User talk:Hipal

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Welcome to the Wikipedia user discussion page for Ronz.
To leave a message on this page, click here.

*In order to make conversations go smoothly, please follow WP:TALK and WP:AGF when contributing to my talk page. Comments that don't may be immediately deleted.
*I will respond to your comment, and try to do so promptly, on your talk page if not here.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( -- ~~~~ )
Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Archives

---

Apologies

Yikes! My apologies, Ronz, for raising so much ire––I'm new here and was unaware of the parameters of the issues you and JzG messaged me about. I have read the guidelines about citations, but I was confused because I noticed that in many articles there are primary source citations and secondary source citations from dubious sources and some statements (opinions, really) with no citations at all ("citation needed"). I'm a proponent of evidence-based medicine and have a graduate degree in science, so I thought (erroneously, evidently) that I could identify good sources for the edits I was making. I stand corrected and will be much more circumspect about making any changes in the future––if I am indeed brave (or foolish) enough to attempt any. Sorry for the grief! Best regards, ErinMOBrien (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries. We certainly could use your help. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Batteriser

Hi Ronz,

I am from Battery people. May I know why did you undo my changes? I have given a clear explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battery People (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me about this.

I am from Battery people. What does that mean? Is "Battery people" an organization of some kind?

I reverted your edit because the explanation you gave was original research on your part, and the content you removed was referenced by reliable sources. Reliably sourced information should not be removed just because an editor disagrees with it. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

But why are you not giving the full explanation from the "reliable source" or which you consider as "reliable source" mentioning the backlight turned off after 1 hour and we cannot use GPS. They have clearly mentioned in the article. I hope it was well explained now, to either remove the statement or add the required line.Battery People (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. Could you please explain your concerns in detail at Talk:Batteriser#UL_Test_-_recent_removal? --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, In the article, they have clearly mentioned, the test was run with back-light been TURNED OFF, but these lines are been removed purposely. May I know the reason for purposely removing a line and giving a false information? Battery People (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you please explain yourself far more clearly and do so on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

edit query

please could you explain why you deleted the mindfulness meditation metastudy in the depression wiki article? tks JCJC777

Because you were spamming the same material to multiple articles regardless of relevance. It looks like promotion of a source rather than finding the best article for the information. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Denis Prager

Why was the whole section deleted? I am quite confused here, as the edit was removed with one sentence "coatrack" even though the added sections were not a coat rack per wiki page on the subject. Eric the fever (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted. Material was already there on the subject. I removed the expansion that was based upon two poor sources. "Coatrack" because the material is not about Proger directly, but about the prageru website. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

And what would count as a reliable source?Eric the fever (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned with reliablity, but rather suitability for an encyclopedia article on Prager. While any sources we use need to be reliable, we need ones that are clearly independent. WP:3PARTY describes the problems and solutions. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Resume Page

When you look at the resume page, there are many references to pages even less credible than http://workbloom.com/resume/resume-formats.aspx and yet you find no issue with them...

Resume writing is often thought of as an art with no strict rules. We deal here with "accepted standards" that evolve over time. For example, it was standard to include an objective statement in the past, but no longer. We're not dealing with "facts" here.

The page on WorkBloom does a good point of summarizing the 3 types of resume formats most often used and accepted by resume writers. Further, there was no reference on the page to a source, so it makes sense to add a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And I'm at a loss as to why you would reinstate a reference to a page that we have to pay to view. How can anybody who did not pay the subscription fee verify the relevance of the page? I.e. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-resumes-have-evolved-since-their-first-creation-in-1482-2011-2?op=1

Hi. We usually discuss these things on a given article's talk page, but I'm putting my two cents in here because I just undid your most recent edit at Resumé and then I saw you'd commented here on Ronz's page. While references using freely available web pages are preferred, there is no prohibition on citing pages behind firewalls. If there were, we'd lose thousands of valid citations every day. Regarding the WorkBloom ref, I was unable to confirm that it meets the guideline on reliable sources. In general, it's better to cite no source than to cite a questionable one; if the content needs a citation because it's not obvious, and you can't find one, better to just tag it {{cn}} (or, if it's highly doubtful, remove it). Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that the page is not a credible source when you accept these pages full of ads: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/reverse-chronological-resume-format-focusing-on-w0.html http://jobsearch.about.com/cs/curriculumvitae/f/cvresume.htm I spent time to help edit just to see these rigid comments that make no sense and are totally inconsistent. How do you assess a "credible" source? I assess it by its content, not by how big the site is. Doing what you're doing you imply because it's a big site it's credible.

Further, if you look at the talk page of résumé, you would see this: "More Citations & Facts Needed

This article has too many unreferenced claims that provide very little useful information. Please consider not deleting citations because they happen to point to a retail site. If retailers are privy to better information than researchers through industry trade you are depriving users of valuable information. There is no mention of the percentage of usage of Applicant Tracking Systems it's not even mentioned by name. This article needs to have industry professionals to add actual information not just broad statements which are more ambiguous than they are revealing. This article as it is now, on an important topic to many, is not worthy of being in any encyclopedia, peer reviewed or editor reviewed article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.3.76 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC) " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs)

It is these kinds of things that alienate people from editing on Wikipedia. People that actually know about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"If retailers are privy to better information than researchers through industry trade you are depriving users of valuable information... This article needs to have industry professionals to add actual information not just broad statements which are more ambiguous than they are revealing." If you were in the field, you would know that WorkBloom is a credible and independent source providing comprehensive tips for job seekers. There is so much to change on the résumé page, but we get stuck with these little technical, empty edits. I may be new to Wikipedia, but not to resume writing, so please, reinstate that footnote or refer this to a higher authority and clean up the rest of the page, if you insist on having "proper" references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

About firewalls, there may be no prohibition, but that's not saying that a citation hiding behind a firewall is a good thing. A citation should be easily verifiable, otherwise, it would be in the hands of a few and not subject to open scrutiny. That's not how you build an open and strong community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Given past the past spamming of WorkBloom, you're going to have a difficult time convincing anyone it belongs.

You are correct, the references can be improved.

Please take the discussion to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Biodynamic wine

You cut data early today re the number/extent of BD (biodynamic) vineyards on the planet which I had provided. This was data I compiled for the Oxford Companion for Wine. I was not paid for this data. I am not the owner or publisher of that (very large) book. I get no royalty (the editor Jancis Robinson Master of Wine would almost certainly have got paid, as would some of those contributors who did even more work than me). Anyway, I was simply one of several dozen contributor/experts to that book. (I do not think anyone else has such data, given that I have been following/writing about biodynamic wines since 1994 and the biodynamic movement has been more focussed on every other crop than wine, given than many biodynamic folks do not approve of alcohol.) This, I guess, is why Oxford University asked for my help. So the wiki page as it stands has only old data based on bad numbers compiled by someone who appears in some cases to have included names of wineries who said "yes, we're biodynamic" when in fact in some cases they a) had no idea what biodynamics is; and b) were still using chemicals and c) therefore had no legal/moral right to be in the list (given that biodynamics is trademarked). It's like me saying I am an airline pilot when I have no qualification. I contacted the guy who did that list way back and (politely) pointed out that Chateau XY or Z was in fact still using chemicals but he was not into dialogue. If he is such a good/independent source for data why don't you get his updated 2016 list (tip: there is no 2016 list)?

Finally when I first read this Wiki entry I was amazed to see TWO citations from Fortune magazine..... Over to you.MontyWaldin (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

The article could use a great deal of work, and your expertise on the subject would be of great help.

You may not have noticed, but I had already indicated that more of your edits to the article should be rolled back in. I agree with you: inaccurate and outdated information should be addressed. However, if we have competing sources, it would best bring it up on the article talk page. Outdated information might be retained if significant at that time or historically, by including the date (eg: "In 2001, ...).

Wikipedia has a separate article on Biodynamic agriculture, so Biodynamic wine should be specific to wine and related topics. There's probably too much duplication in the wine article.

My impression of the subject matter is that biodynamic wine production was, and perhaps still is, strongly marketed to wine producers and consumers as an alternative to organic. That marketing appears to have impacted the article in a number of ways, causing some of the problems that you've pointed out.

I haven't looked at the article references as a whole, but I wouldn't be surprised if we are relying far too much on popular press (as well as in-world sources).

Finally, the topic of biodynamic agriculture falls under WP:FRINGE and the general sanctions of WP:ARBPS. Among other things, this places a great deal more scrutiny on in-world sources.

My apologies for not having the time (yet) to fold back in all the changes you made that fixed obvious inaccuracies. Can we continue this on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wellness tourism" - Please, advise

Dear Ronz,

Thank you for your correction, I am sorry for not realizing that the copy I've written for the "Wellness tourism" page sounded promotional. In fact, I think that all the countries should add more details about their experience in this domain, however, personally, I've only known the French ones. I know that it is important to avoid commercial names and links, so I only mentioned cities. Could you please advice on which corrections I should make and if it is possible in general?

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Amy334455 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Amy334455

Thanks for contacting me. Responding on your talk since another editor has noticed. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Anti-japanese sentiment edit change

Hi Ronz, not sure why you reverted my edit. There is nothing in the citation that would even suggest that many Filipinos hate the Japanese. In fact the word is never used and the negative tirade against the Japanese put forth by the Filipinos in question are specific to a group of leftists not the Filipino population in general. And even if we were to focus on the said japanese hatred espoused by the Filipinos in which the article was referring to, whatever anti-japanese sentiment was expressed was specific to the u.s-japanese military alliance policy that could potentially affect Filipino lives. The resentment towards the Japanese within the article had nothing to do with hatred towards the Japanese government as a whole, the japanese people or its culture but rather past military actions by the japanese dating to World War II, which frankly is quite understandable. And my statement that most Filipinos have a positive view towards Japan is true as supported by the BBC polling results in contrast to what chinese and korean responders had to say. So please i would like you not to revert my original edit. Balisong5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was not supported by the sources, OR - needs rewrite - better sources would help[1]. See WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I will take you up on that. But on the same token i dont believe the burden should be left entirely up to me. I would also like you to quote from the sources that supports your position then we can compare. If push comes to shove and there cannot be an agreement maybe there should just be a deletion of either our positions on the matter Balisong5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the edit on Humaima Malick's page

Hi there! thanks for letting me know that you removed it, can I upload her tweet as reference for her birthday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollyayesha (talk • contribs) 08:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source for such information in this case. See the discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Humaima_Malick#Year_of_birth. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ronz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ronz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Leadership

HI Ronz I noticed that you deleted a journal ref on leadership that I added. The reference added was one of the journal articles on leadership written by a Canadian General Brett Cairns whose works have been cited and referenced a number of times at a national level in Canada. If you google Canadian Aerospace Doctrine Brett Cairns or Canadian Aerospace Leadership Brett Cairns you will see some of his leadership works cited by his nation's Air Force, his nations Aerospace Doctrine Center, and Canadian academics. Others have been archived. An 8 page article on practical leadership written by a military General is something that should be cited in an encyclopedia to complement the ones already there and written from a purely theoretical perspective. The link was to his original work so that people could read what he wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFHistoryBuff (talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear that the link was just WP:REFSPAM, intended to promote Cairns.

