivility problems (and worse) that are so common result from our inability to properly enforce WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS, and WP:NPA. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment

I saw your comment on the QW talk page under where Elonka posted the link to the RFC. I think if you want it to be seen you need to go to the link and post it there. This is just a suggestion. There is a section now there about Quackwatch that is well.... --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given all that Elonka is going through, I thought it best to make it relatively unobtrusive. If people are actually reading carefully, they'll see it. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense, I understand what you are doing and think it's very nice and a polite way of saying it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

about your deletion of goobiz.com from the SOA contribution

Hi,

Could you please let me know why you insist in deleting contribution of goobiz.com (a non reliable contributor for you) about its contribution to "Bridge the Business Motivation Model (BMM) to SOA" ?

Thanks

Bruno Rodin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.250.174.42 (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for contacting me about this. I've been trying to notify you about the situation, but being new to Wikipedia, you may have missed the notes. User_talk:Bruno_rodin and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.goobiz.com.2F. both have discussions about the situation. In a nutshell, the information source does not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, the link has been spammed across multiple articles, and appears to be have been added to promote a persons work and business interests. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Socks

I am on it. I am making a list and once I get a few more will get a CU done. Right now just keep an eye on it as usual. KnightLago (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that will get a few more people to take a look, but a CU needs to be run to block the IP address or range just like last time. That is the only way to get him to stop. KnightLago (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Biff714 KnightLago (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry that I changed your edit at Joseph Mercola; I was trying to clear the sockpuppet detritus and hastily tossed the pearls before the bathwater, or something like that. My bad. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I guessed. Not a problem. Thanks for the explanation. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

DivaNtrainin

Hi Ronz. Please see DivaNtrainin's latest comments re. the Codex Alimentarius article, and my response, on my talk page [7]. What do you think? Vitaminman (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A reliable sources has been provided. Seems like DivaNtrainin and the WP:SPA ip are just trying to make a WP:POINT. I suggest ignoring any discussion that isn't relevant to improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will do, thanks. Vitaminman (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Lee (cook)

If you have sources, feel free to return it. The section appeared to be the subject of an edit war where neither side was producing references, and so I just chopped it all out. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Close - they were sockpuppets of a blocked editor. Thanks for getting back to me! --Ronz (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I think this is a good thing, [8]. I don't know if you saw him around, I just noticed right now in a response he made. I think and hope he will be able to help things around here that to me have gotten really strange of late. Also have you seen this essay? [9] It was started by Elonka recently and has been busy ever since. I guess this is the next catch term to watch out for. Hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to see Newyorkbrad is back.

Yes, I've been working on Tag team. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What would you do?

Then after a couple of exchanges on the notice board, editor goes to the talk page and:

• creates a topic called "decision to withdraw" ; it is not a question, but rather a statement explaining why he is withdrawing and that it has to do to not enough good will on my part and how i favor censorship or something to that effect. I believe there is a better way to express disagreements and his public way of "caution" to future editors regarding me is not positive and appropriate. If we feel a person is not behaving within guidelines of wikipedia, I feel we should get assistance. That is why I am contacting you, for your opinion and assistance. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Battle
• Can this particular "discussion topic" be retained, but moved to what I imagine a more appropriate place, say that those who want to discuss the article truly can? and if the user wants to vent his frustration with me and indicate how i don't have good will or exercise censorship, than that can be done in perhaps a mediation forum? Hrannar (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

What would you do if someone did this to you?

BACKGROUND INFO Despute began here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Battle/Archive_2#Neutrality

Until finally, the user archived our discussion and moved it to the notice board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kathleen_Battle

Hrannar (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

network emulators page

I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but I'd like to know why the "network emulation" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_emulation) has references to the 3rd party products removed?

All except for one product that it is... ns-2. Very dodgy.

