User talk:Hipal/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Curtis Bledsoe

You're very involved in this situation, and I'm concerned templatized warnings will just exasperate the problem. Can you please extricate yourself from the situation and let uninvolved editors handle it for a bit? Thanks.--Kchase T 05:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone else gets him to back off on the personal attacks, fine. How about I give it 12 hours or so? --Ronz 05:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting you needed to have your vision checked was exceptionally rude, and I understand your anger, but the templatized message doesn't help. Please consider striking it and letting bygones be bygones. Also, do you have an interest in one of the articles, or did you get involved in this some other way?--Kchase T 05:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That was big of you.--Kchase T 05:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this indicates a problem with templatized messages?

Templatized messages are intended for uninvolved people and/or to respond to blatant issues. When you're involved in a situation, the warned editor tends to get defensive. If both of you are escalating the situation, finding an uninvolved outsider is often a better solution than warnings.--Kchase T 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good to know. I suppose the same goes with all behavior templates then? --Ronz 06:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Interest? I'm not sure what you mean. I noted months ago some serious POV problems in some of these articles, and am trying to find a way to settle them. I'm trying to think of it as a learning experience. --Ronz 05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the thread above. It answered my question. If you were a disinterested party, I would have asked you to just walk away from the whole mess so there are as few disputants as possible.--Kchase T 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Yes, he's been taking shots at me as well. I really regret letting him get away with his 3RR violation on The National Council Against Health Fraud. Might have put some brakes on this mess, or maybe not. --Ronz 06:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge nobody is looking into Curtis' conduct. Because I had been in past edit conflict with Droliver over breast implant, Curtis wikistalked me there, after the fiasco on NCAHF. I reverted his edits, and he filed a complaint against me. An admin friend of Droliver opened another An/I against me after Curtis' complaint was closed, for past 'misdeeds'. (I have edited by one other name, jgwlaw, since I have first edited Wikipedia about 6 months or so ago). I find it interesting that Droliver has continued to revert DrZuckerman's edits, and attacked her personally, without censure. DrZuckerman is a Yale-trained epidemiologist, so I am not sure how she is remotely less qualified than Droliver (from Univ of South Alabama) to edit (Oliver is a "plastic surgeon"). But that is not important in Wikipedia, I know. Here was my edit on Arthur's page [1]. I have known of Ilena before this article, because of her activism in women's issues. I often do not agree with her, as you know. On breast implants, I do, at least partially . So that is the whole story. I may get blocked because of Curtis' actions. It is "Wikilogic". Jance 19:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping things would be more settled by now. I'm going to give it a bit more time. --Ronz 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An RfC by Curtis is a good idea. His points may be good in some circumstances, but not the way he has insisted. The article as he wants it would be absurdly long. Jance 00:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

why was my freestyle rap external link removed as spam

The link takes you to a page that has some of the hottest freestyle rap videos in hip hop, I don't understand how that can be classified as spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chosen1234 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

I've responded on your Talk page --Ronz 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

This is the (long)statement of the case, from the state supreme court decision (which is the subject of this article):

Plaintiffs, Dr. Stephen J. Barrett and Dr. Timothy Polevoy, operated Web sites devoted to exposing health frauds. Defendant Ilena Rosenthal directed the Humantics Foundation for Women and operated an Internet discussion group. Plaintiffs alleged that Rosenthal and others committed libel by maliciously distributing defamatory statements in e-mails and Internet postings, impugning plaintiffs’ character and competence and disparaging their efforts to combat fraud.2

[The lower courts found ] that Rosenthal’s statements concerned an issue of public interest within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, and were, for the most part, not actionable because they contained no provably false assertions of fact. Plaintiffs do not challenge that ruling. The court determined that the only actionable statement appeared in an article Rosenthal received via e-mail from her codefendant Tim Bolen. This article, subtitled “Opinion by Tim Bolen,” accused Dr. Polevoy of stalking a Canadian radio producer. Rosenthal posted a copy of this article on the Web sites of two newsgroups devoted to alternative health issues and the politics of medicine, not on the site of her own discussion group.