Given the extent of information on the topic of leadership written, I don't see why Cairns' perspective deserves any presentation whatsoever. We cannot possibly identify every document written by every general that has ever written about leadership. I'd guess that even all those written by generals who have theoretical and practical experience would be overwhelming. Perhaps we could use all secondary, scholarly analyses of the perspectives of the most notable of such generals? --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz I see where you are coming from although few Canadian Generals are cited and referenced for their written work nor is their work included in doctrine manuals. This one happened to be. Not worth arguing over but he does make some very interesting points on leadership which are not routine — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFHistoryBuff (talk • contribs) 21:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz as someone new to wikipedia I am trying to better understand the threshold for adding references, journals and additions to current articles. I read some additional guidance from wiki but am still confused. Let's take the suggested addition of a journal for this article as an example (leaving the link to the journal article out as a separate issue). Consider the list of Journals on the Leadership page. When I click on House Robert it takes me to a blank wiki page. The first House article cited is a discussion of a theory that the author states shows promise and should be furthers tested. The second House article is a review of a theory from that one persons perspective. When I click on Vroom Victor it takes me to a page with very little content on a business school professor. The article cited is nothing more than a very general discussion on a page promoting the sale of the article. Lets now go back to the overall page on leadership. The first sentence states that leadership is both a research area and practical skill yet the article seems to be mostly a compendium of theories. Wikipedia describes an encyclopedia as a compendium holding all branches of knowledge and in the knowledge article states that knowledge can either be theoretical or practical. The leadership article seems to miss the practical part. What am I missing? AFHistoryBuff (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Leadership article. Given the topic and categories it falls under, I'd assume there are numerous, experienced editors that work on it. Your questions would be better answered on the article's talk page. You might want to look over Wikipedia:Tutorial for general information about editing.

Robert J House is what we call a redlink. There's no article for it, and if you click on the red link it will start article creation with that name as the subject.

Victor Vroom is a very skeletal article.

The article cited is nothing more than a very general discussion on a page promoting the sale of the article. I'm not clear what you are referring to. Something in Victor Vroom?

If I were thinking of starting to work on the Leadership article, I'd review the discussions on the article's talk page and the two archived talk pages.

As someone unfamiliar with the article, I'm not in a position to know why it is in its current state, nor what content is well-supported. There's no article quality assessment, so I'd assume the article needs a great deal of work. Asking for a quality review might be a good step if one hasn't been done in a long time, if at all. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Brett Cairns

Hi Ronz a brief follow up on the changes you made to the external links for this individual. After I saw your changes I re-read the guidelines. Clearly the social links should not have been there and thanks for removing them per the policy. Concerning the official links, this retired general runs two businesses - real estate and luxury homes. They are different businesses and wikipedia agrees. Please see luxury real estate. As you are aware Wiki: EL Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site. I then re-read Wiki:ELMINOFFICIAL and found 1. "if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website". Therefore I concluded that there should be a link to the main page and not the about us page as per your amendment; and 2. The guidance also states, "In other situations, it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information". In this situation he has two businesses and a website for each one so two official sites - A real estate site and a luxury homes site. AFHistoryBuff (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you are taking to review the guidelines.

WP:ELOFFICIAL begins:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself.

The problem with his business websites is that neither fits criteria #2, that the content covers the area of notability. Rather than not include any official website because of this, I've linked to the small amount about Cairns, so at least we are covering what he says about himself as much as we can.

I'd already started a discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Brett Cairns. We should continue this discussion there. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Handling spam

This is a serious question unrelated to our recent discussions. What would you recommend for things like Special:Contributions/JasonDD? I'm inclined to hit rollback but that's not an option—we have to spend ten minutes investigating each case, then another couple of minutes offering a reasoned "undo" edit summary. And who has time to engage with the user? Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you wouldn't use rollback except to make it clear what's going on. Usually I'll undo with a comment explaining what's going on (REFSPAM in this case), leave a notice on the editor's talk page, then rollback the remaining spam. It looks like that is what has been done. I will also add at a representative portion of the articles involved to my watch list, choosing ones that don't appear to be regularly reviewed by experienced editors. I certainly don't watch each spammer's talk page - my watch list is too large as it is.

You're right. There's some minimal investigation and communication that should be done, and it can be time-consuming for even the simplest cases.

I've wondered how much of it could be automated safely... Seems like it would be ok to have a helper bot that scans a half-dozen or so edits from an identified editor, looking for spammed links. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's not easy. My point about rollback was merely that clicking "rollback" should be reserved for vandalism as defined at WP:VAND (and some other stuff that doesn't really apply in this case), although I sometimes rollback blatant spam, and I think several of this user's edits got the same treatment. User:XLinkBot does a lot of good work, but something to detect cases like the one here would be nice. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Maybe VAND and WP:ROLL need a bit more clarifying? Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback#5 is what I've described. Don't you agree?

Much spam is outright vandalism. In the case of JasonDD, I wouldn't call it that, yet. If he continued without changes to his behavior, I'd give him multiple notices, spread out over days, before requesting he be blocked. I'd then take it to AIV. I realize that many editors, including some admins, would be quicker to proceed to blocking him. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, #5 that you linked is what I rely on when I use rollback in some cases. However, doing a proper explanation is not easy. Saying "I reverted your spam" is not possible because there is always the possibility (WP:AGF) that the person really is a new editor who thinks adding external links is very helpful. Explaining why their links do not satisfy WP:EL can also take quite a bit of time. I don't think there is a good solution. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's difficult to avoid AGF problem in edit summaries: Simply focus on describing the edit(s), while avoiding wording that could be interpreted as being about the editor. For the editor's talk page, the advert- and spam- templates get the basics across without much effort.

Once an editor responds, then details are necessary and AGF misunderstandings easier to fall into.

Explaining why their links do not satisfy WP:EL can also take quite a bit of time. That, combined with the huge amount of spam we get, plus the need to direct editors to focusing on improving Wikipedia rather than linking to other websites, is why EL puts the burden getting consensus to add new external links on those seeking to include them. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Need Help

ok, thank you for your kind reply, Please guide me that what kind of links i can add that are not bad for my website, you are really expert in these things please guide me as a teacher, so I can work in the same way you tell me. I just want to ask that for example it is a page on Wikipedia ("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahira_Khan") and if i want to add a link of biography of my website ( http://www.pakistanigirlspictures.net/mahira-khan-pakistani-top-model-actress/ ), how can i add this kind of links please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehana Darani (talk • contribs) 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If you think you have good reasons why the link should be added, you should explain them on the article's talk page: Talk:Mahira_Khan. Because that website is a fan site, I don't expect it would be allowed. While I haven't looked in detail, it appears that the site is violating copyrights as well.

I've left you a detailed welcome message on your talk page that includes multiple resources on how to get started as a new editor. I hope you'll look them over. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Gary Vaynerchuk

Hey Ronz - I'm confused as to what elements I added would be considered marketing or promotional? All points we're properly cited with exact instances this person stated these events in his life, as well as referrencing other wiki pages or New York Times article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krainak (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Gary Vaynerchuk - Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced

Hello Ronz - I'm unsure on what you're reffering to as unreferenced or poorly referenced? All all citations are links directing to the exact talks in which this points were discussed? Can you please provide an direct example of a poorly referenced point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthisundefeated (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you read my previous comments about these problems on your talk page? --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016 recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia pol

Hey Ronz - can you be clear about what about these changes are soapbox or promotional? These are better sited than most on the information on this person's wiki and provide a better structured page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krainak (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Coconut

Hello Ronz. You said: "Why did you remove these citations from Coconut? [2] As I understand it, they should remain unless they are clearly not reliable or do not verify the material." If you check the original URLs or substituted wayback URLs, the information is not available. I did a preliminary Google search for the content and found no trace of either source. I did leave a citation request for each, so if you have more successful searching, you could put the correct URLs and sources back. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think they should have been removed, as you are not contesting their reliability nor verification. I'll put them back. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand that. From the typical user's experience, the existing references are a dead end. If we can't go to the source for the information sought, then a citation request serves to alert a motivated editor to find alternate sources. But I'll leave this to your decision. --Zefr (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:DEADREF is the guideline. Basically, we should not remove reliable sources that verify material just because there is no longer an online (or conveniently accessible) version. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Did all that and hope you will prove me wrong. But I ended up at #5, which is where I concluded with citation requests, i.e., where we are now: "Remove hopelessly lost web-only sources: If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the webpage (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you cannot find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unverified if there is no other supporting citation. If it is material that is specifically required by policy to have an inline citation, then please consider tagging it with ." --Zefr (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

These are absolutely not web-only sources. I really dislike the wording of the guideline, as it causes exactly this confusion.

The first is a local newspaper, so no reason to remove that just because the link is dead. The second is actually two references, so absolutely no reason to remove both of them.

Finally, I'm getting some very strange results trying to look up archives for both. Archive.org appears to be changing something related to these specific archives. I'm currently finding the second reference at https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20121011011735/http://www.eoearth.org/article/Petenes_mangroves?topic=49597 , but I've no idea if it will remain there. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/62343/news/regions/report-26-provinces-quarantined-for-coconut-pest looks like either a different version of the first source or an independent article based upon the exact same information. There are also many sources available documenting the quarantine. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This is why most sources like this should be kept. Even if the exact article cannot be found, someone else may be able to find it or find other material verifying the information by using the old references for searching. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Bent Flyvbjerg socking continued

• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#sbs.ox.ac.uk.2Fcentres.2Fbt

• The sock report is here, and the resulting spam report is here

• Another spam report?

• Benedict Pinches (talk · contribs)

• Links to what few content-related discussions there are

• Other socks

• List of articles

• Find some experts to evaluate due weight

External link removed on Schema.org page - why?

Hi Ronz,

I received a message from you saying one or more external links had been removed that I had added.

I believe the link you are referencing was this one - https://www.odysseynewmedia.com/improve-local-seo-with-schema-markup/

Which was added to this web page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema.org

This had previously been accepted for a long time, can I ask specifically why it was removed? I felt this was a useful reference and the article provides good information.

Also, was this done as a result of someone else editing and removing the link which then flagged it to you?

I would like to know more details if possible...