Stoj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.16.20 (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be better to discuss on the article talk page. I left the link to ns (simulator) because it is not an external link. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Hey, a while back you suggested I reconsider my username. Just wanted to say that I took your advice, and thanks for the tip.KyoukiGirl (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad I could help. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

KPI Global Technologies spam

KPI Global Technologies, Inc. is a legitimate company in SOA. It is not "spam". —Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloSOAWorld (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the note I placed on your user talk page, or read WP:COI and WP:SPAM? --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

dedicate SOA Blog reader

Who are YOU to decide that this link doesn't belong. As a reader, this blog is a tremendous resource for all things SOA. I read religiously. It is a much better resource than the other external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.34 (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are YOU to decide that this link doesn't belong. As a reader, this blog is a tremendous resource for all things SOA. I read religiously. It is a much better resource than the other external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.118 (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

==Proposed deletion of List of SOA related products

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of SOA related products, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ==

--RichardVeryard (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cloud computing

Thanks for removing the VHACS linkspam... I did it once already but it came back promptly. I was going to have another look soon... samj (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's an ongoing problem, then it might be useful to make a list of the editors and ip's adding it. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiNeighbors

Hi Ronz,

I've been working on a Wikipedia tool to help editors find their "WikiNeighbors" [10] -- do these results seem reasonable for you? Appreciate any feedback you might have. Thanks! Zeppomedio (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not sure what's reasonable for me, because much of my editing consists of cleaning up spam. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Help - spammer

68.175.102.177 is consistently spamming, as you have observed/warned multiple times. I've added template uw-advert4 - is there something else to be done? samj (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the ip is blocked already. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Info

Thanks for the Wikipedia reference info. Dezignr (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of citing project companies for the article 'Tom Hardy (designer)', I clearly understand your concern with using a reference document whose data may originate simply from a self-serving form. However, the reference cited was a special, high quality Auburn University one-time external publication distributed to alumni, government and industry commemorating the 100th anniversary of the College of Architecture, Design & Construction (CADC) in 2007. The "fact sheets" were actually descriptive pages written by a third party who profiled 100 alumni that have distinquished themselves in their professions. Due to the external audience for the publication, it is my assumption that the university would want to ensure the content was correct to avoid any issues, especially with industry. Furthermore, the publication also included photographs of alumni work and a number of those 100 people were invited to present case study examples of said project work to students, faculty and guests. Mr. Hardy was one that made such a presentation of work from various companies on November 2, 2007. Therefore, given the aforementioned conditions regarding a verifiable source, it is my view the reference provided is adequate to substantiate the citing of project companies in said article and does not violate Wikipedia guidelines. It should be understood that inclusion of such information is not intended to be promotional, but is used in a pedagogical context to illustrate the breadth of professional contribution made by the article subject. I look forward to your response.

Dezignr (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at other biographical articles, you won't see such information, mostly because of WP:SOAP. In general, I think that lists of clients are inappropriate. In the case of someone like Hardy, what matters is the work he's produced and it's reception, not who the work was for. Also, have you looked at WP:RS? --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of the edits were indeed minor. Also, I removed the project list and associated source to avoid a 'soapbox' perception of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezignr (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

More Cydonia

Hi Ronz. Thanks for intervening with Hsmukler. You were right to haul them up about COI issues. I should really have done that myself when I edited the first time - I was a little too eager to get information from them about the source they mentioned! Anyway, thanks! Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up

Thanks for the heads-up info about editing 'talk' pages. I'm new at this. Dezignr (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you found it helpful. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting to place a link in Neural Network page

Hi,

I am requesting to put a link in order to help people understand what actually is ADALINE NEURAL NETWORK. Please take a look to my post here: [11]

This is not a simply spam link. It have been done with research in 2 years from University Of Malaysia: [12]. The thesis can be downloaded there as well.

I just hope it can benefit more people as it has taken me quite a long time to understand it since never have wiki last time.

Any concern, please do not hesitate to email me at [ahyeek@gmail.com]

Thanks.

