User talk:Hipal/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Hi Ronz, when you get a chance please check

[[1]] This article is horrible. I was checking out the support links and found blogs, spam to buy a book and articles that have to be purchased to even read them. I didn't even get through them all. I made some remarks on the talk page but would appreciate your opinions. Thanks, --Crohnie 13:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! It's another Health freedom movement, but with many more editors interested in the topic. As with health freedom, when the movement isn't led by an official organized body recognized by all, the article just becomes a list of individuals, organizations, and their own opinions on what the movement should be. It's a catch-all for anything related to impeaching Bush. I don't think there's any way to make such articles encyclopedic except as historical accounts. --Ronz 16:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, personally I think both articles should be deleted. The Bush impeachment article though, doesn't it tread heavily on the wrong side of a living person article? Most of the links I saw were to blogs, editorials and seemed like spam or were way outdated. I haven't deleted any of them because apparently there is an mediation going on the talk page about some stuff that is wanted and not wanted. When does an article get to the point where someone makes a decision that the article is not worth the space? --Crohnie 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If the articles were based almost entirely on secondary sources, then it might be an acceptable article. Because the topic is notable though, I don't know of any way of getting rid of it. --Ronz 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that Bush isn't being impeached and probably won't be so how can this be so notable? Some of the research links go back to 2004 and are outdated. There are links that you have to pay for to just read the article, it shows a brief bit only. It just seems weird to have an article in an encylopedia about something that isn't or hasn't happened. I may get bold and delete the links to buy a book, and other links that are no longer working. --Crohnie 13:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The MDS merge

Hello. I am somewhat unsure about how to hold discussion on the MDS America merge. I want there to be a clear consensus of non-MDSA affiliated editors before I go ahead with it, since I know the company guys will object vocally. I've set up a section for the debate at MVDDS dispute#Straw pole on merging MDS America. I'd appreciate any help you could give, since it seems you also have experience in dealing with COI issues. Thanks, nadav 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the way to go about it. Good job on all the work you've done on this. --Ronz 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Malkin Invasion book

Hi. Thanks for tagging Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces with {{advert}}. You prompted me to do a quick edit to remove some of the POV. Could you please take a look at the result? Feel free to put the {{advert}} tag back if you think more work is need. Cheers, CWC 05:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice job! --Ronz 14:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say hi!

I haven't spoken to you since I left to Freeport. I hope things are going well. --Crohnie 13:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You still vacationing? Having fun? --Ronz 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, back to reality for us. We got back on the 30th. But boy did we have a great time. I have to say we have been sleeping a lot. I guess after a vacation, you need to take another one to rest up! :) --Crohnie 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The best vacations are those you need another vacation in order to recover. Glad you had a good time! --Ronz 15:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Did mediation get resolved while I was gone? I haven't heard or seen anything about it. --Crohnie 15:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard nothing. I'm hoping that the annoying actions I've recently seen from some editors is coincidental rather than even more evidence of disruptive editing. --Ronz 15:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. I don't know if you noticed but an administrator put a test one warning on my page for "one" reversal of his edit accusing me of vandalism. I over reacted a bit at the time but he was so out of control it was totally weird. For an administrator, he was in an edit war and put warnings on at least three other editors for the same reversal I did. I went to my mentor and he said I handled the situation well that could have become quite nasty. I was lucky a couple of other editors were watching the talk page and my own talk page that one actually cleaned up the mess the administrator did. It was so shocking to have that kind of behavior. He wanted that Larry Sanger is Jewish inserted into the article without any kind of source. When a source was given in the edit summary of all places, you had to sign up and then try to find it which about 6 editors couldn't find. I researched and even went to Mr. Sanger's website and there was nothing about him being Jewish never mind any information about it being notable. This one editor got someone else, or a sockpuppet, not sure to back him up and replace the garbage. It was all just so unreal. I've been watching this article at the suggestion of editors to see how a biography of a living person is done. I guess what's going on there now, edit warring about almost everything, is not the way to do it. I also went to Hulda Clark's page and deleted spam that was deleted and then replaced by Levine saying it didn't fall into the rules of BLP which was wrong. I am waiting for fallout from both sites to be honest but I have reasonable editors who are backing up the reasons. I don't know how long Levine has been on Wiki but I think I understand the policies better them him at this point with your help and the help of others. Some really get emotional about things which I find amazing all on it's own. Oh well, --Crohnie 15:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you ran into the unfortunate edit warring in Larry Sanger. There used to be a civility warning template, which is now gone, but which I've saved for my own use:

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
• Assume good faith of other editors.