The Court of Appeal vacated the order granting the motion to strike insofar as it applied to Dr. Polevoy. It held that section 230 did not protect Rosenthal from liability as a “distributor” under the common law of defamation. We granted Rosenthal’s petition for review.[2]

The statement of the case (in the article here on WIkipedia) is now factually incorrect. At issue is the republication of one statement against one of the two plaintiffs. I do not know if this will help, but I am not going to edit that article, or any other right now. I might add that plaintiff's attorney did not know the legal meaning of "malice" in the context of defamation. The courts pointed this out. This has nothing to do with whether most of IR's statements were inflammatory, or even 'false' - hyperbole and opinion are never defamatory. I can call Joe Bloe a "fascist Nazi commie pinky nutcase" and it would not be defamatory. Even if Joe Bloe were Bill Gates. Why? Because these statements are hyperbole, and opinion. They may have been made maliciously (in the colloqial meaning). Doesn't matter. So Curtis' edits in the article don't make sense. Even the lower courts didn't bother determining "truth" of opinions, that were not factual statements.

IF Joe Bloe were not Bill Gates, but your neighbor down the street who is not a public figure, then the standard is not "actual malice" but "negligence". That is a lower bar to proving defamation. However, even then, hyperbole and opinion would not be considered statements of fact. The question of "truth" or "falsity" would probably never be resolved. Jance 23:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for your kind comments on my talkpage.Jance 23:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

New Year's Eve

HAPPY NEW YEAR!! (I assume it is NY for you? Yes?). I am about ready to finally hang all this up and go out with the spouse. I couldn't let Barrett v. Rosenthal stand as bad as it was. I left the statements (so as not to be accused of edit warring), but moved them to the appropriate location, under the section on "Lower Court" decisions. I removed the blatantly incorrect statements (the court did not describe these statements as defamatory, as was stated - the court said most were non-defamatory opinion). I tried to keep it all NPOV. The quote of the actual email is still without citation, so I moved the 'no citations' tag down with it. Please take a look and tell me what you think. I personally think that the actual email quotes (except for the one at issue, about stalking) are superfluous and distracting. But I am open on that, as long as it is not misrepresented. I left the POV tag, too, as I wanted input from some rational editors. Yes, I suppose Wikipedia is a bit addictive. And I simply despise bullies, of any stripe. I guess that is why I do the work I do.  ;-)

Thanks --Ronz 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your suggestions regarding smears on the talk:barrett rosenthal. I have emailed an oversight request for expunge...will wait for a reply. Thanks again and I appreciate your efforts of help, it was noticed. Emilydcksn 03:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I moved what I think you're concerned about to an archive so that at least it's out of the way. --Ronz 17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting internal links to not-yet-written articles

I'm not sure I understand why you are aggressively (e.g.. in the Use Case article) deleting such links. I thought that this was a mechanism to encourage the missing articles to be written, and they don't really interfere with readability. In addition, there's a slight change in interpretation, when the link is removed. With no link a phrase like system block appears to be a standard english phrase,instead of a technical term or term of art. Mjchonoles 20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen any policy or guideline statements about them, so I'm just going by my own judgement. In general, I find them quite annoying in articles, especially when the topic doesn't seem very notable. I appreciate you're pointing it out, however, as I've wondered if there are any formal or informal guidelines about them at all. Generally, I only do it aggressively with links to deleted articles. --Ronz 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

list

Your help would be appreciated here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_articles_related_to_quackery -- Fyslee 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please help here! -- Fyslee 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any way to make that list work, given the biased and uncivil resistance against it. --Ronz 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

TYPO3Wizard links

Hello, I would like to know why you removed the link to TYPO3wizard.com and but there are still the other "Tutorial" pages?

Hope you answer me soon. Thank you helli —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.46.44.99 (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

See WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Most importantly, I think I explained myself in my edit summary: "rv - this is an article about TYPO3 - links should be more about TYPO3 rather than developer resources". As for other links being there, I left them since they've been there a while and I assume have been reviewed by other editors. If you think there are inappropriate links there, bring it up on the talk page. --Ronz 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrett

I answered the questions re Barrett & "King Bio". I suspect Robert's confusion was my use of Id. That is a legal citation, and not a Wikipedia reference. It means this reference is the same as the previous reference, in this case the superior court case (trial level in CA). Fyslee showed me how to Wiki-reference, but I forgot that I used Id here. I think I answered all the questions, but if you all have more, feel free to ask. Jance 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Please activate your email, and notify me by my email. -- Fyslee 11:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Point well taken. When I see what I feel is hypocrisy, I believe in noting it. However, I will do better in the future. Thank you both. Steth 18:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RfC on Ilena

Now Peter is suggesting that I be blocked from editing Barrett v. Rosenthal?? Good grief. This is way out of control. I guess I should check out these things just to see what is being said about me. This is ridiculous. Jance 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't let them bait you. This is an AN about Ilena's behavior. There's a lot of interest in blaming her behavior on others, which just a distraction to the issue of whether or not she can be responsibile for her behavior and learn wiki rules. --Ronz 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Montalbano Innovation and Development Inc.