Kind regards,

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoubora (talk • contribs) 16:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

I was referring to all the links you've added. They're promotional, WP:SPAM, and I believe you've been adding them to promote your business and theirs. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rozz, They are genuine citations and I think they've been wrongly flagged as promotional. The reason I submitted them was because I felt are genuinly useful. If you actually bother to look to where they link to in relation to the Wiki page you'll see they actually adding relevant value to the Wikipedia page content for the end user. This kind of penalisation of genuine suggestions really serves to discourage any contributions from ordinary users like myself. I actually like helping with suggestions to Wikipedia when I can. Kind regards, Rob

Hi Rob. Yes, Wikipedia very strongly discourages editing against a financial conflict of interest. See WP:COI and WP:PCD. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rozz, my point is there is no conflict of interest COI here at all. These links were contributed by myself, genuinly to help users reading the Wiki pages. You have removed genuinely useful links to relevant websites/articles. This is supposed to be open to contribution and that's what I did - contribute. It makes people not want to contribute if every time we do everything gets removed. Kind regards, Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.51.87 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rozz, look at the links I added for http://www.coopfunerals.co.uk and , they are part of The MidCounties Co-operative of companies - it makes perfect sense for there to be a link on this web page because it is part of MidCounties Co-operative. Instead you have put a paragraph where you link to the generic Co-operative Group Wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-op_Funeralcare ... which infact the edit here is incorrect because that is not part of MidCounties Co-operative. A better process would be to message me first and enquire why the link is there so I can show you this isn't COI or for financial gain but a genuinly relevant, useful link to users. Now you have a link that is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.51.87 (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rob. I think we're talking past each other. I hope you don't mind if I slow this down. I will respond to your concerns later, but I'd like to focus on one important aspect of all this. You own and run odysseynewmedia.com, correct? From what you've written so far I think it's safe to assume you do, and as such you should not be adding links to odysseynewmedia.com to any article without disclosing your conflict of interest (this is required) and requesting on the article talk page that someone else add it and why. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rozz, I'm not talking past you but you haven't addressed my previous point regarding your edit to the MidCounties Co-Operative page. I don't think its useful to the end user and instead of linking to the correct site which was the first one I shared, you've linked to Co-operative Funeralcare who are the main group site. Regarding your point, I do own Odyssey New Media, I am open about that if you bothered to ask me. The link I shared was from a blog post we wrote related to Schema.org which I though was useful for Wikipedia readers and end users. I have absolutely no interest in promotion. I hardly think someone is going to see Wikipedia and suddenly become a client or something, it just doesn't happen. I just wanted to contribute content that I felt was useful and relevant - which last time I checked was the whole point of Wikipedia! As to declaring conflict of interest, I have no idea how to do this or that I had to do this, thanks for pointing it out for future reference. Again like I said, if you'd just contact me and as me instead of removing links that are relevant to the Wikipedia pages then I could have explained to you my intention for sharing of links. I really think Wikipedia have this approval thing completely the wrong way around. Why not just ask people so they can explain why they have shared external link citations? You're just putting people off contributing when they are just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.51.87 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rob. Yes, I temporarily put aside your other concerns. No offense meant, and I will address them shortly.

As I said, Wikipedia very strongly discourages editing against a conflict of interest. Please disclose so we can get that behind us. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as external links go, WP:EL covers how to handle most cases, supported by WP:NOT (especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTLINK). In general, Wikipedias want editors to focus upon improving article content rather than directing readers elsewhere with external links, which can be easily misused. WP:EL is rather strongly enforced, having it's own noticeboard, WP:ELN, and emphasis to leave links out unless there is consensus to include them. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking over Midcounties Co-operative: The article needs a great deal of work, and has a April 2010 notice requesting more sources. I think the notice still applies, as much of the article remains without sources. As far as external links go, the one external link to their main website, midcounties.coop, is fine. That website contains links and information for all their brands. Adding links to the individual brand websites violates WP:EL and WP:NOT. I've cleaned up the article accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)--Ronz (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

rolfing mediation

Hi, I know you've been a part of discussions on the rolfing wiki in the past. == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Rolfing. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cyintherye (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ubiquinol, Q-Symbio

Hello Ronz.

How come you tagged my edit with a speedy deletion notice on Ubiquinol ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrillr (talk • contribs) 11:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Morrillr. I'm not sure what you mean. Your edits to Ubiquinol were removed twice here and here. You also made some edits to Coenzyme Q10, which were removed here. I wasn't involved with any of those edits.

I think you might be referring to Q-Symbio, which you created. I recommended that article for speedy deletion, and notified you at the time. My request was reviewed by another editor who then deleted the article. I assume the article was very similar to your draft version that remains at User:Morrillr/sandbox. Perhaps you would like to update it with independent sources, including some that demonstrate notability, and then submit it for review? --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting Illmaculate's Extr

• Illmaculate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_solely_to_"no_consensus"

Thanks for contacting me. I have just started a discussion about it: Talk:Illmaculate#bandcamp link. Could you join that dicussion? If you want clarification on what I've written, it would be better do ask there as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it twice, the second time after noting that two other editors had also removed it. I started a discussion on the article talk page after the second removal.

I am not strongly against the link, noting it is widely used within Wikipedia. However, it does look like they type of link that should not be used per ELPOINT#1 and ELNO#5. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Requesting_assistance_for_Illmaculate_discography_and_external_links

Gary Vaynerchuk - Jan 2017

• Gary Vaynerchuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hey Ronz, I'd appreciate any more clarity you can give as to how the last two edits of including Gary Vaynerchuk's most up to date web shows are an different than what is already cited or cited on other biographical pages. You've flagged more before for using the references being of the content it's self? How do I provide the most update info on this living person, without it being flagged as SOAP? It's unobjective, and merely states that it exists, when it started, and what the premises of the show are? thank in advance for any clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krainak (talk • contribs) 21:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I think it would be best to get others involved. I'll see what I can do to get some help.

To answer your question: Wikipedia articles should be written from a historical context, and generally cannot provide the most up-to-date information. The solution is to rely upon reliable, independent sources written from a broad and historical perspective. Such sources may be difficult to find, or may not exist; so we do the best we can, recognizing that biographical information must be referenced with high-quality sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it will be easier to copy my response to your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Requesting_help_with_Gary_Vaynerchuk

Merge of "decision-making software" into "decision support system"

Hi Ronz, I don't suppose you feel like involving yourself in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Decision_support_system#Merge_from_decision-making_software? Best wishes Paulwizard (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've responded there. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Onam

Hope these two edits [3] will give you some idea about the word Hindu and how it is wrongly used by so many ignorant people. Hindu is a Persian word. One has to look at how and when this non-Indian word was used for the first time in various regions of modern-day India. In the article Onam, the use of the word Hindu in historical context is terribly wrong and misplaced. We can see such wrong usages on many websites including Wikipedia. Another point is that there are many fictional stories. One story tells that Mahabali had ruled Kerala and another story tells that Kerala was created by Parasurama. The funny thing is that, as per those stories, Mahabali had lived before the period of Parasurama because Vamana who had sent Mahabali to the netherworld was the fifth avathar of Vishnu and Parasurama who had created Kerala was the sixth avathar of Vishnu. Then, how could Kerala be ruled by Mahabali before it was created by Parasurama? Even those fictional stories are conflicting with one another and anyone can interpret them as s/he wants. Instead of relying heavily on those conflicting fictional stories, we should look at the historical facts. Onam is a very ancient rice harvest festival, it is not a religious festival, but some people try to hijack it and want to project it as their own religious festival and even use Wikipedia to achieve their goal.42.109.203.204 (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page, and note the many comments already there.

Provide sources. Preferably ones that are written with a historical perspective.

Working together, I hope we can figure out a solution that gives proper weight to what perspectives we find in the sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

FAC: House of Music

Hi there. Would you care to review or comment at my nomination of House of Music for featured status? The previous nomination did not gather enough commentary, so anything at all would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't work on GA and FA articles much, and am not very familiar with the standards for music-related articles, so I'm not sure how much I can help. Looking it over, the lede seems overly large and detailed. The list of recording locations in the lede stands out as unnecessary, and unless I'm overlooking something is only sourced by the cd booklet. If there is other material given similar prominence within the article, only verified by primary sources, then there may be work to be done. If this emphasis is a standard in music-related articles, then it may be fine. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You should ask that question by email

Saw your comment on Someguy1221's page. I didn't see what happened so I think it's safe for me to comment. Clearly there was an outing attempt, and so Someguy can't tell you much more than that on his talk page as that would defeat the purpose of the revdel. If you really want to know exactly what happened, you're gonna need to email either him or another admin. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Did you sort this out satisfactorily ? Roxy the dog. bark 17:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments to templates

How can I change hidden comments to templates. Your help on the matter would me much appreciated. Muhaqqeq (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you figured it out before I had a chance to respond. Thanks for your work! --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Help on Hatha Yoga

So, I joined in the debate over VictoriaGrayson's inexplicable removal of all references to Naths in favor of a single source argument for Dattatreya. I see you also viewed this as a slanted perspective, using a single source to dismiss to relevance of the Nath legend. I could use some help defending my edits which I suspect you would support. Any second opinions would be much appreciated.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've been noticing. I'll comment there. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Josef Joffe revert of my edit

What was wrong with the information about Josef Joffe that I added earlier today?

Gerry Rudmin

Thanks for following up on this.

As I mentioned to the other editor that added something similar, [4]: "In order to avoid further BLP violations, can you find sources that actually have the full context minimally, preferably with some analysis? Are you fluent in German, or should we get help from someone that is?"

Basically, there's no context, no analysis, nothing that demonstrates this comment by Joffe is any more noteworthy than anything else he has ever said. The sources provided so far specifically eliminate the context, making it all the more suspect. --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed citation on Elliptical trainer article

Hi Ronz,

Would you mind telling me why you felt that the citation I added to the article on elliptical trainers was inappropriate? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Introstand (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me about this.

It's not a reliable source.

The website is promotional in nature.

It was added as the very first reference in the article.

Health-related claims require a WP:MEDRS source. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding bringing it to ELN

You have asked this in ongoing discussions. I often suggest, or bring discussion immediately to WP:ELN because I feel that these discussions on excessive linking do not get resolved on subject talkpages, and discussions on excessive linking could be discussed on WP:ELN per its instructions: "This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline. Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed." Although the reason to start a thread there generally is a disagreement with another user, the intention of the thread is to discuss the external links on the page, not the behaviour of a user.

On local talkpages these discussions hardly ever gain any traction since (and that is specifically obvious on Talk:Beacham Theater), no-one is discussing there (until yesterday only one person added questions there, no answers). It becomes a dialogue (at best) with no resolution (or you get a massive number of people falling over you whose interest is the subject of the page, which gives a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which, actually, is not a consensus as the !voters are not 'randomly selected'; it is like asking on the Rolling Stones' fanclub page which band they think is better, the Rolling Stones or The Beatles...). So starting that local discussion is just going to result in someone having to go to another place to discuss, or opening an RfC (upon which one gets accused of forum shopping; you've seen that with the Grace discussion). I prefer to avoid that.

