298:
article was spam. I feel that the replacement article he made fits the criteria for deletion. You appear to be personalizing much of this, and accuse me of the same. Where's a threat, veiled or otherwise, other than the deletion process itself? Meanwhile four editors have personally attacked me. You're the only one that has made any effort to discuss the matters at all (which I do appreciate). I wish that I could believe you're unaware of your own insults toward me. How about you not telling me that you think that is another major oversight on my part too? --
60:
organisation that I refer to is a non profit making organisation dedicated to helping the disabled to access ICT. A bit like the RNIB but aimed at a wider audience. They work closely with major players in the IT industry and the media to extend the help available to the disabled. Why does this constitute 'blatant self promotion'. I see references to companies making assistive technology, yet this is not deemed as advertising. I'm confused. (The above comment from
Abilitynet08:40, 2 October 2006)
31:
243:
Project much? You've insulted everyone, including two new users. It's hard to believe you want to improve the article while you actively argue for it's deletion elsewhere. Either withdraw your AfD or stop making comments on the article improvement discussion. This is simple common sense. Best wishes.
297:
I guess it's futile to get you to stop attacking me, though I do appreciate this dialog at least. Sorry that you feel I'm not helping them. Perhaps you can do so instead, and do so without attacking me in the process. I apologized for suggesting that they might be sockpuppets. DBOLTSON's original
279:
The trouble is you're not helping the editors (KineticScientist and DBOLTSON). You're repetively insulting them, calling them sockpuppets, spammers, and haranguing them with the threat of article deletion. On top of that you are misinforming them about wikipedia rules and making veiled threats about
90:
Hello Ronz. I'm not clear why the
Understanding Maya link was removed from Maya (software) external links section, but the Highend3d, Digital Tutors, Simply Maya, and Gnomon Workshop links remain. It seems to me they all there for readers who want more info on learning the software, and of course to
811:
In the interest of good faith and civility, I am asking you nicely to stop littering my talk page with warnings. They are unwarranted and I am equating them with a personal attack, which according to
Knowledge vandalism policies, I am free to remove. Aren't we trying to act civil here? Clearly, you
447:
That is fine; they just sound like the usual POV warriors. I clearly do not know as much about the issue as you do, so I will step back from this dispute. If you need help in the future, though, with people to help counter this
Foundation, leave me a message on my Talk page and I will weigh in with
254:
Who are these people you call "everyone" and why can't they contact me directly? I'm sorry you have such trouble believing things. Not my problem, but you seem to want to make it so. I'm willing to discuss any and all accusations. I apologise when I feel it's warrented. Others appear unable to
126:
The original press release included the date. Copies of the full release are on various discussion boards now that. Alun Salt's article, Bosnian
Pyramids: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Atlantis, has the full press release and in the External Links section of the Bosnian pyramids article.
875:
I added bold for emphasis. I'm am not trying to change policy; just follow it. That's what I ever strive to do here. And I know you do to. Anyhow, can we move on now? Otherwise, I fear that we shall never acheive our intended purposes here. It will look as though we are getting ahead, but we shall
74:
set out the guidelines pretty clearly. My rule of thumb is how much the link contributes to the specific article. If you're trying to help disabled computer users, first note that an encyclopedia is not where a disabled computer user should be going to find organizations that help such people.
539:
links are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services... are not allowed in WP. In this particluar case the link was just a list of books with a mention at the top : Click *** to order the books at Amazon.com. As for the rest I simply re-arranged the order so that
148:
com/us.htm) which is not a good sign because we can't correctly cite it. I note that we don't seem to have included the
Osmanagich team's response, which even "Stop Osmanagich NOW!" does, and that doesn't make us look very good. I'll investigate the spam block to see if it's legit before doing
59:
Hi Ronz. I'm new to wikipedia and following repeated deletion of my contributions, now unsure about what constitutes a valid link, and why my links and other info keep getting removed from the
Accessibility page. The information I paste up is for the benefit of the disabled computer user. The
894:
I would hope that we wouldn't have to take it that far. I would hope that we can come to our own resolution. If we are civil, why shouldn't we? So can we move on or will we fall victim to Zeno's paradox... no motion forward, never reaching the end of a pointless race?
362:
It's been a personal and professional interest of mine for some time now, though I'm coming to it from a human factors perspective. As for Design
Research, I've already commented there. To elaborate, it's a stub that has no sources that needs more content.
694:
Man you must be having rules to separate bad guys from good guys - that’s understandable because you didn’t want to wiki to get exploited by spammers......But don’t deify logics ....the links I have posted are totally relevant and you have deleted them .