I hope you find this reminder helpful. --Ronz 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I try to always keep this in mind but I am human and sometimes can slip. --Crohnie 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Everybody slips. --Ronz 01:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

re:Unfortunately, it's not all WikiLove

If I can help please let me know. I am finding the same problems of finding articles that are not under some kind of dispute. --Crohnie 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

Learn to assume good faith, behave in a civil manner, and take some responsibility for your actions. Thanks. --Ronz 18:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

reply

I replied on my talk page to your statment. Don't know if you wanted him or me to reply to it. Regardless I am with you. Something needs to be done. The person who removes the tag should show how the article is NPOV not just removing it because they don't want it. --Xiahou 01:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering about that. I hit his contributions and say he put something to the effect of please don't post on my talk page to you. The thing is I looked back and you didn't say anything out of the ordinary. I guess some people are poor sports. Heck, I like your reasoning its simple and its true. The remover of the tag must provide a reason why the tag's reason for placing has been met. Which has obviously not been done. --Xiahou 01:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do you think we should nominate Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush for deletion? You stated on the article talk page that it violates WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. I think the article has a better chance of getting a wider consensus now then did it in October... --T_{Talk to me} 02:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an AfD is justified, given what sources are available. If you hadn't noticed, I've discussed the article a bit before ever contributing to it: User_talk:Ronz#Hi_Ronz.2C_when_you_get_a_chance_please_check. It's a notable topic, just a difficult one to edit considering it's controversial, it's current, it's boarderline soapboxing, and there's a lot of interest from a wide range of editors. The problems are all manageable, though messy. --Ronz 02:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if we have an article such as this, we should also have a Why Women Shouldn't Be Presidents, Why Socialism is a bad idea, Movement to prevent Jewish Rights, ect. The article is soapboxing...--T_{Talk to me} 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The article at it's worst is soapboxing, true. But at it's best it is documenting current history. I think the problems currently in the article are solveable, despite current discussions. --Ronz 01:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

dingotel.com revisted

Hello Ronz. I saw this [2] dingotel.com link addition today. I don't know what to make of User:Rearden9's fascination [3] [4] [5] with that link so I thought I'd send you a note because of the User_talk:Ronz/Archive_4#Voice_Over_IP thread. I removed the link but I didn't give a warning. I Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars unless it is required. (: Since I'm not sure what is going on, do whatever you see fit warning-wise. (Requestion 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

External links in See Also? I don't know what Rearden9 is thinking. --Ronz 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just saying bye for awhile

I came to Wikipedia for a new good experience. I took your advice and went to an article that is not political nor medical only to be attacked and accused of being a sock puppet and single purpose account. This I don't need in my life. If you check out Wikipedia community you will see what I am talking about. I took my concerns to two administrators so I'll see how that works out. Thanks again for being so much help to me, good bye,--Crohnie 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack Allegation

Nescio purposely distorted what I was saying and keeps on doing it. He refers to me in a derogatory fashion by saying "only right wing people like Arnabdas" or something to that nature. I called him a liar for purposely libeling me. He refuses to answer the question and instead just labels me as "right wing" just because I want fair reportage. I consider the label right wing as offensive to me because I am not that at all.Arnabdas 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

None of this justifies your behavior. The fact that there's a great deal of incivility and off-topic comments doesn't mean that anything goes. --Ronz 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ronz. It seems that the simplest article is having warring going on and hopefully some editors will try to get control of it. I find it very disheartening right now at some behavior. --Crohnie 01:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not external links ?

Why have you deleted all external links ?

This way the world will see only NS which is extremely difficult to use. The world's top 4 / 5 network simulators should be shown.

Durnitz

I've given a link-by-link explanation on Talk:Network_simulation, including links to relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are the 3 best network simulation softwares in the world today (NS and OMNET++ and hardly used) There are lots of articles on all sites. Opnet is simply the worlds best in this field. And NetSim - well thats used for education, which benefits a lot of people. If you look at the history you would see that I have removed most external links. But I feel these three should be there especially considering I have been in this field for a long time now.

Let me know your views

If you haven't done so, please read through WP:EL and [[WP:SPAM]. Links should be to websites directly relevant to the article topic. The three I see as spam go to corporate sites that have little or nothing on them about network simulation at all. The other two are sites about network simulation software, which is not relevant enough to the topic of the article.