One could consider to write ELN instructions suggesting to ping/notify the editors who are heavily involved with an article, but also that is sometimes difficult (many editors). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Good points. I'm certainly going to use ELN much quicker and more often now. Still, starting an article talk page discussion is a basic dispute resolution step, helps new editors become involved, and makes it easier to track the trail of events. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

edit deleted

Hey Ronz. I added a link to an interesting resource on the therapy dog page which you deleted. Did I do something wrong, the resource comes from an authoritative page and it tells how you can take a step further with your therapy dogs. I found it helpful so I added it here? I'm new here so could you please explain why it got deleted so I'm careful the next time. Should I have not added it in the external links but somewhere else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everything education (talk • contribs) 18:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The quick answer is that I didn't see how it offered anything on the subject that wasn't already in the article or couldn't be added.

Given it's a self-report, I'm not sure how much weight it should be given to adding any new content without additional, independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Drew Scott

I got yor notification that you removed the links at the Drew Scott page, referencing the policy NOT:EL. I think if you review that policy, I think you'll agree that it doesn't apply, as those links all are directly related to the subject of the article, and are the official pages of his various businesses and entertainment sites. Additionally, your reversion actually returned the section to an inferior version, which my edits were intending to correct. They will likely be added at some point, as they are essential for a well-rounded article.

I ask that you reconsider, as I'm sure you likely just weren't familiar with the links in question.- -Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I caught your comment on your talk first, and responded there with what I think addresses all your concerns. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Continual false entries about my physics work

Harold E. Puthoff here. I continue to attempt to remove the false statement at the end of the Wikipedia article on me in which author Massimo Pigliucci reports that my research on vacuum energy physics (zero-point energy physics)"is considered to be a pseudoscience." Unsubstantiated & false opinion by author of a book for the public does not trump several peer-reviewed publications in Tier 1 physics journals like Physical Review, such as:

H. E. Puthoff, "Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state," Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987);

H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force," Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989); Phys. Rev A 47, 3454 (1993).

H. E. Puthoff, "On the source of vacuum electromagnetic zero-point Energy," Phys. Rev. A 40, 4857 (1989);

D. C. Cole and H. E. Puthoff, "Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum," Phys. Rev. E 48,1562 (1993);

B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff, "Inertia as a zero-point field Lorentz force," Phys. Rev. A 49, 678 (1994).

Please remove the last false and unsubstantiated statement by author Massimo Pigliucci and permit me to offer edits again (it appears that through your edit refusals I've been banned for attempting to correct the record with documentation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.128.58 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I'm going to copy this to the article talk page so it will be easier for others to discuss the matter and refer to the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

sorry for that, I don't know about that, Thank you to inform me. Please guide me that how to make a page on Wikipedia, One of my friends is singer and Actress and she is a famous celebrity. She wants me to make a Wikipedia page for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehana Darani (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:YFA should help. First you'll need to find references that are clearly reliable and independent of the subject. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Playboy Your Commentary

Would be appreciated here. Feeling that people are trying to break BLP and using bad sources. help is appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1995 Richterer11111 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I already indicated I agree with you. I've been down this road before, and it seems BLP, NPOV, and NOT simply doesn't apply to some articles. I think the topic is notable enough to avoid deletion, but cleaning up the mess as suggested here is what I strongly agree to and have attempted in the past. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You might want to track down some of the old discussions like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_6#Proposal_to_change_List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of..._to_simple_lists and Talk:List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1955. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so can you help me make these changes stick on this page please. I keep getting threatened with being blocked for asking them to comply with BLPs. Richterer11111 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm planning on restoring any names that have been completely removed, just the names and date, but I expect someone will do so first. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

virtual-history

See my response at User talk:Foobarnix

Playmate template for 2017

Athanatophobos February 16th 2017

Hello,

I wanted a template for 2017 playmates but I don't know how to create an article in wikipedia.

Here the work I did : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Athanatophobos/sandbox

Could you create this template if you are able to create an article?

Regards ;)

I'm unlikely to have the time to do so. Could you please respond to my comments on your talk page? --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I responded to your comments, you just have to create the thread for the 2017 playmates with all the stuff I did. I will take 50 seconds. Regards. Athanatophobos February 23rd 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you've responded to. I'm referring to User_talk:Athanatophobos#List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_the_Year --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

contested claim

I ask that you remove a claim in the Napoleon Hill biography which has been contested. If you wish it included, please start an RfC. Collect (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. It doesn't appear to me that you even were aware it was being discussed and that multiple other sources verify the same information. If you want an RfC, go ahead. The available sources are so poor at this point, that I think it's a waste of time. We could really use help finding better sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

HELP ME - Napoleon Hill

As surmised, I do not intend to break rules; however, I am just appalled to find Wikipedia allowing Novak's article to be sourced for my grand father's biography. I have shown that Novak omitted facts which do not support his narrative and that he spun other facts toward his false narrative. Surly, this is enough to have any sourcing from Novak's blog rejected outright.

A couple of comments...

• I do not know HOW to sign my input.
• I do not know how to answer specific questions or, better said, how to navigate to where I can answer them.
• I do not understand why Novak's newspaper reference is OK but my newspaper reference from the same paper 2 days later is considered original research. Is it because I haven't previously posted the reference.

Over a 10 year period, I created a time-line for Napoleon Hill's life much as Novak attempted. It was not becoming. Then I overlaid upon the timeline information from Napoleon Hill's letters, family letters, Naps own words, and other material. I researched his friends, his associates, his wives, his business partners, and his claims. The results were astonishing and it wasn't until I did all of this that I began to appreciate Nap. I was far more shocked by what I could verify than what I could not verify. So, Novak's work is so contrary to what I discovered and know to be true that it is beyond description.

PS: Someone asked a question about Nap's son Blair: Blair Hill was born in Fairmont, WV on 11 Nov 1912. He was delivered by Dr. E.W. Strickler, the husband of his mother's first cousin.--JB Hill (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@JB Hill: Hi JB Jill. Thanks for contacting me. I've been meaning to comment on your talk page, but you're already getting excellent advice and I didn't want to overwhelm you with more suggestions.

I don't like the quality of the Novak source and have been working to find better ones.

Let me see what I can do to help you some of the basics:

I do not know HOW to sign my input. I'm not sure I understand. You signed your comment here to me just fine. WP:SIGN covers that type of signature. However, when you are logged into your account, all your edits are identified with your account name and the time you made the edit, as discussed in WP:PAGEHIST. If you're asking about something else, let me know.

Wikipedia: The Missing Manual might help you better than the welcome message I left you. This is a section on communicating with others that should help you answer questions and navigate.

I haven't had a chance to look over the references you've offered. They're (mostly?) contemporary news reports, correct? I will get around to looking over them all and comment on each.

(More to follow) --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you make edit requests to the article on the article talk page, keeping them brief and clearly identifying the verifying sources. When introducing a new source, especially anything that is not available in searchable form online, please quote relevant information from the source, provide page numbers, the column and location in a newspaper page, etc. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with info - Alexis Fields

What is Alexis fields middle name? Can you search and find that information for me. I have been trying to find out on numerous of sites and no luck. I would really appreciate it if you could find that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundai21 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Alexis Fields? If it's correct that she was born in Los Angeles, birth records should be available. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you look up info on her background to find out her middle name. Sundai21 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Look up info on sanaa lathan and her middle name as well. Sources say her full name is sanaa mccoy lathan. But there is no middle name given. I would appreciate that. Sundai21 (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Such as intelluis or other sites that can search her background. Sundai21 (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not finding an "Alexis Fields" born in California in early March in any year. I'd guess her birth name is different. Sorry, I doubt I'll have time for more work on this. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Holi, Punjab

Hi, would you please review Holi, Punjab created as a WP:CFORK by @Malikhpur. I have removed OR, blogs, offtopic, etc. It is near stub, and not a distinct festival. Any good reason we should keep it as a separate article and not merge it into Holi? Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I skimmed it and responded on the talk page. Looks like a povfork that should be redirected back to Holi. I'm not clear what should be merged. The first reference doesn't have an index, so I may be missing something. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Povfork it is, as are quite a few articles that Malikhpur has created in the last 2 years, all Punjab-related that I have stumbled into so far (but I haven't looked deeper). In the "Holi, Punjab" article, there was one source that @Malikhpur added that was interesting to read. Though mis-summarized, it turned out to be notable for different reasons. Its about the Holi tradition under the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh. That is the one to consider keeping and merging. The easiest, best course is probably to move that para, leaving a "redirect" from "Holi, Punjab" to the Holi article. If someone objects, we can go thru the merge template and discussion. Or would you recommend something else? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. I think a merge is the next step. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war - Watts Up With That?

Sorry Ronz. I didn't know two edits constituted an edit war. I'll try to restrain myself. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Cptmrmcmillan. It's 3 edits. _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

re: Prezi

Best thing would be to start a discussion at WP:RSN, but bottom line - they are just presentation slides, so they are self-published and of low reliability. Copyright is just like with regular slides, which means the same like with everything else - belongs to the author. I explicitly license my Prezis under CC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Gene Zef

Thanks for the note on my page. Man this place is tough to learn. I noticed the small changes usually go thru without a issue its when you try to add or do too much at one time. It raises questions with staff. Learning process. I will for sure stop by and ask for help. Thank you so much for the warm invite. :)

--Gene Zef2 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad to help. --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey RonZ, Tarryn Alberts (tarryn TNT) one of the dancers onstage with Die Antwoord would like a wiki page for her accomplishments. How would be the best way of going about that, she says she will take a picture specifically for wiki. Just let me know whats up and if thats something I could do. *thumbs up*

--Gene Zef2 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Find sources about her that meet WP:BIO, then write an article based upon those sources. As you're directly in contact with her, do take extra caution to follow WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Well she wants me to use this picture for her wiki page.

https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/44/03/05/110.jpg

https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/44/03/05/111.jpg

Im just not to sure about trying to make a new page for her, because last time i did I was building it and adding refs and all and staff came right in and pissed all over my parade. Same shit goes on with the Watkin Tudor Jones and Yo Landi Visser pages. I know all the info for making the pages correct, but wiki requires "links" to prove things......

Who is to say those "things" posted on the internet are true? I know the truth but am prevented from posting it due to some things that wiki requires, that even when posted are not true.

I personally fought for getting YoLandis birthday corrected for about a year, and still I cant get them to let me put in her birth year.......

Even though I personally know these people.