650:
was Non-notable and unencyclopedic, the improvement of the article that was requested become to detailed and look at your opinion like advertisement. I don't want to advertise. Please define the advertisement elements in the article to help remove them.
585:
policy is fine as long as they add to the information already in article and are relevant. Simply because a page is named "The
Stephen Barrett Room" does not mean that it does any of the above. It also clearly is used to sell products, i.e books.
158:
Since there is a response from
Osmanagich's team, it's about as well documented as anything else. It could be confirmed through FENA or the researchers if necessary. The response is irrelevant to it being cited as an alternative interpretation.
265:
How so? I think the article should be deleted, but I'm willing to help editors resolve the problems with it. Still, I think what I wrote from the beginning: the article should be deleted and a new one should be written using valid sources.
432:
I have made a second attempt at NPOVising the lead; what do you think? I am unfamiliar with the whole issue of this Foundation. Can you outline briefly who they are, what their POV is and what they have tried doing on Knowledge? Thanks.
280:
what will happen if they don't listen to you. They've tried to be friendly to you and you've insulted them more. I sincerely believe you haven't noticed your insults to them and it's a major oversight on your part. Best wishes. Anon.
676:
I'll start a discussion on FlossBrite on the talk page. As for SoLongBaby and Serenedipity2006, I'd first address on the dental floss talk page their concerns with the portions in question being spam and copyvio.
332:
While I can see the obvious reason for your concern, and seeing a few dubious edits, I have also checked a number of the other edits you mention and find them to be quite legitimate. As such, I'm going to have to
831:
The removal of personal attacks on a talk page is a legitimate practice on Knowledge. With that said, let's not dwell on this. Just stop the attacks, stick to the civil comments, and let's keep on truckin'.
372:
Thanks for your response. I have reviewed a few more edits and it seems as if you delete outside links, especially to NextD Journal. Is there a specific reason why you delete these in particular (
462:
409:
Ronz, you edited the article on KV by removing what you call "link spam" (...) Forget my complaints, I just read your justification in the articles discussion section and add my feedback there.
351:
Roz, we are interested as to why you deleted a link to NextD article in Design Research? Also, you have made changes to othe design documents and was wondering your interest in the subject (
564:
The page has a brief bio of Barrett and is called "The Stephen Barrett Room". I thought it was notable, especially in light that the External links were at the time 7critical, one not. --
508:
Hello, Ronz, I added a link into bosnian pyramids and you edited it and wrote that is spam. I think you are very wrong. The link is submitted just once and has real good content.
794:
770:
487:
885:
They aren't personal attacks. There are warning templates. If you seriously think they are personal attacks, I suggest you seek some sort of third-party resolution. --
553:
Ronz. That particular link did not provide any real information about Stephen Barrett other that listing some books and offering a way for readers to buy them.....
876:
actually be mired down in bickering... Much like poor Achilles trying to catch up to that tortoise, but never quite making up the distance. You know the paradox.
663:
862:
Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism.
712:
I don't appreciate the accusations nor the threats. You're repeatedly refused to discuss the issues, and now you make threats? I suggest you read wiki policy
868:
The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion
231:
316:
281:
245:
116:
Hi Ronz. Thanks for adding the May 8th date to the Visocica article. Have you got a link that we could use to reference the conference stuff? —
493:
Thanks for letting me know about it. The articles all have serious problems from my perspective. I'm not sure if any of these proposals will help. --
896:
877:
833:
813:
515:
And the link was added to the top of the list, and you added it, as 89.146.132.199 to four other articles where it didn't apply. I suggest you read
484:
211:
617:
800:
172:
671:
220:
699:
681:
42:
of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
866:, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page.
647:
456:
394:
376:
367:
355:
205:
319:
302:
284:
270:
611:
163:
153:
131:
899:
889:
880:
845:
836:
826:
627:
497:
636:
557:
191:
590:
568:
741:
601:
346:
248:
776:
120:
421:
102:
38:
812:
see that I don't like those false warnings on my page. Why do you persist at trying to annoy me with this? Let's move on.
479:
I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge
441:
341:
544:
523:
79:
816:
822:
Wiki policy is so clear on this that they even have a template for it. Sorry that you disagree with my actions. --
238:
404:
85:
540:
Barrett mains web site is on top since you has place your links above his and other prominent critics of his.