Ahyeek (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Ahyeek

Please see the comments on your talk page. I believe you have been warned multiple times about these issues when you were editing as 202.122.153.22 and 202.122.153.71. --Ronz (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been allowed to place the Genetic Algorithm links and never been warned. Please check the log. However, I found encourage and start to work out the Neural network example in order to benefit more people. Perhaps, can you help me on how should I modify the content in order to place a content in wiki? I found that in order to re-write the content in wiki again, it's rather point user to the existing content which I have been constructed in my blog. Ahyeek (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has been adding the very same links to the very same articles at almost the same time. If this is just a coincidence, I'm sorry for the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the warning on your talk page, but think the discussions should be kept as much as possible in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.silyeek-tech.blogspot.com --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

You have a response on my "Discussions" talkpage (follow the Kacheek emoticon in my signature). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 01:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Preservation of edit histories

A proper preservation of edit histories requires an admin who can do the move right (by deleting the destination page, moving the starting page, and then reinserting the destination page content). Perhaps a WP:RFPM is in order. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I should have started there. The move is done, it's just a matter of cleaning up. --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MCA Solutions

Thanks, Ronz. I'm working to add in text citations to make the article a little clearer and more referenceable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrennan17 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

While it's unlikely that someone can help, the tag should be kept until the info is referenced well enough to be verifiable. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:3

Hi. I put something on WP:3 that may concern you. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the discussion? --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Laser for Wireless energy transfer

Ronz,

Could you please clarify why you took down the "advantages" of Laser WET method section on this Wiki page? Your reasoning looks quite unclear to me and I do not understand what you are referring to when you say invalid references.

Also, the proposal for Low-power transfer by Geoffrey Landis is based on Laser power.

Laser powerbeaming as it is known has been limited due to expensive laser sources. The entire Wireless Energy Transfer topic is right now quite exotic and we have to be responsible to develop information for Wiki audience such that it addresses both advantages and disadvantages of each topic mentioned here.

Hoping a meaningful response.

Thank you. Visionary77 (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

See the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

external links

Hi Ron,

Sorry about that, perhaps I'm being slow but I thought that external links to the organisations discussed in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_architecture (ie the professional landscape bodies for the UK, Australia and Canada) were appropriate for that section page? They obviously cover an area discussed in the main body of the article.

Best

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveKCole (talk • contribs) 08:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

External links such as that are usually only allowed in articles specifically about the organization. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

About the Hard Life

Hello, Ronz!
My name is Julia. I am an ASAP member (Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals). The link you have removed from the Vundo article is not a spam. This was the steps that really works great with the vundo trojan (please note: the OSAM is a freeware). You can ask the opinion of any computer security expert who knows how difficult to remove the vundo for a common user and who knows that in most cases antivirus/antimalware software could only find, but not disinfect the vundo infection.
There is a lot of people who have problems with the vundo trojan and they are looking for help. And I just don't want to leave them alone with this problem.
Please, could I put the link back? Thank you in advance. Rights2fly (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I appreciate your situation and that you've chosen to discuss it.

In my edit summary, I said "spammed", referring to the fact that the link was spammed to the article: it was added to multiple articles by a single editor that contributed nothing else to any of those articles (See WP:SPAM).

I suggest you discuss your concerns on the article talk page, but in general, I don't think it should be allowed because it is a link to a discussion forum, which is normally not allowed (See WP:LINKSTOAVOID). --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand you, Ronz. I hate the spammers too. But I never though I could be a spammer. And it is really sad.

I think there are some cases when this system doesn't work (I mean "adding the same link to many articles" isn't always spam, especially if "many" means three or four). For example, I have a web-page, where I add programs useful for the people (all of them are trusted and for the most part free and it isn't the advertising). And when I find something new I could add it (the same link) to more than one section at once, if this program fits (for example it could be: diagnostic software, file/disk utilities and secure file deletion as well). And that is why I though I could do something similar for the Wiki, if the link goes well with the content and if this really could be helpful (sorry, at this moment of my life I have no enough time for more, but I would love to help).

Thank you. I will try to add another link to the Vundo article (not the link to the forum). If it will be removed again by somebody, I'll discuss it on the article talk page. I hope I can do so. Rights2fly (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Sounds like you're getting the hang of Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Query re: list of portable software

Hello,

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

--Vieen (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

MedRevise.co.uk

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

Regarding Tadalafil

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

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

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

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

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

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

DrYak (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I always give a welcome message to any editor that I encounter that doesn't have a talk page.

