412:
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
Knowledge is a bit addictive. And I simply despise bullies, of any stripe. I guess that is why I do the work I do. Ā ;-)
748:
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
Knowledge, 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. (
263:. 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 Knowledge 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 Knowledge, I know. Here was my edit on Arthur's page
376:
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.
726:
Knowledge 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, Knowledge 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.
1441:
deleted. This would be unfortunate and work against the very reason
Knowledge 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. (
31:
1875:
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.
1270:
562:. 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. --
1805:
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 .
1903:
and seeks a "fat-tax" on hamburgers, french fries and soft drinks." 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.
1902:
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,
1898:
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
1440:
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
855:
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
674:
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
384:
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
129:
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
1874:
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
1772:
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 &
1530:
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
Knowledge against me that have never been punished, just email me.
1027:
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 "Knowledge" experience, but it looks like this author
836:
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
747:
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
375:
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
1906:
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
1804:
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
1631:
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
1018:
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
457:
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
1783:
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
468:
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
1492:
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
912:
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.
411:
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,
1124:
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.
832:
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
725:
You're welcome, and I realize I failed to express my appreciation for your efforts to make Knowledge 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
355:
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
1228:
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
908:
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.
1884:
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
175:
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
1824:
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.
1773:
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.
1681:
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.
266:. 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".
1200:, 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? --
959:
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, ā
1019:
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
368:
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 ādistributorā under the common law of defamation. We granted Rosenthalās petition for
1703:
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.
1519:
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
359:
that Rosenthalās 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.
1852:
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
581:. That is a legal citation, and not a Knowledge 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
655:
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.
1482:
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.
1376:, 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 Knowledge, please let me know
362:
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 āOpinion by Tim Bolen,ā accused Dr. Polevoy of stalking a Canadian radio
828:
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.
1147:
1282:
1051:
233:
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.
851:
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.
431:
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.
987:
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
102:
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?
1836:
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.
1404:
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
211:
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.
1869:
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
1599:. 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.
678:
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.
1907:
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.
1372:
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
1023:,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
221:
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.--
887:
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. --
365:
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.
1151:
1098:
You could pose questions on the talk page for the case - I can't answer questions I haven't yet heardĀ :) I would be happy to clear anything up for you that is unclear. Cheers, ā
1725:
Dear RONZ, as a new Knowledge 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?
1560:
1556:
1541:
356:
maliciously distributing defamatory statements in e-mails and Internet postings, impugning plaintiffsā character and competence and disparaging their efforts to combat fraud.2
1020:
300:
1661:
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
820:
1464:
1417:
1106:
1070:
968:
452:
833:
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.
284:
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.
1580:
1050:
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
1575:
995:
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
1552:
1542:
1089:
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. --
542:
324:
1458:
1411:
1100:
1064:
962:
500:
462:
869:
695:
843:
1748:
1726:
1687:
1641:
924:
666:
1477:
312:
1603:
645:?? 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.
458:
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.
305:
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.
878:
865:
1406:
1650:
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. --
777:
Thanks for taking the "accidental signature" out of the Lean Manufacturing Article. Even we "geniuses" make mistakes from time to timeĀ ; - )
716:
1380:
783:
1487:
1445:
1129:
1119:
1093:
1003:
1908:
1876:
1854:
1806:
1774:
1504:
1249:
1240:
1230:
1029:
763:
734:
646:
586:
398:
386:
285:
267:
1933:
1916:
1751:
1738:
1729:
1708:
1690:
1669:
1654:
1535:
941:
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. --
183:
157:
1644:
616:
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.
566:
1167:
1158:
473:
446:
340:
238:
1871:
1792:
891:
228:
216:
192:
137:
120:
1943:
1083:
1929:. I'm not sure what "correct" layout should be, but I did fix the wikitable formatting. Drop me a line if anything stumps you. ā
1879:
1841:
1393:
1252:
1243:
814:
517:
1809:
1799:
1204:
660:
630:
288:
279:
270:
861:
534:
308:
1613:
1435:
981:
675:
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.