Hi Ronz

You removed the content from Montalbano Innovation and Development Inc....I feel that the information I posted on MIDIs Development process and methodologies is usefull giving information to the industrial design and product development community. I am not infringing copyrights....I part owner of the company, have worked in the field for a couple of decades and created all of the text on the site that I used in the article.

If you would like to confirm this please go to Montalbano Innovation & Developments website www.montalbanoinc.com and go to the contact us section and give me a call....ask for Greg Montalbano.

I am new to Wikipedia....I know I did not comit copyright infringment....is there something else I did wrong?

I would welcome your input.

Regards, Greg Montalbano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.106.121 (talk • contribs)

Please read the information I left on your talk page. --Ronz 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I realize I failed to express my appreciation for your efforts to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I mentioned WP:BITE only because sometimes it's difficult to distinguish spammers and vandals (who don't deserve any second chances) from those who simply misjudge what Wikipedia is about. For the latter, although it may be unlikely that they'll ever become productive editors, they may still have friends and kids and whatever to whom they may relate their experience - positive or negative - when they embarked into the unknown in their editing. And no, unfortunately there is no one here but us editors to deal with 90+% of the problems we encounter - admins should only be invoked for tougher cases and/or bringing down the hammer. And yes, Wikipedia should offer a lot more help to editors trying to clean up things; all we can do is do our best and see what happens. John Broughton | Talk 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Design Methods

Ronz: I am somwhat surprised at the four flags for this article. This particular topic has gone through more review by more people than most articles and has been very responsive in making corrections when asked. Your issues are too broad and you do not offer clear suggestions: 1) The article offers many references, both within the article and at the end of the article. We had more references but were told to reduce them and have more internal referneces within Wikipedia, which we did where possible; 2) Your cleanup in October of references deleted the sources as refererences and now you are stating that there are not enough references. You need to be very specific in what you mean by references. We believe this article is properly referenced. 3) As for the article being abridged, we had shortened it, but Design Methods has many linkages. We will try to shorten it further. I request that you delete the banners at the top of the page and instead use the comments page to have other wiki's help. (Design Methods 13:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

The references weren't listed as such when I tried cleaning up back in October. Let's fix it. --Ronz 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ron...

Hi Ron,

Thanks for taking the "accidental signature" out of the Lean Manufacturing Article. Even we "geniuses" make mistakes from time to time ; - )

Take Good Care,

Jbillh 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My offer to Ilena

My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks can be found here. -- Fyslee 10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done. --Ronz 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "corporate website" examples

Hi Ronz, and thanks for the welcome to wiki.

You mentioned that my links to corporate websites are inappropriate. I don't really see that, and I think it's useful to include a few to illustrate the point because there aren't any generic examples. At least I couldn't find any.

I'm not affiliated with any of the sites I linked to, nor would they really serve as advertising or attempts to give them business because as corporate sites they're informational. The companies themselves probably don't need to attract more people to their website. I'm not trying to make a directory either, just showing people what a corporate website looks like. If you have any ideas how I can do that without pointing to specific examples let me know.

One more question. "Corporate website" shows up when I do a search but it's not showing up as a live link in other articles or, say, in your message. IIs there a delay period or is there something wrong with the article? I'll read through the introductory material to see if it says anything about this.

Thanks again,

= oops, nevermind

I see you linked to the wiki entries on these companies, which in turn list both the corporate and the consumer websites. I'll probably change the list a little to only include companies with wiki entries that do this.

As for removing the link to the white papers on how to design corporate sites, no big deal ad I understand that the company posting these articles is probably doing it to drum up business. I am wondering if there is an external source that describes what a corporate site is supposed to look like and how to design one.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC). Wikidemo 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A source on what defining corporate sites would be helpful. A link on how to design one? If such a link existed, it would belong in design-related articles rather than Corporate site. --Ronz 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Emotional Design

Hi Ronz,

Why was my contribution to Emotional Design and Experience Design removed?