702:
182:
732:
503:
54:
529:
387:
234:. You claim to be an editor of several years, so I don't feel any further explanation is necessary. --
754:
Check the edit summary of my removal. He/she hasn't vandalized for three hours since the entry was at
698:
I am pretty much open for discussion but their should be some positve response from your side hnnn. --
427:
327:
225:
111:
136:
The article seems to have originated on a blocked website titled "Stop Osmanagich NOW!" (peticija
789:
765:
747:
414:
75:
Instead, you could contribute information to articles that such people would be interested in. --
806:
483:. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks.
8:
851:
453:
438:
373:
352:
188:
784:
760:
198:
169:
150:
117:
30:
748:
725:
689:
659:
623:
Please address the questions here. Where online did you find the information? --
464:
17:
721:
713:
449:
434:
383:
67:
758:. Apparently the user decided to vandalize after the entry had been removed.
755:
338:
334:
201:, including a link to Herbert Elwood Gilliland III's page with his resume. --
71:
717:
667:
655:
582:
536:
516:
217:
92:
64:
480:
587:
554:
541:
468:
337:
with regards to the users contrib history so far. Good call though :)
886:
842:
823:
738:
729:
708:(edit by Wiki187 on 17:58, 20 November 2006 moved from my user page)
678:
643:
624:
598:
565:
520:
494:
418:
391:
364:
315:
I thank you for entering a dialogue with me also. Best wishes. Anon.
299:
267:
235:
202:
168:
I've got the site unblocked, so we can reference it now. —
160:
128:
99:
76:
841:
Wiki policy is crystal clear. Maybe you should try to change it. --
230:
Please refrain from personal attacks, as you did against me in
187:
Ronz, what the *&^% are you talking about on my talk page?
472:
448:
some edits and my opinions if support is needed. Good luck!
850:
Then for more clarity, I suggest you read this policy from
658:
article and have probably more experience. What you think
44:
864:
Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate
98:
I wouldn't doubt that more links could be removed --
670:are like sock puppet activity or not? Thanks. Feel
737:Thanks at least for toning down your comments. --
619:(Above added by Umeshghosh on 18 October 2006)
91:increase traffic to the sites :) —
511:(Above was added by Neximuss on 28 Sept)
382:Yes there are very specific reasons: See
212:Doctor Octagon vandalism to your userpage
413:Thanks for the note. We'll continue at
14:
612:online? if want to talk plz come to
149:anything else, though. —
23:
24:
921:
654:By the way, I see you watch the
637:Perfection is hard to achieve :)
581:Adding external links that meet
29:
388:WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer
602:23:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
591:22:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
569:21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
558:20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
545:20:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
524:21:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
498:02:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
488:00:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
457:14:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
442:09:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
422:15:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
395:15:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
377:14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
368:22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
356:20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
13:
1:
900:20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
890:20:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
881:19:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
846:19:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
837:19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
827:19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
817:19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
801:01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
777:23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
742:20:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
733:19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
703:16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
646:! The first short version of
347:Changes to Design Wiki Topics
342:05:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
320:01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
303:01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
285:00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
271:00:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
249:00:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
239:00:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
103:15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
682:03:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
672:02:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
628:19:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
597:The horse is dead, Jim ;) --
260:This is simple common sense.
7:
221:14:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
216:You're very welcome. Best,
206:16:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
192:11:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
80:15:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
10:
926:
728:before you are banned. --
173:11:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
164:17:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
154:17:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
132:15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
121:13:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
415:Knowledge_visualization
405:Knowledge Visualisation
86:Understanding Maya link
183:Doctor Octagon speaks
858:Talk page vandalism
852:Knowledge:Vandalism
782:Who are his socks?