752:
546:
528:
Hello, I would like to know why you removed the link to TYPO3wizard.com and but there are still the other "Tutorial" pages?
1743:
Thank you for reminding of the tildes for the signature. For the other comments you deleted, I quoted one on my talk page:
1619:
1430:
1926:
1281:
to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage,
881:
703:
401:
389:
1524:
1389:
The biggest problem is that you're writing articles about yourself and your program. I'll add more on your talk page. --
999:
for awhile though given all that's happened, despite that there's a clear COI on her part that needs to be rectified. --
932:
804:
351:
This is the (long)statement of the case, from the state supreme court decision (which is the subject of this article):
649:
110:
1829:
1596:
1582:
538:
255:
To my knowledge nobody is looking into Curtis' conduct. Because I had been in past edit conflict with Droliver over
1190:
945:
1383:
786:
442:
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. --
320:
420:
1032:
264:
436:
1239:
No, I wasn't aware of that. I will go look. I just got home - client had a crisis.... I will look tomorrow.
873:
1233:
681:
I am new to Knowledge....I know I did not comit copyright infringment....is there something else I did wrong?
620:
469:
informal guidelines about them at all. Generally, I only do it aggressively with links to deleted articles. --
1628:, but I have removed the delete notice because it has been there for a long time and many have worked on it.
1054:, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to
1037:
1911:
1857:
1014:
Hi Ronz...How would y ou like a bit of a diversion? I would welcome a pair of eyes and input on an article
589:
1146:
I believe the one you mention but can't find is the Jan 2 AN that you've already listed. Here are two more.
797:
346:
1777:
507:
494:
116:
If someone else gets him to back off on the personal attacks, fine. How about I give it 12 hours or so? --
603:
89:
38:
1899:
that uses scare tactics justified by "junk science" and media theatrics to encourage a "nanny state."
791:
636:
523:
81:
76:
64:
59:
1640:
As for similarity with the source article, Customer input Limited grants the right to Knowledge. --
406:
1734:
See the note at the top of this page, which I copied in a comment I made on your own talk page. --
1592:
897:
731:
513:
I don't see any way to make that list work, given the biased and uncivil resistance against it. --
1163:
Yes, thanks. I was thinking there were some unrelated to Ilena's behavior, but I was mistaken. --
577:
I answered the questions re Barrett & "King Bio". I suspect Robert's confusion was my use of
1817:
1181:
951:
699:
759:
The references weren't listed as such when I tried cleaning up back in October. Let's fix it. --
1866:
1788:
1744:
1514:
928:
742:
97:
1784:
it's a good encyclopedia article. Levine2112 is already jumping in offering to make it worse.
1555:. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page,
1452:
Good luck getting ArbCom to hear a content dispute, because it's outside of their remit. Try
1367:
769:
370:
1024:
1009:
920:
691:
642:
333:
316:
275:
I was hoping things would be more settled by now. I'm going to give it a bit more time. --
8:
1625:
1609:
There's got to be something better. Maybe some of the other links need to go as well? --
1499:
1442:
1399:
1055:
749:
727:
585:
here. I think I answered all the questions, but if you all have more, feel free to ask.
1260:
1028:
is obsessed about this, and about bashing lawyers. I'd appreciate any help possible.
225:
180:
154:
134:
107:
1350:
1342:
1223:
1060:
There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
611:
1567:
1453:
1313:
1217:
on the idea that the technology needed its own article. 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)]
487:
1922:
1887:
Consider the paragraph now in the article, vs. this modification, which I wrotes:
1847:
1818:
1662:
1632:
in the article's talk page invites contributors. That's the nature of Knowledge.
1521:
1155:
572:
459:
433:
47:
17:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
996:
992:
559:
426:
256:
1767:
1494:
1470:
1423:
1278:
1112:
1076:
1043:
974:
222:
177:
151:
131:
104:
905:
Why was my contribution to Emotional Design and Experience Design removed?