The links plain don't work for me using Firefox. I didn't test them to see if they work with other browsers. When I found what I thought was the information you meant to link to, it appeared to be nothing more than standard pharmaceutical information that is easily available elsewhere. If I'm mistaken on what the links are supposed to be linking to, then I apologize.

Whether or not I misindentified what the link was supposed to refer to, Epocrates, Inc. is linkspam and advertising.

The message I left you, Uw-advert1, assumes you made the edit in good faith. I'm sorry if you read it as anything different. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I just checked it now and it works for me with FireFox 3 under Linux.

The thing that makes difference from the average patient-oriented information available online, is that drug databases targeted toward health professionals also include additional technical informations, for example about the pharmacokinetics including where the drug is degraded and with which half-life. This, at the time when the "36 hours" information was still in the article, is important data to substanciate the claim. The average patient oriented online information doesn't give such kind of details and usually concentrate on informations that the patient must keep in mind (what to tell or ask the doctor, what drugs to avoid mixing even if sold over the counter, etc ...).

In addition to the online link, also included a link to the company making the database, feeling that citing the database's maker was important. Maybe that was superfluous. Nonetheless I would really had appreciated if you could have explained the motivations that lead you to think that the link was advertising (I don't know, but may some short sentence as in "the 'available online' link already provides access to the information and from there the make can be found. An additional link to the homepage is superfluous and a little bit out-of-context given the ads for the products")

I don't want to sound aggressive to you. But maybe adding some basic explanation specific to the situation in addition of simply copying a template would help people understand better you decision and limit the amount of "Why did you delete X or Y" messages that you seem to be receiving here.

Nonetheless thank you for trying to dedicate your time in order to make Wikipedia a slightly better place DrYak (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

I think the link may only work if you have an account with them when using Firefox.

I get these messages for the same reasons that everyone else does that takes on Wikipedia's spam problems: because a lot of people think that adding such links is appropriate. It's not appropriate. A very small percentage of them ask for clarification. I'm happy to do so.

The link is advertising per WP:SPAM. Such links are generally only allowed on articles specifically about the topic of the link. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuum (design consultancy) rewrite

I am rewriting the entry for the Continuum design consultancy and I would like to ask what specifically violates the conflict of interest code. I assume it is the references and media? I should refer to more third party sources and not to Continuum's own website, correct? Your input is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Forrelli (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to regarding a conflict of interest. Did someone indicate it was a problem? If so, where? --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuum (design consultancy) rewrite

I have tweaked the Continuum page with neutrality in mind. Does this now satisfy the Wikipedia requirements ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_(design_consultancy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrelli (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work. It looks much better. I've changed the tag and noted that the second paragraph especially could use more work. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuum (design consultancy) edit

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

Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health‎

Please accept my apology for incorrectly putting your name on the unsigned comment. When I went to correct the mistake I noticed that you had already fixed it. Thank you for fixing my error. TallMagic (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Think nothing of it. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ZRTP and KHAMSA citation

Hi Ronz,

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

It's a huge innovation in security environment, why you removed it from the web page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpietrosanti (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See the information I left you on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bates method RFF

Hi Ronz. I have requested feedback on whether the Bates method article now has a Neutral Point of View. Just letting you know in case there is anything you want to add. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think we're making progress, but lots still to do, especially when it comes to WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I got a reply there saying that the NPOV noticeboard is the best place to ask this. Not sure whether or how soon to go ahead with that. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. WP:NPOVN is relatively new. I'll be interested to see what feedback results. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed a note there that says: "Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature." So I guess that is not the place to request a thorough NPOV review either. The only outlet I have found for a thorough review would be a Good Article nomination, which at this point is probably not a viable option. I guess I will wait and see if anything more comes of the RFF and beyond that, leave the ball in your court as far as requesting help, since you could better specify what the issues are. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's disappointing. An RfC might be helpful. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the impression that an RfC is an avenue to request the kind of review I had in mind. We could ask "Does the article overall now have a NPOV?" and get several responses, but that would not be the result of an in-depth examination of the article and its major sources. I am still hopeful that the RFF will yield something, but other than that, perhaps the best answer is to continue to discuss specific issues (avoiding whole-sale deletions without agreement), for which there would be several potential avenues of Dispute Resolution. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting Seeyou's unhelpful edits. I had been considering whether to do it myself. As you noted elsewhere Seeyou does not seem to be fluent in English, so I'm trying to take it slowly with him/her on the talk page. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've always been very mixed about how to handle Seeyou. The language barrier is definitely part of the problem. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ping