On the Emotional Design page there is even a REAL promotion piece for a company (Sotopia). My piece was only to inform people who want to read about "emotional design" about my non-commercial weblog, where I have many interviews with leading experts who have a lot to say on the topic.

I am also thinking of re-editing the page to make it more general and not only promoting Don Norman, so as you said, I think I have some thoughts and knowledge to offer to that page. But again, I don't think posting my weblog for people to read more about the subject was a conflict of interests.

Thanks, Marco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcovanhout (talk • contribs)

I commented on your talk page about it. You're correct about the Sotopia link, and it's now removed. I'll explain more on your talk. --Ronz 16:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Ilena

I appreciate the effort you've put into helping her, but I think her own (rather harsh) words regarding it would make it obvious that she doesn't seem to want your help. Perhaps you could disengage? I think that would probably be for the best at this juncture. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I already tried disengagement. It didn't work. Besides, it's not about me at all. She just likes fooling others into thinking it's personal. Meanwhile, she hasn't mentioned me or responded to me in quite a while now.

I think Sally Kirkland went pretty well, and the next time should be better now that I'm getting a better feel for what does and does not trigger her. I don't think I'm going to touch Sally Kirkland for awhile though given all that's happened, despite that there's a clear COI on her part that needs to be rectified. --Ronz 01:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A diversion?

Hi Ronz...How would y ou like a bit of a diversion? I would welcome a pair of eyes and input on an article Jim Shapiro that is up for AfD (a second time)? Sarah is helping out there, already, but the more input from the Wiki community, the better this will ultimately be resolved, I believe. The first article was speedy deleted and salted. The author objected, wrote another article with a variation on the name, to get around the salt. Then it was unsalted, and the author wrote the attack page again, and an admin tried to make something workable out of it (but cannot, as she states in the AfD). The author of the article has now made an identical article, only now he is calling it Jim Shapiro and Legal Ethics,to avoid calling it a WP:BIO. This is exactly what he did the first time, only now he is doing it before the AfD is over. He grossly misrepresents the sources he cites (someone else called it WP:NPOV#Undue weight in an attempt to justify "notability". The subject of the article does not look like any saint (that's an understatement) but he is a licensed attorney. He is also not notable except for his obnoxious ads in his local area. This is beyond my "Wikipedia" experience, but it looks like this author is obsessed about this, and about bashing lawyers. I'd appreciate any help possible. Jance 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Before I respond, I'm awaiting an explanation from you of why you chose the specific issues, editors, and article. I can't make sense of any of these choices. --Ronz 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You could pose questions on the talk page for the case - I can't answer questions I haven't yet heard :) I would be happy to clear anything up for you that is unclear. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

More specific than from above, "why you chose the specific issues, editors, and article?" I'm not even mentioned in the two previous ANIs that I added to the RfM. I vaguely remember another but cannot find it. One where Jance pointed out that I should have been listed as involved but was not. --Ronz 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the one you mention but can't find is the Jan 2 AN that you've already listed. Here are two more.AN archive 165 and AN archive 172--Emilydcksn 02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I was thinking there were some unrelated to Ilena's behavior, but I was mistaken. --Ronz 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Eye tracking/er

Hi, do you think those two articles should be merged? Tony 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never looked closely at Eye tracker, though saw your comments about possibly merging them in Eye tracking. At a glance, there appears to be enough content to keep them separate. On the other hand, it looks both articles could use a lot of tightening. Why not merge-tag them and see if anyone else responds? --Ronz 00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what merge-tag means, but I added most of the content on eye tracker rather than edit eye tracking on the idea that the technology needed its own article. [- [[User:ScottBS|ScottBS] 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)]

Mediation

Ronz, I wasn't going to agree. I changed my mind when I saw Arthur's comments on the An/I. I thought maybe it would be a sign of good faith? All it takes is one person to not agree. I have mixed feelings about it. I dont know the parties are well defined, and certainly no issues are explained.Jance 22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of that. I will go look. I just got home - client had a crisis.... I will look tomorrow.Jance 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew my agreement to mediate.Jance 04:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Raffael Marty

Hi Ronz, This might seem like self-promotion, but I believe that I am fairly well known in the computer security arena. I have talked at conferences around the world, am the founder and owner of http://secviz.org, have written a few chapters for computer security books, am writing my own security data visualization book with Addison Wesley, have contributed open source code, etc. If this is not enough to be included in Wikipedia, please let me know