504:Bosnian Pyramids EL
232:Talk:Bones_for_Life
55:Accessibility links
530:Stephen Barrett EL
463:Proposal to merge
199:Interaction design
616:yahoo messenger
335:assume good faith
147:
143:
139:
52:
51:
45:current talk page
917:
797:
792:
787:
773:
768:
763:
664:Serenedipity2006
428:Bosnian pyramids
328:Wikiquette alert
226:Personal Attacks
145:
141:
137:
112:Visocica article
47:
33:
26:
25:
925:
924:
920:
919:
918:
916:
915:
914:
809:
795:
790:
785:
771:
766:
761:
752:
749:User:SoLongBaby
692:
639:
614:
532:
506:
477:
465:Stephen Barrett
430:
407:
349:
330:
228:
214:
185:
114:
88:
57:
43:
22:
21:
20:
18:User talk:Hipal
12:
11:
5:
923:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
873:
872:
871:
860:
808:
805:
804:
803:
751:
746:
745:
744:
735:
707:
691:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
652:
638:
635:
633:
631:
630:
613:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
594:
593:
574:
573:
572:
571:
561:
560:
548:
547:
531:
528:
527:
526:
505:
502:
501:
500:
476:
461:
460:
459:
429:
426:
425:
424:
406:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
374:Design Methods
353:Design Methods
348:
345:
329:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
290:
289:
288:
287:
274:
273:
262:
261:
257:
256:
227:
224:
213:
210:
209:
208:
189:Doctor Octagon
184:
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
166:
113:
110:
108:
106:
105:
87:
84:
83:
82:
56:
53:
50:
49:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
922:
901:
898:
893:
892:
891:
888:
884:
883:
882:
879:
874:
869:
865:
861:
859:
856:
855:
853:
849:
848:
847:
844:
840:
839:
838:
835:
830:
829:
828:
825:
821:
820:
819:
818:
815:
802:
799:
798:
793:
788:
781:
780:
779:
778:
775:
774:
769:
764:
757:
750:
743:
740:
736:
734:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
710:
709:
705:
704:
701:
696:
683:
680:
675:
674:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
640:
634:
629:
626:
622:
621:
620:
618:
603:
600:
596:
595:
592:
589:
584:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
570:
567:
563:
562:
559:
556:
552:
551:
550:
549:
546:
543:
538:
535:Ronz, as per
534:
533:
525:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:
509:
499:
496:
492:
491:
490:
489:
486:
482:
474:
470:
466:
458:
455:
451:
446:
445:
444:
443:
440:
436:
423:
420:
416:
412:
411:
410:
396:
393:
389:
386:, especially
385:
381:
380:
378:
375:
371:
370:
369:
366:
361:
360:
359:
357:
354:
344:
343:
340:
336:
321:
318:
317:58.178.194.85
314:
313:
312:
311:
304:
301:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
286:
283:
282:58.178.194.85
278:
277:
276:
275:
272:
269:
264:
263:
259:
258:
253:
252:
251:
250:
247:
246:58.178.194.85
241:
240:
237:
233:
223:
222:
219:
207:
204:
200:
197:Your spam on
196:
195:
194:
193:
190:
174:
171:
167:
165:
162:
157:
156:
155:
152:
135:
134:
133:
130:
125:
124:
123:
122:
119:
109:
104:
101:
97:
96:
95:
94:
81:
78:
73:
69:
66:
63:
62:
61:
46:
41:
40:
35:
32:
28:
27:
19:
867:
863:
857:
810:
807:My talk page
783:
759:
753:
706:
697:
693:
668:dental floss
656:dental floss
632:
615:
510:
507:
478:
431:
408:
350:
331:
255:do likewise.
242:
229:
215:
186:
115:
107:
89:
58:
37:
666:editing in
481:begins here
144:prohosting
36:This is an
897:Levine2112
878:Levine2112
834:Levine2112
814:Levine2112
660:SoLongBaby
648:FlossBrite
485:Levine2112
469:Quackwatch
450:Batmanand
435:Batmanand
726:WP:CIVIL
339:Crimsone
722:WP:SOCK
714:WP:SPAM
700:Wiki187
690:Wiki187
651:Thanks.
475:article
384:WP:SPAM
218:Gwernol
93:JOTAPEH
68:WP:SPAM
39:archive
756:WP:AIV
724:, and
471:, and
170:JEREMY
151:JEREMY
140:white
118:JEREMY
72:WP:NOT
718:WP:EL
588:NATTO
583:WP:EL
555:NATTO
542:NATTO
537:WP:EL
517:WP:EL
473:NCAHF
65:WP:EL
16:<
887:Ronz
843:Ronz
824:Ronz
739:Ronz
730:Ronz
679:Ronz
662:and
644:Ronz
625:Ronz
599:Ronz
566:Ronz
521:Ronz
519:. --
495:Ronz
454:Talk
439:Talk
419:Ronz
417:. --
392:Ronz
390:. --
365:Ronz
300:Ronz
268:Ronz
236:Ronz
203:Ronz
161:Ronz
129:Ronz
100:Ronz
77:Ronz
70:and
642:Hi
146:dot
142:dot
138:dot
854:-
796:il
791:ed
786:Fr
772:il
767:ed
762:Fr
720:,
716:,
677:--
467:,
452:|
437:|
379:)
363:--
358:)
266:--
159:--
127:--
48:.
870:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