Sucks but I will look for ref's.. even if I know they are wrong...... So glad Wikippedia is accurate with their info. ;)

--Gene Zef2 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

reversions:

Ronz, OK, I see that Wikipedia does not want Find a Grave links. My intent with such was to indicate exactly where the deceased is buried. May I do that parenthetically with the death date (as I just did with Coach Frank Howard)? Poptop43 (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

resting_place is available for that purpose, but I don't recall seeing it used in good articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alkaline diet

Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com is not a reliable source

Hi, Thankyou for informing me, but Famous birthdays is a popular website and I believe that most of the information that the website provides is true. Random people can't edit anything on the Famous birthday's website, only the people that work there I believe can edit. Most of their work is true. The birthdays I know for a fact are true, and if they have got anything wrong you can update them. Plum3600 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"I believe that most of the information that the website provides is true" does not come close to meeting the reliability threshold established for biographies of living persons. You may want to start a new discussion at WP:RSN if you feel that site has suddenly become more authoritative. Kuru (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

goodreads.com is not WP:RS

Is not a reliable source for categorizing an author's works. https://www.goodreads.com/about/us states that it is basically a reading Wiki. "You can create "bookshelves" to organize what you've read (or want to read). You can comment on each other's reviews. You can find your next favorite book. And on this journey with your friends you can explore new territory, gather information, and expand your mind." Collect (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What sources do you think are reliable sources for categorizing books, both in-world and independent? I didn't want to start with in-world, but we might as well get it all done now that we're looking closely at the topic of book and author categorization. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

World cultural fest

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Art-of-Living-Foundation-hints-at-moving-SC-against-NGT-order/article14388296.ece sir this is the proof that 4.75 crore fine was given instead of 5crore by the 'art of living ' Pls edit this page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Cultural_Festival — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herosourabh (talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but that looks like a press release. The reference in the article also looks like a press release as well, though not as clearly. Let's see if we can find something better if we can. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, the reference you offer has both numbers. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sally Bretton - Famousbirthdays.com

Hi Ronz,

About FamousBirthdays, what about the previous note to you by Plum3600 about FamousBirthdays.com being a reasonably reliable source? What do you base "does not come close to meeting the reliability threshold established for biographies of living persons"? (Plum3600 writes, "The birthdays I know for a fact are true, and if they have got anything wrong you can update them."

Notwithstanding an argument for or against FamousBirthdays, WHAT ABOUT the OTHER TWO SOURCES I USED that you deleted?

Also, IMDb has the birthday, and I saw a newspaper article that does not give a month and year, but the age given coincides with a 1980 birthday.

If you have another birthday why not add it and the citation?

Best regards, Dave

what about the previous note to you by Plum3600 Yes, what about it? It was answered by another editor before I got to it.

that you deleted? I didn't.

IMDb is not a reliable source.

I was just cleaning up an unreliable source, and wanted to let you know why. As I've worked on many articles with difficulties determine birth dates, I'll see what I can do to help. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

AC Bonifacio - Famousbirthdays.com

Thanks for letting mo know that this famousbirthdays website isn't a reliable source. Removing that as reference won't be a problem with me. Will find more reliable sources. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlcbaltazar (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if I can help. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Gary Vaynerchuk - speaking engagements

Ronz,

Can you elaborate how listing events that Gary Vaynerchuk, a well known established worldwide public speaker has spoken at, is promotional?

Thanks,

FreightTrain90 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC) FreighTrain90

In general, any appearances, speaking engagements, etc that aren't verifiable with independent sources should probably be left out per WP:NOT. Listing individual events is almost certainly WP:SOAP unless something quite out of the ordinary happened, again covered by independent sources that clearly demonstrate how the speaking engagement has some encyclopedic value. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You may have missed my previous explanation about addressing the promotional material: "Wikipedia articles should be written from a historical context, and generally cannot provide the most up-to-date information. The solution is to rely upon reliable, independent sources written from a broad and historical perspective. Such sources may be difficult to find, or may not exist; so we do the best we can, recognizing that biographical information must be referenced with high-quality sources." --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ika Wong

If it is not an reliable source. Tell the creator of Tony Vlachos.

Musicalorange6 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I'll explain more fully on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Joyce's music scores

(copied from my talk page [5] --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC))

Hi Ronz — thanks for your message. I encountered that list of music scores where James Joyce appears as librettist and thought that would be a good external link / reference for his article in Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that so many music scores were available with his lyrics, and considered that to be an interesting contribution. Could you expand on your views about it, please? Thanks again. —Avorio (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to respond on the article talk page. I hope you dont mind that I copy your message there. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Content You Removed - Alex Okoroji

Hello Ronz, I'm Kwamzy. It's nice to meet you. I noticed that you removed a large chunk of content and the citations included, supporting your changes with the suggestion that my recent edit from yesterday was advertisy and that I have COI.

I want to clarify that I do not have any direct ties or external relationship to the above living person. I'm only an entertainment lover who has interest in all things nollywood and if I stumble on information I believe should be included I do so keeping in mind that Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people.

I honestly think you made a mistake by removing a third of the content on that page (much of which has been there for months & wasn't Even edited by me).

If you believe my edit violated Wikipedia guidelines - you could have either re-edited it to meet the guidelines or simply removed ONLY the content I added without taking the rest of it with verified sources. The person in quote is, not just an actress, she's also a prolific writer, speaker, author and radio host. Removing valuable information about her other expertise doesn't do the article justice. Thank you! Kwamzy10 (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume you have a conflict of interest based upon the image you provided. Am I wrong to assume you took the photograph yourself? If so, I apologize.

WP:BLP is very clear: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Whatever "high-quality" sources there may be about her, they weren't being used for anything I removed that I'm aware. If they exist at all, do point them out. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ronz, You are right to assume I took the photograph myself, except if you can see from the image. It was taken with my mobile phone inside a public flight - on an airplane. I ran into her and some of her colleagues on the same local flight to Warri 2 years ago. As a fan and lover of all things Nollywood - I asked if I could take some pictures and she nicely obliged. Then decided to add it to her wiki when I foun± it. That doesn't mean that I have a "Conflict of Interest" based upon the image I provided.

You removed mention and links to her interviews, her Huffington post contributions, feature on women rock project, her mention on Total Facts about Nigeria and recent ranking on Richtopia ---> https://richtopia.com/women-leaders/top-250

which I believe are all high quality sources, unless I'm wrong. If the real bone of contention are the recent edits I made including famousbirthdays.com (which I totally agree with you isn't a high quality source), I believe you can access the original wiki article and revert it to what was there 3 or 5 months ago before I edited the article. Thank you. Kwamzy10 (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for assuming you have a conflict of interest based upon the photograph.

Interviews, press releases, self-published publicity pieces are all poor sources. Note I started a discussion on the article talk page about this: Talk:Alex Okoroji. --Ronz (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Eddiebow

This posting is FYI.
One thing, (possibly the only thing?), on which we agree is that User talk:Eddiebow is a pain. I was going to recommend that he be blocked when I discovered that neither I, nor you, nor anyone else, had ever posted a warning on his talk page. I have now placed a very-pissed-of-first-warning on his talk page. If he continues to be a pain, please don't hesitate to express your own opinion on his talk page.
But who knows? Maybe a miracle will happen and he'll start behaving. (No, I'm not holding my breath either.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I don't think I had noticed the edits.

Looks like requesting a block would be the next step. I don't see the need to contact Eddiebow further unless there's some attempt to communicate beyond the uninformative edit summaries coming from the account. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with Cally-Jo

Hello, Ronz! Thank you for message me about my page Cally-Jo. I'm still learning English, so please forgive me for my mistakes.

You added a template to my page Cally-Jo. Please indicate what I need to correct. This page is dedicated to a person whom I personally don't know. All information was taken from various interviews of this person. I received some personal information from this person's mother. She personally confirmed and changed what I indicated. Therefore somewhere there is no source for this.

Tell me please, what do I need to correct to make the article not seem to be an advertisement? After all, I'm doing all this for free, and don't want to insult anyone. I just wanted to have page in Wikipedia with this person that I like. This is the first time I've written an article on Wikipedia. Please help fix all that I did wrong. «This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (May 2017)» — What I need to do? Thank you, --Nedika (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. The problem is that WP:BLP articles are not good for learning Wikipedia because of the requirements that such articles strictly follow Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines.

I'd recommend you put the article aside until you understand Wikipedia's polices better. The article needs a rewrite from better sources, presenting clearly encyclopedic content with an appropriate tone. To do so requires a very good understanding of WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:MOS.

I will try to find some time to clean up the article so that it's easier for other editors to work on. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Please don't delete the article. Help me to fix it. I will try to examine in more detail what you pointed out to me. It's just not so easy. Thank you, --Nedika (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

References that do not work should not be removed [Question]

It looks like you found a reference that you couldn't get to work, so you removed it. [6] I replaced it with a working copy. If you find such references in the future, they shouldn't be removed. See WP:DEADREF. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ronz! I was just curious - while the Archive version works now, the original page was removed. Do archived pages that have been removed count as valid sources on wikipedia? Is it possible they removed it because new evidence was found? The most recent study they reference is from 2008.

They also have a disclaimer at the bottom of the page that says: "Note: This information may not cover all possible claims, uses, actions, precautions, side effects or interactions. It is not intended as medical advice, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with your doctor." Does that imply if a doctor recommends to use such a therapy it should trump the information on that page?

Thank you! I'm just trying to better understand the topic and trying to be nuetral / objective! - Zach (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The relevant policies/guidelines include WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. The article falls under general sanctions, so this definitely isn't something to try to approach without a good understanding of how the policies/guidelines apply.

Basically, the source is fine and editors appear to be doing a good job of keeping the article up to date. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

handout for students editing articles about books

Hi there,

I'm hoping to solicit your feedback regarding a handout Wiki Ed is developing for students who want to work on articles about books: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Books. It will be a print guide that supplements other resources and materials for student editors, like the interactive training and brochures that address broader aspects of editing, like etiquette, NPOV, citing sources, working in sandboxes, using the talk page, etc. This guide focuses only on aspects of editing required for contributing to articles about books in classroom settings. We're hoping to get some feedback from the community by the end of Monday, so we can send it off to the printer before the end of the month. I realize that's not a lot of time so no worries if you don't get to it. There's one other draft we're looking for feedback on, for editing articles about films, if that's also/more of interest. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Stonebranch

Hi mate,

I see you removed the listing for Stonebranch's Universal Automation Center from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_job_scheduler_software back in September.