Thanks Raffy Zrlram 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that you're writing articles about yourself and your program. I'll add more on your talk page. --Ronz 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Since Fyslee has refused mediation regarding the issues pertaining to himself and Ilena, I have opened a formal Request for Arbitration regarding the matter. You may wish to make a statement. You may do so here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration for Design Methods

Ronz, we are not sure why you are so determined to delete design methods. If you took time to review the extensive comments about this article, you would appreciate the time and effort that has gone into this article. We strongly disagree that since you don't understand it, it should be broken up and deleted. This would be unfortunate and work against the very reason Wikipedia exists. We have asked you to be specific as to what needs verification or clarification, and you have not provided any examples leaving us to "guess" at what you want. We have therefore come to the conclusion that whatever we do will not suffice. We ask that a third party be brought aboard to help (maybe some of the original reviewers which can be found in the archived discussions). We are trying to be reasonable, and ask you to do the same. (Design Methods 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

• Good luck getting ArbCom to hear a content dispute, because it's outside of their remit. Try the Mediation Cabal instead. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've already been using Wikiquette alerts for the article just to get this far, and it looks like Design methods has found a mediator that he's comfortable and familiar with. The Mediation Cabal is another good option if we need further help. --Ronz 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm glad that it looks like a mediator will help. I've had one experience with them (I think two different ones dropped by to help), and I was impressed. If nothing else, they seem willing to spend enough time to sort out situations when the issue is more than a single paragraph or small set of facts. And they almost certainly have more experience solving WP:OWN situations than you and I do. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 18:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a Thought

Something I have never seen addressed are the numerous personal attacks and accusations against Dr. Stephen Barrett (and Dr Polevoy) on various talk and user pages. Spurious accusations against Dr. Barrett would fall under wp-blp and they are both members of Wikipedia.--Emilydcksn 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have occasionally mentioned this, but apparently other users who literally hate them feel that they are exceptions to the rule and are fair game for the worst kinds of attacks. If you want to read really serious personal attacks at Wikipedia against me that have never been punished, just email me. -- Fyslee 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed link in Design pattern (computer science)

Hello Ronz,

the external link I added is on the edge of Wikipedia:External links guideline. But content of that page is almost ideal future content of Design pattern (computer science). I suggest leaving link there as a natural continuation for interested reader and as a source for page development. I found it more useful and more focused on topic, than the rest of external links. Msm 00:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There's got to be something better. Maybe some of the other links need to go as well? --Ronz 01:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Customer experience

Hello Ronz You have attempted to delete Customer experience, but I have removed the delete notice because it has been there for a long time and many have worked on it.

If it is still similar to an article posted on the subject, so be it, perhaps it is almost accurate. That does not warrant a complete deletion. But it has changed, and is a work in progress by the Wiki community. Feel free to contribute if you believe it can be greatly improved. The very first post in the article's talk page invites contributors. That's the nature of Wikipedia.

(removed)

As for similarity with the source article, Customer input Limited grants the right to Wikipedia. -- DavidJacques 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I just don't know what else to do with an article that's almost word-for-word from your corporate newsletter authored by you. --Ronz 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked more closely at the article and it's essentially unchanged from your edits, other than one from a Hong Kong ip. I think an AfD is in order because of the other WP:CSD#G12 issues. --Ronz 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(removed) As I said on numerous other pages, there is no self-promotion on that page. It is a genuine attempt to define a commonly used expression. Note as well that it is not part of "customer service", but rather the sum of all touch points, including design, web site, marketing, etc. (removed) --DavidJacques 06:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You may not have intended self-promotion, but you violated guidelines against self-promotion. Let's stop arguing about it and move on. If you want to be involved in salvaging the article, I've made multiple suggestions as how to go about it on the talk page. --Ronz 17:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear RONZ, as a new Wikipedia contributor, I am confused as to why my comments seem to disappear repeatedly after a while, specifically on your page. Could you help me with this? DavidJacques 17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See the note at the top of this page, which I copied in a comment I made on your own talk page. --Ronz 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding of the tildes for the signature. For the other comments you deleted, I quoted one on my talk page: User_talk:DavidJacques. -- DavidJacques 17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NCAHF

The Butterfly comments may present an opportunity to reorganize the criticism section. However, her arguments comparing this article to "Flat Earth Theory" are not logical. This is not an article about alternative medicine. It is an article about a group that criticizes alternative medicine & practitioners, and litigates against them. Not the same. A more complete 'criticism' section in this article is warranted - without the controversy, there would be no NCAHF, and no article. But the criticism section should not be a long list of quotes, which is not readable.Jance 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see someone else raising the same, poorly addressed, issues. I still think it's going to take much more to get it in shape. We're only having these arguments because some people are more interested in making sure the article includes their personal viewpoint than they do making sure it's a good encyclopedia article. Levine2112 is already jumping in offering to make it worse.

