User talk:Science&HiTechReviewer

Hello, Science&HiTechReviewer! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ronz (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Jain

Please don't try to take your frustrations out on me [1]. I've explained that it's a very poor article for new editors to try to edit, and I'm happy to explain further why this is so and what you should do if you choose to continue. --Ronz (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually not a "new" editor, but I appreciate your concern. My testing of this whole process will lead to an important talk on crowd-sourcing/quality of information. I am well versed in the history of high tech and a very well known entity, but not personally involved with these people.

My concern here and now, however, is the inability of a wiki user to correct factual errors, inferences, misinformation, and poorly sourced articles. I have read the discussion on the page back and forth from various parties, including yourself, on this bio. There definitely appears to be "history" here for whatever reason...

The quality of information is not decided by consensus or a democratic vote, it is decided on the basis of merit. That's how true scholarship works. It is the way she will be and that's the way it will come out. If an individual makes a self-aggrandizing claim, and a more modest approach would be pleasant, and the claim is justified, then so be it. I have met enough Nobel Prize winners in my life to know about large, but in many cases, justified egos. I will not refuse to list their Prize just because I don't like their ego. One needs to separate the personalities from the accomplishments. There is too much a focus on personalities, and this is not correct in such an article. Who cares if he has a quirky personality. Lots of people have quirky personalities. Lots of people have big egos. Lots of people are modest. Lots of people are self-deprecating. We need not list all these issues in the biographical information. They are subjective anyway, even if reported. And, who cares? You don't think Bill Gates has an ego? And, all the negative things that have been written about him? Do we report it all? I am a Mac person, so no ties there, btw.

Let's get some of these pages cleaned up. Jain's may not be the optimal place to start, but it is somewhere to start. Doesn't really matter. We can't improve things if the editing is blocked or unilaterally dismissed without good cause. Nor is it proper to unfairly hide behind Wiki rules when it suits one's own prejudices. This would not be an issue if I didn't notice that certain things got in, which didn't adhere to any standards, but other things of a much more important nature were deliberately left out. Providing proper context is the most essential and important part of information.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [2] and [3], I suggest you review WP:AGF, WP:BATTLE, WP:RGW, and WP:NPA.

As I've already pointed out to you, I'm happy to explain myself further on anything that we've already discussed. As to the things that we've not discussed, you might want to try asking first, or at least follow WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what is necessary to explain further. Your revision edits with regard to sourced edits, not only mine but others, using the cloak of Wiki, were not appropriate. You allow unreliable inferences, trivia to stand, but revert on topic and relevant edits. A formal complaint has been lodged not only through the channels of the site, but also through close personal connections at the very top. This sort of behavior just destroys the credibility of the site. It is most unfortunate that you gave ammo to the wrong side of the argument.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]