Just so I understand, could you tell me why? Stonebranch has been a highly regarded job scheduler software provider for decades and was recognized in the most recent Gartner Magic Quadrant. Just wondering why you would clip it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighton1234 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Magic Quadrant is enough to warrent inclusion, especially when Gartner says their reports are pure opinion on their part. Do you know of other independent sources? --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome template query

Hi, you placed a superbly, helpful template on the talk page of User talk:Henrythompson - a new user I'm trying to engage with in a supportive manner. Could you point me to the template text you used, as I would love to place it on the pages of other new contributors I have contact with? Many thanks.Nick Moyes (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Replying on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about your edits

Hi there, I'm not clear on why you removed some of my recent edits, particularly given that one of them was correcting an error in the Golden Gate Bridge entry. It's correcting a fact about Bank of America and I cite a BofA history page to back it up. Can you please explain further?

Here's the note in my watchlist: (diff | hist) . . Golden Gate Bridge‎; 15:39 . . (-1,269)‎ . . ‎Ronz (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 784953107 by LFBedard (talk) REFSPAM)

I also don't understand your removing my text beefing up the subsection modern bond platforms in the Municipal Bond entry. The section -- one sentence -- is pretty flimsy: (diff | hist) . . Municipal bond‎; 21:10 . . (-731)‎ . . ‎Ronz (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎External links: removed section per EL, NOTLINK)

Thank you for explaining! LFBedard (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for responding. Simply, your edits as a whole appear to be spamming the self-published material from neighborly.com in order to promote neighborly.com. I didn't look much further than that.

Regarding Golden Gate Bridge, I wrote [7] I think better sources should be found and used to ensure accuracy and neutrality.

Also, please do not remove comments as you did here from article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I apologize about appearing to spam. I thought the company's muni guide and some of its educational articles were valid sources.

I disagree, however, about your argument RE the Golden Gate Bridge sources. BofA's own history of itself is essentially a primary source. I understand citing news or reference texts in most instances but this particular example looks like an exception to that rule.

Regarding the modern muni bond platforms section, can you please explain that? I cited a news source so I'm not sure what the problem was. I think I understand you not wanting me to reference companies as examples but I don't get the other deletes. FYI, I've submitted a revised version of that section without the private sector references.

LFBedard (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd just be repeating myself. The solution is better sources that ensure accuracy and neutrality. In the case of platforms, perhaps something that puts the new platforms in historical context. Otherwise, it looks like advertising for Neighborly. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

About the update on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXo_Platform eXo Platform

I am an employee at eXo Platform, and we need to add a wikipedia software page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:EXo_Platform_(Software) ) that have software oriented content, this is why we want to keep only company data on the current eXo Platform page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXo_Platform ) by taking software oriented content to the software page. Could you please validate the new content I added to the company page in order to avoid duplicate content in both pages: company and software Thanks for your comprehension, I am available for any further details. Nour-hm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nour-hm (talk • contribs) 10:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That explains it. Thanks.

I think you should slow down, and learn more about Wikipedia. Both topics need to be notable for separate articles to exist. You've not demonstrated that the corporation has notability beyond that of the software platform, so you're unlikely to make any progress. Further, you have a conflict of interest with the topics, requiring you to be much more aware of Wikipedia's policies and to follow them closely. If you have time constraints from your employer to get this done in a short timeframe, you're likely going to find yourself very frustrated while accomplishing little.

I've left you information about Wikipedia on your talk page. Let me know if I can help further. --Ronz (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

My Sincere apologies, I am new here and I really didn’t know that I shouldn’t edit directly on the online content. I also didn’t want to violate Wikipedia policies, so I indeed took some time to read how I should act from now on. Now that I am aware about what I did I will follow the recommended process. For the Conflict of interest part, I can assure you that I am an employee at eXo Platform and that I am in charge in updating this page, so I hope following the recommended process to edit a page won’t create a COI anymore. Thank you so much for taking time to list the resources needed to edit a wiki page and thanks for your understanding.

Best Regards Nour-hm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nour-hm (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on both articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Monte Carlo simulation

Hi Ronz

I tried to add a link (that you removed) to a page on my company's web site that described Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) for business. I understand your reason for the deletion - relating my name to the company, but perhaps you could reconsider.

I am a well-known risk analyst, author of 3 different books published by Wiley on Monte Carlo simulation in business. The current MCS Wikipedia page really underplays the role in business, in which MCS is very probably the greatest application of interest. But the description was too long for me to put in Wikipedia, so I thought I'd write an explanation on our web site and then make a link. I also felt it best to do this transparently.

Can I ask you to take a look at the page I linked to to see whether it is of good quality before dismissing it? MCS always uses software, so inevitably there is a mention of our company's software in giving an example, but I think it is quite underplayed. I looked around before writing the topic but found no other succinct explanation on the net.

Kid regards

David Vose — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Vose (talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you review the situation and WP:COI, then follow the recommendations. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur)‎

Hey Ronz,

Can you please explain why you reverted my recent edit to Andrea Rossi?

I do not understand how information such as filing for a new patent can create an unbalanced narrative, considering the fact a patent was indeed approved in 2015 as mentioned in the reference.

Thanks,

WMartin74 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

To the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Done: Talk:Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)#Recent_attempt_at_highlighting_a_demo. I've assumed that you'll review the discussions on both articles and WP:FRINGE. Simply, all the evidence is that this is a scam, and presenting it as something else violates NOT, NPOV, and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tariq Nasheed

Why are you now removing information with sources from talk pages that meet BLP criteria? If you think it isn't, please point out why your position is the correct one, not simply remove it and leave an unpleasant message on user talk. - HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\Security (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologize that you found the message I left you unpleasant. I'm happy to refactor it to your liking. I struck it all out and started again. Let me know what else I can do.

BLP states: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion

From my perspective, you aren't making proposals for improving the article in any way, and you are not using reliable sources suitable for a BLP article.

BLP states: To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.

I've been assuming you are an experienced editor that knows that Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages. I may have been wrong in that assumption. --Ronz (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Ramdev Article

Hi Ronz,

I just added new organizations that he has founded. Please tell what seems to be promotional in it. 103.219.213.50 (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There are n no. of articles who even dont have any references and are still alive. Wikipedia people are biased. See this one and give one reason why it exists - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishwas_Mudagal

I had already started a discsion at Talk:Ramdev#Organizations founded. As I said, mention of the organizations may be worth noting. Promoting them or giving undue weight is not appropriate. For example, I don't think mention of corporate inaugurals are appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing information

I understand that you believe that Famousbirthdays.com is not a reliable source, and I can't argue. I do object to your removing the information, which I'm confident is accurate, instead of finding a better source. It took me about 30 seconds to find two additional sources, one of which is the horse's mouth, that verify the information. Rks13 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving that. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Except a google search is not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Says who? Rks13 (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP places the burden on those seeking inclusion. The Google search result [8] lists sources that we both agree are unreliable. I don't know how anyone is going to make a convincing case that the result is reliable.

See WP:GNUM and WP:DOB.

I've been looking for sources to use, but am coming up empty. Sorry. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Reg. Harsh Beniwal Page

Hi Ronz,

I've added reliable sources such as HuffingtonPost, India.com, DailyO, PunjabKesari etc. That guy Harsh Beniwal has more than 580k subs on his Youtube channel, 1.2m followers on Instagram, 1.3m likes on Facebook. His channel has more than 40m views and 250m views on Facebook. Now, I've added reliable sources as well. You still think HuffingtonPost and India.com are not reliable sources ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjk5678 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I had already started a discussion on the article talk page. Let's keep the discussion in one place so others can more easily participate. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

HRVY

Hi Ronz

Thanks for Helping Me, BUT Please May You answer this Quick Question about HRVY that I created, which is

1. WHY isn't My Article I made Recently which is the R&B singer and TV Presenter coming up on the Main page, when you or Someone clicks the Google search engine and Click HRVY and it Doesn't show it on Wikipedia when you press Wikipedia to it or Not, It Still doesn't come up with it Straight away, rather than go into Wikipedia and Press these Letters HRVY and it goes into It?

Can You answer it for Me Please, I Don't Get It At All?

Thank you for your Kind Response

Kind Regards

James Duggins

I don't know why it should show up, or why you'd expect it to. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The Oreo Cat Wiki page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Oreo_Cat

Thanks Ronz! Your comment was the most helpful out of all of them. I understand now!ModugnoT (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of contribution to Toll Free Telephone numbers

Hi Ronz,

I am a retired employee of Deutsche Telekom in Germany and worked on freephone Service im Germany from 1982 untill I retired in 2012. My last position was Head of Produktmanagement for freephone service. I participated on the definition of the interbational Service with CEPT, ITU-T and ETSI and chaired the International Inbound Service Forum for 5 years. May I know why did you undo to my changes?

Best regards Gerhard Krohn87.165.105.156 (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gerhard. The article certainly could use the help of an editor with your background. However, not much progress can be made without reliable sources to verify the information in it. The information you added did not include a source, and the mention of iis-forum.com seemed more of a promotional bit at the end, given I doubt it would be considered a reliable source for any expansion or verification. --Ronz (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for your response. You mentioned that you need reliable resources to verify the information provided.

My contribution had two parts "International toll free Service" and "Germany". Im am not sure how to provide the Information / sources required.

Most of the work on International Freephone Service was done in CEPT and ITU-T working groups and subcommittees. And the International Inbound Services Forum provided contributions to this bodies by papers presented by members of the organization. This papers were not published or included in reports. The only result is the final recommendation of the iTU-T

In this case the ITU-T Rec. E.152 " International Freephone Service" in various versions (with reflects the developments in the market (e.g. introduction of UIFN).

The Part on Germany shows the history of the freephone Service in Germany. As a time period of 30+ years is covered it is difficult to make references to one source. However there are three publications (all in German only) who cover certain periods.

1. Der Fernmeldeingenieur (Zeitschrift für Ausbildung und Fortbildung) ISSN 0015 - 010x from 1986 Heft 8 und Heft 9 on "Service 130" Verlag für Wissenschaft und Leben Georg Heidecke Bad Windsheim

2. Neue Dienste im intelligenten Telefonnetz von Wilhelm Krusch from 1993 (Editorial cooperation by myself) R.v.Decker´s Verlag ISBN 3-7685-1492-7

3. Artikel in NET Hüthig GmbH Heidelberg Heft 5 / 6 195 on Konzept und Dienste des Intelligenten Netzes (Teil 1 und Teil 2) from myself

best regard

Gerhard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.105.156 (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's discuss this on the article talk page, so others can help.

My other concern about the removed content was the level of detail. It seemed too detailed and too technical at times. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again Ronz for the info you left in regards to my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Oreo_Cat I did not realize that this was a thing. I did my best to rewrite the article, but if it does not get accepted I will understand why. Again, you've been a great help. Thanks for taking the time to share all the info.ModugnoT (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato ANI

I'm notifying you because you interacted with him at EL/N and thought you might have an opinion to add.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Liens établis

August 2017 Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to List of Playboy Playmates of 2017. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Merci de votre remarque. Je pensais avoir sauvegarder les pages de lien. Bonne journée — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breizhbird (talk • contribs) 09:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure as to why my edit was reversed on David L. Jones' page.