Your arguments about which software are best is irrelevant. The article is about network simulation. If you want to expand the subsection about network simulation software, please do so, but doing so would still not justify those external links. --Ronz 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

From Trojani

Mr Ronz if "the fate of Illyrians" lies in the hands of the people who incorporate sentences lik this "A hypothesis that the modern Albanian language is a surviving Illyrian language remains very controversial among linguists [6]" while respected sources like Britanica are very clear on the subjekt "The origins of the Albanian people are not definitely known, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians and that the latter were natives of the lands they inhabited. Similarly, the Albanian language derives from the language of the Illyrians", my question to you is do i ingage i a dabate with people who simply dissregard all sources that link Albanians with Illyrians? A quick example in the discussion page of Origin of Albanians[7] I mentioned a monental anthropological resarch by Carlton Coon, this user Chlemäns made this comment about my effort " Interesting, racial theorists from the 1930's are evidently the ultimate authorities on this subject;-) Now don't even think about trying to mention a word about this in the article"[8]. The same user turns a blind eye in this article "According to the anthropological studies of Theodoros K. Pitsios, Arvanites in the Peloponnese in the 1970s were physically indistinguishable from other Greek inhabitants of the same region. This may indicate that either the Arvanites shared extant physical similarities with other Greek populations or that early Arvanite groups extensively incorporated parts of the autochthonous Greek population"[9]. Mr Ronz if u let Albanian history in the fate of this members than most of us Albanians (i am by the way Arvanite)are simply left with very little choice but to edit.RegardsTrojani 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to stop the edit warring by following WP:NPOV. Sorry if you don't like that. --Ronz 14:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

76.109.17.236

What particular edits do you reference? 76.109.17.236 21:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[10], [11], [12] --Ronz 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read

You send to the server adress of MDSi France: [edit] Your recent edits to Talk:MDS America Please read and follow WP:TALK. Your recent comments on Talk:MDS America are often incomprehensible, incivil, and disruptive. Please stop. --Ronz 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Some employees are unhappy by the lies and by what do one of the shareHolder of MDSi Mr Fabrice Ducasse under various names and IP adreses from Stuart or Palm city in Florida or from France read the last said by this guy for Ed or Nadav. but I CEO of MDSi apologise for our peoples making answers against MDS America and we need that the sound of the bell stop on our side any answers to the various MDS America lies.. MDS America can still print lies on Wikipedia this are the problem of the lawyers and of the Judge and the court to make the right. Probabely a link to the last judgements and copy of the fine against Fav=brice and sons. 83.206.63.250 06:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Answered on article page. Cheers.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Verio

Hi Ronz. You and I know we are right about Verio :-). However the multiple reverts make me nervous. Someone is counting on no-one else being patient enough to do proper sourcing. According to WP:V he has a point. We could ask for some amount of time to leave the 'sources' banner up before digging up the references. Or, I suppose we could accept the stubbified article. EdJohnston 03:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to let an editor's need to make a WP:POINT disrupt others who are trying to improve an article. I don't like the reverts either, but it has shown just how far one editor will go in demonstrating that he will either WP:OWN the article on his terms, or erase everything every editor has done to the article. --Ronz 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if your ears are burning, it's because you're being discussed on here on AN/I. Just thought you should have a heads-up and it appears no one has notified you. MastCell ^Talk 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware. It seems to be going nicely. --Ronz 03:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

These negative personal attacks need to stop. This is not about POINT or OWN. This is about either source the article or remove the un-sourced material. WP:V is very clear about this. The burden of proof is on those who want to include the material. I don't need to start an RfC in oder to remove un-sourced material. If it is common knowledge, than you should have no trouble providing a source. -- Stbalbach 03:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As a suggestion, you could step back from the article and see what happens? Reluctance to do so does suggest WP:OWN. Shot info 03:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN is policy. WP:POINT is a guideline. You're violating both, and assuming bad faith of multiple editors in order to support your behavior. --Ronz 04:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, these personal attacks need to stop. All I've asked is you provide a source for the material you want to add to the article. -- Stbalbach 04:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop making a textbook case of an WP:OWN violation. Stop disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Stop accusing me of personal attacks. You're bordering on harassment now. Please ensure that any further comments you add here to my talk page are civil and assume good faith, or they will be removed. Thanks. --Ronz 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

MDS case

The case was brought to AN/I. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramid

Am sorry. I was not actively involved in edits on that page. I was just surprised by the amount of criticism those amateur archaeologists were facing. And I dint know the link was on the external links section. Dilip rajeev 07:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference postings to "User Interface"

Earlier today, I added the top 2 organizations (UPA and SIGCHI) that cater to people involved in user interface and design - along with a leading independent community site (Catalyze). And you promptly removed them.

I think it is important to provide readers with links to sources outside wikipedia where they can get more information and get involved at a local level.

Should they appear under an External Links section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumbarger (talk • contribs)

That's not the purpose of Wikipedia, helping people get involved in activities.