1930:
1346:
1214:
1047:
555:
479:
188:
Good to know. I suppose the same goes with all behavior templates then? --
1826:
1532:
1349:
to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please
1306:
1210:
1197:
1015:
801:
600:
504:
491:
1187:
953:
617:
594:
1595:
guideline. But content of that page is almost ideal future content of
1940:
1838:
1796:
1735:
1705:
1666:
1651:
1610:
1484:
1390:
1201:
1164:
1126:
1090:
1000:
942:
888:
811:
760:
713:
657:
627:
563:
514:
470:
443:
417:
337:
276:
235:
213:
189:
117:
1600:
1209:
Not sure what merge-tag means, but I added most of the content on
1559:. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page,
488:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_articles_related_to_quackery
1561:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop
1557:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence
1493:
facts. And they almost certainly have more experience solving
796:
My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks can be found
260:
1269:
599:
Please activate your email, and notify me by my email. --
172:
Maybe this indicates a problem with templatized messages?
712:
Please read the information I left on your talk page. --
385:"truth" or "falsity" would probably never be resolved.
1553:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
1543:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
641:
Now Peter is suggesting that I be blocked from editing
1186:
Hi, do you think those two articles should be merged?
301:
why was my freestyle rap external link removed as spam
1283:
Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal
1052:
Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal
1373:
1362:
This message delivered: 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
397:
And thank you for your kind comments on my talkpage.
1551:An Arbitration case involving you has been opened:
453:
Deleting internal links to not-yet-written articles
259:, Curtis wikistalked me there, after the fiasco on
825:Hi Ronz, and thanks for the welcome to wiki.
1591:the external link I added is on the edge of
1345:, an automated bot account operated by the
821:Regarding the "corporate website" examples
667:Montalbano Innovation and Development Inc.
1872:Center for Science in the Public Interest
1793:Center for Science in the Public Interest
531:Hope you answer me soon. Thank you helli
1624:Hello Ronz You have attempted to delete
1566:On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
1351:contact the Mediation Committee directly
14:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1795:are as close as I've found so far. --
484:Your help would be appreciated here:
25:
1927:Principles of User Interface Design
1917:Principles of User Interface Design
1248:I withdrew my agreement to mediate.
23:
1787:Agreed, Flat Earth is incorrect.
1497:situations than you and I do. --
24:
1955:
1597:Design pattern (computer science)
1583:Design pattern (computer science)
1572:Acting as Assistant to the Clerk
1268:
29:
1314:
1307:
876:) 20:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
1436:Arbitration for Design Methods
150:Thanks. That was big of you.--
13:
1:
1196:I've never looked closely at
684:I would welcome your input.
402:23:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
390:23:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
341:20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
325:20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
280:19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
271:19:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
239:06:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
229:05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
217:05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
193:06:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
184:05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
158:05:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
138:05:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
121:05:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
111:05:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
1944:19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1934:17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1921:I saw your plea for help on
1912:21:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1880:20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1858:18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1842:16:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1830:11:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1810:06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1800:04:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1778:04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1752:17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1739:17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1730:17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1709:17:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1691:06:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1670:18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1655:16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1645:03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1620:Deleting Customer experience
1614:01:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1604:00:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1576:23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
1536:23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
1525:00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
1505:18:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1488:16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1478:02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1446:02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1431:01:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
1394:02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
1384:01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
1360:
1303:For the Mediation Committee,
1253:04:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1244:03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1234:22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
1205:00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
1191:00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
1168:02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1159:02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1130:23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
1120:22:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
1094:15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
1084:23:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
1033:23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
1021:Jim Shapiro and Legal Ethics
1004:01:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
982:21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
946:16:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
892:20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
882:20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
815:15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
805:10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
787:02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
764:15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
753:13:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
735:02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
717:02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
7:
661:20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
650:20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
631:21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
621:18:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
604:11:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
590:22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
567:16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
547:08:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
518:17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
508:17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
495:23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
474:20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
463:20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
447:17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
437:03:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
421:17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
289:00:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
10:
1960:
1341:This message delivered by
687:Regards, Greg Montalbano
1593:Knowledge:External links
1046:has been filed with the
332:I've responded on your
1939:That works, thanks! --
1925:for the formatting of
1867:Better Business Bureau
1789:Better Business Bureau
1745:User_talk:DavidJacques
373:
1279:Request for Mediation
1261:Request for Mediation
1044:request for mediation
1038:Request for Mediation
864:comment was added by
856:how to design one.