Agreed, Flat Earth is incorrect. Better Business Bureau and Center for Science in the Public Interest are as close as I've found so far. --Ronz 04:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Although I don't know that those are quite the same, either. I'll have to think about it. see my comments on the talk page. The quotes are tedious. Forget whether they are 'fair' or not - that is not relevant. What is relevant is whether there is a coherent explanation of the response by those NCAHF attacks. Just dumping one quote after another is not writing, let alone coherent writing. If all the quotes address the same issue, then what is the point except repetition? To be honest, I don't think I have even read all of the quotes, and I am marginally interested in the article. And that is what is wrong with the section - it is not readable .Jance 06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Product Manager

I see you have your hands full. I do not understand your explanation for removing the article so I'd rather leave it until you come up with something better. In brief it is much more informative and useful than the rest of the article which is quite questionable and misleading. Maroje 11:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Maroje

I just moved it to the talk page so it could be worked on. The section was just placed in the article without consideration of current content or even formatting. It would also help if sources were provided. --Ronz 16:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

NCAHF

There is also the simple question of a well-written, readable article. A long series of quotes strung together does not constitute good writing.. heck, it isn't writing at all. And it surely isn't readable. Quotes should highlight a point, not be a point.Jance 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Better Business Bureau is somewhat limited in the discussion of history, and criticism. There is significant criticism of BBB, and in fact it is not an organization I would take seriously anymore. I don't know much about the Center for Science in the Public Interest except that it appears the critics are the typical anti-regulation-of-any-sort. But that is a topic for another day. Laissez-faire economics has never been laissez-faire. The question is more accurately which side is getting the fare. The Center for Science seems to be more like NCAHF in being a group critical of a certain class of businesses, or practices. The BBB is different. The Center for Science is not as poorly written as NCAHF, with its overuse of quotes. Although, it too uses too many quotes. And yes, I would agree with respect to the bias steering the edits. To some extent, that is true on both sides, but the worst "pro" NCAHF et al was Curtis who seems to have disappeared. Jance 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Center is an interesting example, Ronz. It appears that the criticism section focuses on two types of critics - free marketeers and fast food lobbies. That could be discussed in one or two paragraphs, with about one or two abbreviated quotes - quotes that are not a paragraph long.

Consider the paragraph now in the article, vs. this modification, which I wrotes:

Critics of (the center) include lobbiests for food industries and "free-market" libertarians. The Center for Consumer Freedom, a U.S. lobbiest funded by the fast food, meat, and tobacco industries, criticizes CSPI through one of its websites. CCF regards CSPI as part of the "food police" and claims that [CSPI] uses scare tactics justified by "junk science" and media theatrics to encourage a "nanny state."[5]

Libertarian "free-market" groups like The Heartland Institute, claim that the Center's name is deceptive, and challenge the findings of (). Another "free-market" group, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, claims that CSPI resorts to fear-mongering to attack food products and restaurnts, and seeks a "fat-tax" on hamburgers, french fries and soft drinks."[7] Bob Barr, a former US Congressman, while admitting he is "completely unqualified to issue scientific opinions", says that CSPI does not conduct research but carries out smear campaigns against scientists who publish research which contradicts their ideas. [8]

When looking at the actual quotes, it is evident that the sentence about The Heartland Institute says nothing. One needs to look at that article to see if there are complaints similar to the other "free-market" group cited, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. Then one could combine the two into one sentence: Libertarian "free-market" groups like The Heartland Institute and The Center for the D of FE claim that CSPI resorts to fear mongering to attack food products and restaurants. Jance 21:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Principles of User Interface Design

I saw your plea for help on Help talk:Table for the formatting of Principles of User Interface Design. I'm not sure what "correct" layout should be, but I did fix the wikitable formatting. Drop me a line if anything stumps you. —EncMstr 17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That works, thanks! --Ronz 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)