The article is about user interfaces, so should only include information strongly related to user interfaces. You might notice that such links are included in articles that are better related to them such as Usability Web usability. --Ronz 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There are other issues concerning your edits that I'm bringing up on your talk page. --Ronz 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

(Erroneous warning removed). No edit warring here. I've followed WP:DR. --Ronz 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the edits by MaxPont weren't in good faith afterall but merely an attempt to setup a 3RR warning. Shot info 09:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's almost like some editors are willfully ignoring policy while at the same time attacking other editors for not following those very same policies. --Ronz 15:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock

Thanks! --Ronz 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Illyrian Article

You have allredy given this member a warning (some days ago)Edrigu,I strongly advice you to take more aggressive measures otherwise he will continue with his vandalism. Thanx Trojani 22:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Understanding Original Research policies

I just want to let you know that I have been watching the ongoing at Talk Stephan Barrett. I totally understand now why OR is not permitted by the last day's conversations there. It actually finally make sense to me. I just want to let you know because you have taken so much time to help me understand policies here. You were right and I thank you with all your help again. I actually understanding a lot of the reasons for the policies you have been helping me with and mostly from just lurking for the past few days on this specific talk page. Thanks, --Crohnie 13:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I responded under your comments on the Stephan Barrett talk page under the title number of books. I would appreciate it if you would take a peek and respond back to me to let me know if I am off on what I am saying. I am finding this whole this ridiculous. Also, shouldn't the conflict between Shot and I'clast be remove and put on talk pages? I also thought that original research, like the list of books are to be removed immediately. Am I incorrect? I though this kind of thing wasn't allowed. I have a new sig that I got as a gift from an editor, what do you think? ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 14:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Nice signature! --Ronz 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the whole thing is ridiculous. Not much can be done about it when editors refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and fail to work cooperatively to settle problems. --Ronz 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I also responded to you on the Barrett talk page but I want to be clear. I wasn't trying anything except trying to research to see if I could find secondary sources about the books that Barrett authored or co-authored. I guess I failed miserably on the links I provided. I didn't know that Barrett was the owner on the MLM link I posted. I was just trying to do the research, sorry. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It was an easy mistake to make and no harm is done. I've done some searches and found nothing. Unless there are other editors pushing for changes, I think what we have in the article is acceptable. --Ronz 00:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Refs vs Further Reading

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for your comment - I should have added the book into a 'further reading' section rather than into the references section. Also I read the spam etc. pages you referred to, and I will remove external links.

Best, Bookuser 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Those sound like good solutions. --Ronz 22:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your warnings

I would appreciate it if you would quit spamming my talk page with countless warnings. None of the abuses you attribute to me occured. You first accused me of breaking the 3 RR. I had made an average of one edit per day in the article you warned me of being in danger of violating the 3RR in, which doesn't come even close to breaking any rule. Besides, most of my edits in that article weren't reverts but addition of sources. You have also accused me of vandalism for refusing to participate in the discussion before editting. Not only is that not vandalism, but I have made every effort to explain my point of view on the talk page, and have only editted AFTER receiving consensus from the majority of other people on the talk page, for example Fut.Perf, User:Miskin, User:Ploutarchos all agreed. Edrigu 00:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you disagree. Looks like we'll have to find another way to settle this dispute. --Ronz 00:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you please check out this article for me?

I think it's spam but I am not sure at the Crohn's article [[13]] and the link in question is [14] which is located as the last on the list of organizations. Thanks, ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 13:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, looks like part of a spam campaign. --Ronz 15:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought so but if was deleted and reverted once already. I am going to go delete it now. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I got it. --Ronz 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I noticed and was just about to tell you I saw what you did and to ignore my above message. Thanks.----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Setup qualifiers for Reiki?

Perhaps just one introductory qualifier at the beginning of each section? I agree the prose is rather clunky with every sentence padded like that... --Fire Star 火星 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That might be a good solution. I was more concerned that you hadn't looked at the current state of the article. It's always so hard to deal with NPOV issues with so few good sources. --Ronz 03:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to an anon who was seemingly trying to make the subject more, erm, palatable. So few good sources is a good way to put it. The article is bloated. --Fire Star 火星 04:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edrigu