537:comment was added by
353:
311:comment was added by
42:of past discussions.
1456:instead. Cheers, ā
1025:WP:NPOV#Undue weight
643:Barrett v. Rosenthal
347:Barrett v. Rosenthal
1626:Customer experience
1454:the Mediation Cabal
1347:Mediation Committee
1056:Knowledge:Mediation
1048:Mediation Committee
1472:Neutrality Project
1425:Neutrality Project
1354:
1114:Neutrality Project
1078:Neutrality Project
976:Neutrality Project
1374:http://secviz.org
1359:
1358:
1355:
1340:
1318:
1213:rather than edit
937:
923:comment added by
877:
792:My offer to Ilena
708:
694:comment added by
637:Your RfC on Ilena
550:
524:TYPO3Wizard links
328:
95:
94:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1951:
1581:Removed link in
1476:
1473:
1467:
1461:
1429:
1426:
1420:
1414:
1339:
1322:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1272:
1265:
1264:
1118:
1115:
1109:
1103:
1082:
1079:
1073:
1067:
980:
977:
971:
965:
936:
917:
898:Emotional Design
859:
780:Take Good Care,
707:
688:
532:
306:
73:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1959:
1958:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1923:Help talk:Table
1919:
1850:
1822:
1819:Product Manager
1770:
1622:
1586:
1546:
1517:
1471:
1465:
1459:
1457:
1438:
1424:
1418:
1412:
1410:
1402:
1370:
1365:
1305:
1263:
1226:
1184:
1182:Eye tracking/er
1113:
1107:
1101:
1099:
1077:
1071:
1065:
1063:
1040:
1012:
975:
969:
963:
961:
957:
918:
900:
860:āThe preceding
849:
846:oops, nevermind
823:
794:
772:
745:
689:
669:
639:
614:
597:
575:
533:āThe preceding
526:
482:
455:
429:
409:
349:
307:āThe preceding
303:
100:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
18:User talk:Hipal
12:
11:
5:
1957:
1947:
1946:
1918:
1915:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1849:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1821:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1785:
1769:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1673:
1672:
1658:
1657:
1621:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1585:
1579:
1545:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1516:
1515:Just a Thought
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1500:John Broughton
1443:Design Methods
1437:
1434:
1401:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1379:Thanks Raffy
1369:
1366:
1357:
1356:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1275:
1273:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1183:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1152:AN archive 172
1148:AN archive 165
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1039:
1036:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1006:
997:Sally Kirkland
993:Sally Kirkland
989:
956:
950:
949:
948:
916:Thanks, Marco
899:
896:
895:
894:
848:
842:
840:Thanks again,
822:
819:
818:
817:
793:
790:
771:
768:
767:
766:
750:Design Methods
744:
743:Design Methods
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
728:John Broughton
720:
719:
668:
665:
664:
663:
638:
635:
634:
633:
613:
610:
608:
596:
593:
574:
571:
570:
569:
525:
522:
521:
520:
481:
478:
477:
476:
454:
451:
450:
449:
428:
425:
424:
423:
408:
407:New Year's Eve
405:
395:
394:
393:
392:
348:
345:
344:
343:
302:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
257:breast implant
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
197:
196:
195:
165:
164:
163:
162:
161:
160:
143:
142:
141:
140:
124:
123:
99:
98:Curtis Bledsoe
96:
93:
92:
87:
84:
79:
74:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1956:
1945:
1942:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1914:
1913:
1910:
1904:
1900:
1890:
1888:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1878:
1873:
1868:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1856:
1843:
1840:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1831:
1828:
1820:
1811:
1808:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1776:
1753:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1737:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1728:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1710:
1707:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1692:
1689:
1685:
1680:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1671:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1659:
1656:
1653:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1643:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1627:
1615:
1612:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1589:
1584:
1578:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1564:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1549:
1544:
1537:
1534:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1523:
1506:
1502:
1501:
1496:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1486:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1474:
1468:
1462:
1460:Peter M Dodge
1455:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1447:
1444:
1433:
1432:
1427:
1421:
1415:
1413:Peter M Dodge
1409:. Cheers, ā
1408:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1382:
1377:
1375:
1368:Raffael Marty
1363:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1321:
1312:
1310:
1304:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1274:
1271:
1267:
1266:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1232:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1131:
1128:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1116:
1110:
1104:
1102:Peter M Dodge
1097:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1080:
1074:
1068:
1066:Peter M Dodge
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1035:
1034:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1017:
1005:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
985:
984:
983:
978:
972:
966:
964:Peter M Dodge
955:
947:
944:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
914:
910:
906:
903:
893:
890:
886:
885:
884:
883:
880:
875:
871:
867:
863:
857:
853:
847:
841:
838:
834:
830:
826:
816:
813:
810:Well done. --
809:
808:
807:
806:
803:
799:
789:
788:
785:
781:
778:
775:
770:Thanks Ron...
765:
762:
758:
757:
756:
754:
751:
736:
733:
729:
724:
723:
722:
721:
718:
715:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
697:
696:24.46.106.121
693:
685:
682:
679:
676:
672:
662:
659:
654:
653:
652:
651:
648:
644:
632:
629:
625:
624:
623:
622:
619:
609:
606:
605:
602:
592:
591:
588:
584:
580:
568:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:
551:
548:
544:
540:
536:
529:
519:
516:
512:
511:
510:
509:
506:
502:
497:
496:
493:
489:
485:
475:
472:
467:
466:
465:
464:
461:
448:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
435:
422:
419:
415:
414:
413:
404:
403:
400:
391:
388:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
377:
372:
371:
366:
364:
357:
352:
342:
339:
335:
331:
330:
329:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
290:
287:
283:
282:
281:
278:
274:
273:
272:
269:
265:
262:
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
240:
237:
232:
231:
230:
227:
224:
220:
219:
218:
215:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
205:
194:
191:
187:
186:
185:
182:
179:
174:
173:
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
166:
159:
156:
153:
149:
148:
147:
146:
145:
144:
139:
136:
133:
128:
127:
126:
125:
122:
119:
115:
114:
113:
112:
109:
106:
91:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
72:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1920:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1889:
1886:
1851:
1823:
1771:
1749:DavidJacques
1727:DavidJacques
1688:DavidJacques
1683:
1678:
1642:DavidJacques
1639:
1635:
1634:
1630:
1623:
1590:
1588:Hello Ronz,
1587:
1571:
1565:
1550:
1547:
1520:Knowledge.--
1518:
1498:
1439:
1403:
1378:
1371:
1361:
1343:MediationBot
1308:
1302:
1227:
1215:eye tracking
1185:
1059:
1041:
1013:
1010:A diversion?