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

Adaptive Audio Talk page edits

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

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

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

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

Ronz - any comments on my proposed edits to the Adaptive Article? Do you think it would be okay for me to go ahead and replace these, or if you are okay with it, would you mind doing a cut and paste? THere are 3 sections I suggested for replacement on the talk page. THanks again for your help here. D3innovation (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My perspective hasn't changed: if we cannot find good references, the article should be deleted. Everything that is not verifiable can be removed at any time per WP:V. While I appreciate the work you've done, it could come to naught if not referenced. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

24.184.95.40 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - that was me (D3innovation) above - forgot to sign in when I posted this D3innovation (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Patents are almost totally useless here. They verify what is listed in a patent application.

As I mentioned earlier, you should find other topics edit in order to learn about Wikipedia without the frustration of working against a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm very familiar with patents and very certain that they're use is limited to what I described.

voice-compass.com promotes itself as a promotional entity. Basically, they republish press releases and information sheets.

We're trying to establish some WP:N criteria, and WP:V along the way. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you do agree issued patents require the patent examiner to do an extensive patent search, prior art search and media search before issuing a patent, right?

You are correct about voice-compass.com. However the Voice Compass compendium is, as the site says "The voice compass is the compendium for Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and looks at the domain of voice, i. e speech applications on the telephone in full detail.". This is not a book of press releases and marketing materials. Readers would not pay the $180 USD for it if it were. They can get those materials for free themselves. It is a 500 - 600 page, published book on Information and Communications Technology. The AA chapter is like other chapters in the book - about IT technologies. What is wrong with that?

D3innovation (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ronz - should I be contacting you here, or on the AA Talk page? Or does it matter? Thanks 24.184.95.40 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The article talk page is best so that other editors can see and participate in the discussions. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll post there from now on. What about my comments on 17:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC) above? Do you want to answer it here, or should I cut and paste it to the Talk page? D3innovation (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to summarize as well so editors don't have to read here to understand the questions. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I cut and pasted the relevant questions this earlier this morning. What were your thoughts on my last comments above?D3innovation (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I hadn't looked. I'll do so now. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Thanos5150

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

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

You have made it your missionn to stop disruptive edits but I think you are seeing something you don't really understand and are making an inaccurate judgment based on the facts.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I made no accusations of sockpuppetry. In fact, I made it clear that the ip in question is you and that you sign your edits when using that ip.

WP:3RR is very specific. It is doubtful if you will be allowed to do what you did again without being blocked for it.

I've asked for verification and independent sources as required per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pallet Rack "spam"

Ronz, You recently deleted and tagged a link on the "Pallet Rack" page as spam. This link led to the Rack Manufacturers Institute, the organization that governs the manufacturing of pallet rack. Virtually every manufacturer of pallet rack in the country belongs to this nonprofit organization and submits articles and reference letters on a regular basis. All the information you would ever need on pallet rack is there, which is why I used them as a reference. I am not a member, in fact I have no affiliation with them whatsoever. They were there because they in fact were used as a reference in the article. I hope this clears things up. I will put them back as a reference assuming you have no issues. Thank you. Markj52 (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. Such links almost always qualify as promotional per WP:SPAM and rarely meet WP:RS, so I doubt if there is any way it can be kept in. This should be continued on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for External Links

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

I suggest discussing the matter on the article talk pages, because the circumstances differ from article to article.

DMOZ links can be acceptable, especially when the article is poorly referenced (as these are) and when the DMOZ links are highly relevant (which is what I'm concerned about). --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No More Links

You started here making some unfortunate mistakes and you got frustrated. Sounds like you're on the right track. Let me know if you need help. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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:

{{underconstruction}} {{cleanup}} {{wikibreak|KingScreamer}}

Anyways, thanks for helping me!

KingScreamer (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#Citation_formatting. Now to get the titles and citation info in... --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)