How much more is this guy ~(Edrigu)tolerated to vandalize the Illyrian article???????Trojani 18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you both need to stop editing the article and instead discuss your differences further on the Talk page. --Ronz 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue which ther is nothing to talk about, he is a serb and I am Albanian, he is manipulating my history and i am defendin it. He knows that if he continues in this fashion you people will make a comprommise, that is his objektive. Take action.Trojani 05:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not the place to bring outside battles WP:BATTLE. Back your opinions with policy and sources. He's not backing his opinions well, so it would give you a huge advantage. --Ronz 16:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Please check my response to both you and Levine there. I am gathering information and if given the time I will have my opinions on the matter of Stephen Barrett hopefully within the next couple of days. Also, it is my talk page and I found no problem with what you struck out, to me it was not necessary. Anyways, I am reading and talking to others to get a grasp of Point, Not and Weight. I think I understand them but I want to be sure. Any suggestion you have in explaining these are most welcomed. I am going to Levine's talk page too with this same kind of note. I hope you are having a good day. Let's all try to keep good faith and try to work things out. I asked our mediator via email if he could ask for another mediator to take over this case. I haven't heard back from him though. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Biomedical Sciences Research Center "Alexander Fleming"

Thank you a lot for tour message. Why a link to a governmental, non-profit institution with a history closely linked to the Greek Foundation for Basic Biological Research "Alexander Fleming" can be considered spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.251.21.1 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 25 May 2007

Thanks for your reply. Mostly, because you added it and you have a history of adding a large number of related links that violate WP:EL and/or WP:SPAM. In the specific case you're referring to, even if someone else had added the link, it does not meet WP:EL because it's not closely enough related to the article topic. --Ronz 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Regarding your previous comment to IP 195.251.21.1 which is an IP from the Biomedical Sciences Research Center "Alexander Fleming", I believe that a research institution which is takes its name from the Alexander Fleming should be mentioned at Fleming’s biography listing in wikipedi as an external link at least, thanks Afantitis

MUGEN Network of Excellence

Dear Ronz. I would like to provide more information regarding MUGEN NoE:

MUGEN Network of Excellence The MUGEN network of Excellence aims to structure and shape a world-class framework of European scientific and technological excellence in the field of “murine models for immunological disease”, to advance understanding of the genetic basis of disease and to enhance innovation and translatability of research efforts. MUGEN’s specific mission is to bring together different expertise from academic and industrial laboratories in order to study human immunological disease by integrating the participant institutions’ strengths in immunological knowledge with new approaches in functional genomics. By removing barriers to progress and promoting the synergistic interaction of scientists from various disciplines integrated, MUGEN expects to bring Europe a competitive advantage in the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic tools.

Through its Joint Programme of Activities, MUGEN aims to: 1. Systematically study animal models for immune diseases and processes through the application of functional genomic platforms (transgenesis, targeted and random mutagenesis, expression profiling and bioinformatics). 2. Integrate the outstanding research experience and capacities of each network participant to allow the efficient application of post-genomic approaches to generate new knowledge in immunological diseases and processes. Such knowledge is expected to lead to novel diagnostic and therapeutic tools. 3. Ensure spreading of excellence, optimal use and dissemination of the knowledge generated through the network beyond the boundaries of MUGEN, by integrating competencies to train researchers, to encourage knowledge transfer, to address innovation related aspects of research and to raise the public awareness of scientific research issues. To achieve this goal, MUGEN is bringing together expertise from 14 leading research institutes, 5 major universities and 5 biotechnology companies from seven E.U. member states as well as Switzerland and the US. MUGEN will be co-funded by the EU with 11 M€ over a five year period (2005-2009). MUGEN participants will share information and technology platforms and will develop a coordinated agenda of scientific events in order to communicate their scientific achievements to a wider scientific audience as well as to the general public

Please study the description carefully and ask for evaluation from a wikipedia user with strong academic background especially in biology. Thank you in advance. Afantitis

No offense, but this is irrelevant. Please carefully review WP:SPAM and WP:COI if you haven't already. --Ronz 17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sig

— Ronz (chat)

Here is a custom made signature. Click on preferences and add this to your signature box and click, check. Next, click on save. Its easy. I hope you like it! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

--Ronz Here is a simpler version to try. Regards, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I added some spacing. There's some chromostereopsis with it that I might want to tone down. -- Ronz  20:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What I like about this sig is that it is simple and yet significant. I tried different shades of green. It was missing something. The background color made all the difference. Unforgettable! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-Service Software edits

Ronz thanks for the email - my intention was not self-promote. I have a full description of who I am unlike the following entry for Knowledge management software whereby you can see that the originator of this topic registers as a no name and is able to self-promote a company (can you guess where the IP leads to - same state as TheBrain.. hmmmm). Nevertheless, I will abide however I cannot prevent other KM/self-service related professionals and customers in this industry from adding vendors to this arena or setting up a new link to a topic called List of Self-Service software vendors (like you can find in Content management system) Still thanks for the input User:Topiarydan 06:43, 28 May 2007