958:
925:Marcovanhout
915:
911:
907:
904:
901:
858:
854:
850:
845:
839:
835:
831:
827:
824:
795:
782:
779:
776:
773:
746:
686:
683:
680:
677:
673:
670:
640:
615:
607:
598:
582:
578:
576:
530:
527:
499:Please help
498:
486:
483:
456:
430:
410:
396:
378:
374:
367:
361:
358:
354:
350:
304:
101:
70:
43:
37:
1568:Newyorkbrad
1400:Arbitration
1211:eye tracker
1198:Eye tracker
1016:Jim Shapiro
919:āPreceding
690:āPreceding
626:Thanks. --
539:85.46.44.99
176:warnings.--
36:This is an
1665:issues. --
1663:WP:CSD#G12
1522:Emilydcksn
1466:Talk to Me
1419:Talk to Me
1229:explained.
1156:Emilydcksn
1108:Talk to Me
1072:Talk to Me
970:Talk to Me
952:Regarding
460:Mjchonoles
434:Emilydcksn
313:Chosen1234
90:ArchiveĀ 10
1684:(removed)
1679:(removed)
1636:(removed)
1224:Mediation
902:Hi Ronz,
612:Thank you
416:Thanks --
363:producer.
334:Talk page
103:Thanks.--
82:ArchiveĀ 5
77:ArchiveĀ 4
71:ArchiveĀ 3
65:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
991:I think
933:contribs
921:unsigned
879:Wikidemo
874:contribs
866:Wikidemo
862:unsigned
837:this.
774:Hi Ron,
704:contribs
692:unsigned
671:Hi Ronz
535:unsigned
321:contribs
309:unsigned
1931:EncMstr
1832:Maroje
1548:Hello,
573:Barrett
560:WP:SPAM
369:review.
39:archive
1853:point.
1827:Maroje
1533:Fyslee
1495:WP:OWN
1381:Zrlram
1309:Essjay
802:Fyslee
784:Jbillh
601:Fyslee
505:Fyslee
492:Fyslee
427:Thanks
223:Kchase
178:Kchase
152:Kchase
132:Kchase
130:way?--
105:Kchase
1909:Jance
1885:long.
1877:Jance
1855:Jance
1848:NCAHF
1807:Jance
1775:Jance
1768:NCAHF
1747:. --
1250:Jance
1241:Jance
1231:Jance
1030:Jance
954:Ilena
798:here.
647:Jance
618:Steth
587:Jance
556:WP:EL
501:here!
399:Jance
387:Jance
286:Jance
268:Jance
261:NCAHF
16:<
1941:Ronz
1865:The
1839:Ronz
1797:Ronz
1791:and
1736:Ronz
1706:Ronz
1667:Ronz
1652:Ronz
1611:Ronz
1503:|
1485:Ronz
1407:here
1391:Ronz
1317:Talk
1202:Ronz
1188:Tony
1165:Ronz
1150:and
1127:Ronz
1091:Ronz
1001:Ronz
988:now.
943:Ronz
929:talk
889:Ronz
870:talk
812:Ronz
761:Ronz
732:Talk
714:Ronz
700:talk
658:Ronz
628:Ronz
564:Ronz
558:and
554:See
543:talk
515:Ronz
480:list
471:Ronz
444:Ronz
418:Ronz
338:Ronz
317:talk
277:Ronz
236:Ronz
214:Ronz
190:Ronz
118:Ronz
1601:Msm
1531:--
800:--
730:|
503:--
490:--
1837:--
1704:--
1686:--
1574:)
1563:.
1483:--
1469:ā¢
1463:(
1448:)
1422:ā¢
1416:(
1285:.
1277:A
1154:--
1125:--
1111:ā¢
1105:(
1075:ā¢
1069:(
1062:ā
1058:.
1042:A
973:ā¢
967:(
935:)
931:ā¢
872:ā¢
844:=
755:)
706:)
702:ā¢
656:--
595:Hi
583:Id
579:Id
545:)
336:--
323:)
319:ā¢
234:--
212:--
86:ā
1570:(
1475:)
1428:)
1364:.
1353:.
1319:)
1315:(
1117:)
1081:)
979:)
927:(
868:(
698:(
549:.
541:(
327:.
315:(
226:T
181:T
155:T
135:T
108:T
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.