Your change summary said that it was an advert sourced only by Dave's youtube page. All the things I posted there were from the about section on his youtube pages. Is that just not enough, do I need to find sources other than that? His primary youtube channel was used as a source in other places. I am new to Wikipedia, and I am not entirely sure on most of that stuff. TwoOfFive (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Yes, what we need are better sources.

Simply, if there are no independent sources, there's no way to determine encyclopedic value and proper weight.

Basically, you've written something suitable for a press release. Wikipedia is not a venue for such advertising. Dave's article has a long history of such edits from what I assume are his fans and forum members.

Finally, the article falls under Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons, which requires that content about living persons must strictly meet Wikipedia's content policies. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

About Milroy Goes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milroy_Goes

I have added media references and sources. Please rewrite if needed. But keep a check on the citations as mentioned now. Its valid one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrizz (talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a great improvement. Thanks. There's a long way to go still. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Michelle Joy Phelps

Hi Ronz,

I have created a Wiki page for and on behalf of Michelle Joy Phelps and have been notified about some issues with the content that needs resolving. Please could you elaborate so I can get the page up to meet your guidelines.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by El único (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. I'll respond on your talk page to make it easier for others to find it and join in. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding COI

Hi Ronz - I saw your message yesterday regarding conflict of Interest. I think i made some edit where I provided Intellipaat website links as well as some external links also.

The purpose for the edits to share the knowledge and help the community instead of any promotions or advertisement for the company I work also I hardly think the users coming to wiki can be my website customers as its a free source of information whereas we are selling courses.

I would love to contribute to wiki in future as well and let me know apart from intellipaat is there any other you see so that i will understand the whole issue in better manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chittora (talk • contribs) 13:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Genesis History? Cast

For a feature film, the use of IMDB, cross-referenced with the film site, cross-referenced with Amazon is proof this is the cast. That is the only way to verify, in fact, short of watching the film and taking notes at the credits. I bought the DVD and they are on it, just as those three sources say. What's your problem with that? Boeldieu (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The article falls under general sanctions, which requires very strict adherence to all relevant policies. I advise that new editors avoid such articles. Sorry to bring this up, but it's extremely important. Working on such articles is very difficult for everyone.

Thank you for your response on the article's talk page. As you see there, I already have stated that I think a simple cast list should be fine. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Prager Wikipedia

Hi Ronz,

There are several dishonest, misleading and slanderous statements on Dennis Prager's wiki page. My edits were to remove the information that was not factually accurate. Many of the statements made go against Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy and thus should be removed.

James

If you could explain why, based upon Wikipedia's content policies, it would be of great help. Please do so on the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The NPR article sourced is clearly a biased hit-piece with false and defamatory information about Mr. Prager. This source does not fit your need for "independent" sources. Also, the dishonest and inaccurate information on LGBT rights sourced from New York Times should be removed. Mr. Prager has never suggested that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy or incest. This statement should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameshastings (talk • contribs) 19:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Dennis Prager

Hello, I believe some of the edits you made to Dennis Prager's page are misleading. Can you please change the wording so it is more neutral? Thanks. 79.73.252.247 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you could review WP:NPOV and give some specific suggestions, then I might be able to help.

The problems I've been seeing are:

• Editors who agree with criticisms of Prager want to embellish the article with quotes that the editors themselves have chosen.
• Editors who support Prager want to remove content without regard to the quality of the sources, the presentation, and the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

As I've written on the article talk page: We're not here to promote Prager's viewpoints, nor create a venue to oppose his viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Michelle_Joy_Phelps: 'article has multiple issues'.

Hi Ronz, I am new to Wiki as you can see and trying to get a bio up to Wiki standard. I am working on behalf of the person in question 'Michelle Joy Phelps'.

Look forward to your reply.

BR

Issues:

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (August 2017) This biography of a living person includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. (August 2017) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (August 2017) This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (August 2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by El único (talk • contribs) 08:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for not following up with you previously. I'll respond on your talk page and add the article to my watch list. --Ronz (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Futility Closet and List of Futility Closet Podcast episodes

It seems to me that both the captioned articles should be deleted. The problem is that the main article has recently survived the deletion process. However, I think we are now in the position of having new evidence, not least the multiple spamming inserts in some 20 or 30 articles (I did not count them). Furthermore, reading the text you deleted out of Futility Closet, one has to develop a strong sense that this included some information on sourcing that is untrue; at the very least it is economical with the truth. For instance, the deleted text goes into some detail on where they source their information - but there is no mention of Wikipedia at all.

I think it is also relevant that List of Futility Closet Podcast episodes demonstrates that every podcast has a link to a Wikipedia article. This suggests to me that the podcast uses Wikipedia as a source of ideas (not prohibited, but it calls into question their claims about sourcing). Listening to a selection of their podcasts, with the associated Wikipedia article open, there seems to be a significant commonality of structure between the two. There is simple plagiarim of Great Tea Race of 1866 - it's not obvious early in the podcast, but later on there is direct reading from the text of the Wikipedia article. This all amounts to a lack of notability that is surely significant to a deletion discussion - and I doubt that any of this was known to any who looked at the original deletion proposal.

The previous deletion discussion was very brief, with only two users opposing it. One of these, unsurprisingly, was User:Lantzy. I don't know if it is appropriate to mention it, but the blog appears to be run by two people. I wonder what their Wikipedia user names are.

I deleted most (hopefully all) of the spamming additions to various articles yesterday. Not being an expert on Wikipedia protocols, I don't know if this was appropriate, but I was working on the principle that actions speak louder than words. What actions do you feel should be followed now?
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was a bunch of hand-waving. No sources were offered to support anything.

I find it best to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on avoiding making assumptions about editors' intents and identities without very strong evidence.

I'm not familiar with the lengths that copyright violations are investigated. I'm sure there's an appropriate policy talk page that you could use, if not a noticeboard, but it's not clear to me where to start in a situation like this. Maybe just ask for some direction at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations.

While I hoped that there would be more discussion, the deletions might be a bit aggressive so soon, which is why I only made a few. Lantzy has had a chance to respond, but has chosen to edit elsewhere.

Now, I'd wait and see if there will be further response. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, good advice. On the copyright, I've read the procedures for someone infringing Wikipedia copyright but now cannot find them (or remember them well enough - there is some standard e-mail to send warning them and asking them to attribute, I think) so I'll ask where you suggest. Noticed something strange about Lantzy's user page whilst spinning out a few minutes before getting back to work - the list of articles created does not seem to match the edit history of any of the articles. No idea what to read into that. Anyway, wait and see, combined with researching copyright seems the best course of action. Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

On copyright, I have been pointed at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Extensive_plagiarism_of_Wikipedia_by_an_.22academic_journal.22_article_-_not_sure_how_to_deal_with_this, which seems helpful. It has links to the boilerplate e-mails, etc and a real life example.[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External link MBTI

Hello,

I think you did a mistake by deleting the external MBTI link I added to the MBTI wiki page.

This link is totally related to the subject and is not commercial.

Sincerely,

Dragovski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragovski (talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I suggest you discuss the matter on the article's talk page and see if you can get anyone to agree. Before you do, I strongly suggest you review WP:EL, WP:COI, and WP:COPYVIO. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The external link on MBTI wiki

Edit : I have just seen that you answered, I will try to find the talk place on the page.

Dragovski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragovski (talk • contribs) 22:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Relation between photographic illustrations and the Wikipedia articles

Hi Ronz

Regarding your comments to me at "User talk: Yachef," yes, "Yachefman" was an earlier user name prior to my shortening it to "Yachef."

Regarding the relationship between photographs from Wikimedia Commons and the articles themselves which I have edited, I have read through the section on your user page about adding images to Wikipedia articles.

I can understand where you're coming from when you made comments in your editing of the articles I've worked on. I can see how the questioning of some of the photographic illustrations could lead to your general conclusions. I would be happy to discuss it with you. Yachef (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It would be better to discussion the matter in general on your talk page so others can find it easier. If there's a specific article you want to discussion, then better on that article's talk page. I'd appreciate a {{ping}} --Ronz (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Lorne Michaels

Thanks for straightening that mess out. PaulCHebert (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope so, but we'll see where the responses take us. A WP:COIN discussion may be overdue. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Lorne Michaels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dave Barry

Your comments, please on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dave_Barry#First_wife. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Responded there. It's probably accurate, but I'm not finding any reliable sources for it. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edit on Lauder

Those were nice edits on Lauder you did the other day. There is much public information about the chairman's personal life available which is currently not covered in the Wikipedia article, though it is very well know due to its large press coverage. It should only be done properly by an experienced editor and maybe you could consider doing it properly before it is done improperly by someone else. This is a reasonable source and you'll see what I am referring to: [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManKnowsInfinity (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

William P. Lauder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

myfamilylaw.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.myfamilylaw.com

Thanks. It was just some basic cleanup.

I agree that he's the type of person that gets a large amount of press coverage, for various reasons. The article could certainly be improved.

From what I can make of myfamilylaw.com, it's a group forum and blog. I don't see how it could meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources in general, much less the stricter requirements for biographical information. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the well known Forbes article from 2010 which covers this material more thoroughly: [10]. It also appeared on huffington.post, and many newspapers though the Forbes is quite well written. If you don't feel the material is significant enough for the article, then I'll try to rethink its contents since it would be easy for other editors with less experience to express this type of material very poorly for the purposes of Wikipedia. Cheers. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Luckily those less experienced editors have to meet the criteria for BLP as we all do: If it's poorly sourced, it gets removed.

Thanks for the Forbes article. It's a bit gossipy, but could probably be used to a limited extent without much problem. My recommendation is to make a list of potential references of quality similar or better than Forbes, and see if we can get others to work from them. The Forbes article makes comparisons to other well known people who've been through similar situations. Perhaps there's coverage and discussion in the Wikipedia articles for those people that we can follow. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the Forbes article above, these would be the other two main reliable source articles for this topic: NYPost here; [11], and The Daily News here; [12]. Some added comments on William Lauder as part of the larger Lauder family at Town and Country magazine here: [13]. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia article creation

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#DMarket_dmarket.io.

I suggest you follow Wikipedia:Requested articles, following Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI in order to avoid any problems with your conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Anatoly Shariy

You placed an "advert" tag on the page. IMO it is a bit unfair. This person is quite notorious in Ukraine and Russia. For this reason it is extremely difficult to find really neutral sources about him. In Ukrainian official media he is thoroughly hated. As a result he is loved by "patriotic" Russia and hated by Russian opposition. Everywhere else nobody cares. Still, he is of note, having over million subscribers and billions of views. I don't see particularly promotional language in the page. At the same time I don't particularly care to write a decent article; searching really neutral sources will take quite some time. If you object to some specific language, please indicate; I will fix it. (Disclaimer: in a way I am not neutral for this topic: I dislike modern Ukrainian regime, which glorifies former Nazi collaborators and murderers of Polish population in WWII, therefore I am inclined to side with its critics.) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

All those YouTube links look like advertising. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

He is a videobloger. Youtube links are used as refs to youtube stats and for personal info. I see nothing promotional in them, rather they are primary sources from the article subject, But they are allowed for neutral personal info. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I've made a mistake, but it looks to me that the YouTube links are being used as primary sources for otherwise unsourced information, and added to promote the individual videos where there are sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes' like I said, wikipedia allows primary sources in bios for personal info. As for promotion, he has several thousand videos and most of them are over half-mil views usually accumulated in 2-3 days, so I guess views come mostly from subscribers. (I am not a subscriber, but I do watch him because of his comedy value. Sometimes I am tempted to use his videos as a ref for news elsewhere, but his overly and profusely ironic style of presentation does not make it a good encyclopedic source.) Also, most of them do not have lasting value, "heat of the day", so to say, so there is nothing "promotable" beyond his channel itself. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI: re:13:51 (cur | prev) . . (-215)‎ . . Ronz (talk | contribs) (per SOAP, BLP) -- (uncontested edit) Actually this is one most respected thing he is doing: he collects donations and then passes money to elderly people in the separatist Donbass region, where government stopped paying social security despite the fact all their life they worked for the country. The videos tell histories of ordinary elderly people who are no way separatists, but got caught victims amid political ambitions. At the same time I do agree this needs independent ref. I think I will spend some time to find such re, because, as I say, this is one thing Shariy deserves respect. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if I can help. --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Batteroo

Revert war. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I've already requested protection and started a discussion on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

And I filed AN3RR. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays

Hello

I saw a little while ago a source was removed from an article I was writing as famousbirthdays.com is not reliable – thank you first for this insight! I know famousbirthdays.com emails many of the people in its articles for their information, but I particularly know Jessica's birthday to be correct as she tweeted out on that day: https://twitter.com/jessbuttafuoco/status/714901688092659713

what would you recommend for to do – cite the tweet? Your help would be really appreciated.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Mastroddi (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Tanks for contacting me. It's better than nothing, and shouldn't be contested as long as no other sources question the information. See WP:BLPSELFPUB. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman - Conflict

Hi Ron,

I have stumbled upon a defaming bio and for some reason, everyone seems content to leave it as such. I have reached out to admin and haven't really found a resolution.

There's not enough info about the lady online to get sources beyond the basic and those that are published by her.

The best play is to probably delete her bio altogether. But, as a greenhorn, I don't know enough to get any real traction.

I'm proposing a more balanced view of her, right now, the tone is very biased and not neutral at all.

Seth Godin

• Seth Godin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Davykamanzi (talk · contribs)

Hi, I felt like the edits I made to the Seth Godin article were in a completely neutral tone (except maybe for the removal of the BLP sources tag, which I see now should probably remain) so kindly explain how this can be done in a more favourable manner (apart from the replacement of the primary sources). Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you understand my concerns:

You're editing a BLP under a coi.

The sourcing of the BLP is rather poor, and much of the content promotional.

Your single, large edit is difficult to review.

Thanks for the smaller, subsequent edits and the improvements that you made with them.

I'll review it in more detail later. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I looked at your first small edit [14]. That's a rather blatant COI violation from my perspective, and I consider myself less conservative than many other editors that work on COIN disputes. Haven't you run into problems with such edits before? Have you been asked to work from change proposals before? I think you should at this point. --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: As genuine business ventures of the subject I didn't see much of a problem adding that information to the section, without going into detail about the costs, contents, etc. of the two programs (which would then be blatant SOAP in my opinion). Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 04:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's take it to COIN then. --Ronz (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Will Weinbach Player Page

Ronz,

I did not create a page for advertising, publicity, or other purposes as you listed in your talk to me. I created a neutral facts-based page because I am a writer, MFA, by trade who created a bio for Will Weinbach because one did not exist and he is a nationally ranked high school tennis player that has gained notoriety, especially in my state, for interviewing A-list athletes at the age of 16. There is no reason not to publish this page. Not doing so is purely vindictive, as the article I wrote has no self-promotion and speaks only of facts of his business ventures and athletic accomplishments.

If you think it is not neutral, and facts-based, you have all the requisite links to verify the information. Not to mention, I even included his only tournament results, a loss in his first match. I also included his ranking information, including his 1-star (lowest) prospect rating.

No information was glossed over. Nothing negative was held back. I literally adhered to all the rules.

Don't punish this young kid by keeping his life from the world. He's done stuff people should know about. More importantly, your site, wikipedia, is dedicated to the consolidation of information. I took approximately 4-5 webpages worth of pure information and consolidated into one article for wikipedia. Literally, the point of your site.

Not publishing this article is a slap in the face to what your site stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCGimpy (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that editing with a conflict of interest requires great care.

As for the draft article you're working on, it would be best to find more and better sources before putting it up for review. Wikipedia:Articles for creation should guide you through the process, and I'm happy to help if you like. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yukon and Nunavut company registers undone

Hey Ronz,

Just wondering why the Yukon and Nunavut company registers are set to TBD on the page List_of_company_registers?

They definitely are both free to search which is why I set them to yes and provided a link as proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben25890 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've restored the info minus the links [15]. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

BLP added for my contributions on page Pradeep Chowbey

• Pradeep Chowbey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Ronz, As my contribution name suggests this is the first article where I have made contributions. I took it up as my learning to add and see how I can make my contributions legitimate. I in fact had a long trail of conversations with the Editors while trying to add Picture of Pradeep Chowbey. As i had someone very close treated by him and saw an opportunity to start with his profile to learn the process, it might still have given the impression of conflict of interest. I have made no attempt at glorifying him nor i have added anything which is not genuine. I intend to contribute more to his profile and take this as an opportunity to interact more with mentors like you to understand this challenging and interesting concept of wikipedia ahead.

Infact you can guide me as I find that the information in this article is very haphazard. I wish to create a better version of the same with proper subtitiles.

Thanks Myfirsts

Thanks for responding.

Just to let you know, but your editing makes it look like you could be Teem Advertising (talk · contribs). From what you've said above it's just a coincidence.

Editing a biography of living persons can be very difficult work. Given the subject matter, the poor sources overall, and the controversies over the safety of bypass surgeries; I want to minimize my involvement in the article. I can help you find others that might be able to assist you. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Tigerspike Wikipedia Page

Hi Ronz,

I understand Tigerspike has to comply with various policies on Wikipedia but it would appreciated if edits were not all of a sudden removed.

Tigerspike as a company has undergone some changes recently, and we would like that to be reflected on our Wikipedia page. It took quite a long time to ensure all the information about Tigerspike was put on Wikipedia in a coherent fashion and now the changes made by you cannot be reversed.

We have removed some promotional links, if there are any more specifically which need to be removed, please show us which ones they are instead of reverting back to our old and now out of date Wiki page.

Many Thanks, Tigerspike Next (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)The Next Team

(talk page stalker) Hi, I watch this page, and note that Ronz's changes to the page in question are fine. In fact I stopped reading after I read this bit "Their process focuses on blending technology with human expertise to deliver business value, fast. Their five underlying values: Transparency, Resilience, Problem-Solving, Energy and Curiosity, encompass what it means to work at the company." promotional guff like that does not belong here. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tigerspike Next,

Thanks for contacting me. I've already started a discussion on the article talk page here. I'm suggesting you make edit requests for the article so that everything will be properly reviewed. All the information you added is still available in the article history. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Jena Rose wikipedia

Hi, I'm trying to get the Jena Rose Wikipedia page completed, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to remove the error messages from the page (notability, citations, and conflict of interest - there isn't one). Can you provide insight on how to do this? Nobody has reviewed the page despite there being a message on the talk page saying you submitted to WikiProject: Musicians, but nothing has come from this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmvCS (talk • contribs) 14:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion about these concerns already at Talk:Jena_Rose.

I strongly suggest you take some time to get far more familiar with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines if you're going to continue to work on biographies.

Are you declaring your conflict of interest appropriately per WP:DISCLOSE? --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit to "Know Nothing"

Hi,

I was wondering as to under which guidelines my edit is classified as vandalism. I changed a link from a redirect to the page itself. I am a little confused, as I could not find anything that classified this as vandalism.

Thanks, Cran32 (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not what you did, and you aren't making a case for restoring the edit, so let's not waste time on categorization. "Practical joke" might be more descriptive, but however it's categorized, it's not appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Um, what? Cran32 (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

ACK! I'm really, really sorry. I have the John Oliver "Drumpf" Chrome add on installed on my computer, and it must have changed it when I pressed Show Preview. I swear I would never intentionally vandalized. Huge apologies, Cran32 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That explains it. I was wondering if somehow you didn't realize what had happened. Thanks for figuring it out. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Dead link

The link was working when I changed it from the dead one you prefer. I'm not a spammer, as anyone with any sense could tell almost instantly from an examination of my long contribution history and status as an administrator. DrKay (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

Any idea what the site was before it disappeared? --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I found one other link to it. I'm not seeing any spamming or cleanup of spam. Whatever it was, it's rather strange. Maybe a good faith attempt to create an archive by someone that didn't realize the resources needed?

Sorry again for the edit summary. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have amended my own comments. The link is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20170923151607/http://www.datasheets.tips/technology-and-applied-sciences/background-information-and-justification-for-reintroducing-the-maple-tapping-access-program-act-as-part-of-the-new-federal-stimulus-package/. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. I don't know why I couldn't find it searching archive.org myself. Obviously there's much more in archive.org than I'd been able to find.

Added to their site in May, so no short-term dead link strategy.

No meta info on where it's from, nor copyright info.

No ads, just links to other documents they'd copied.

It looks like the inclusion in Wikipedia triggered the archive.org archiving.

Still looks like copyright problems is why they're gone...

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That may be the only archived article. The main page and the first page of each category are there. Not much to work from at this point. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Cameron Moulene

Hi, thank you for your note, I appreciate your help. Is there any other problem with any links or anything more I could add to the page? Thanks. Gabi.labuschagne (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't have the time to review all the references when I removed the few. I'm not sure when I'll have time to look over them all, but will try. --Ronz (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicelebs

Ok, it's fine. If you are sure that is not a reliable source then I've no obiections. Sorry for the mistake Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

hi

[16]in regards to this edit.... this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing was posted and came across[17] which is why it was added to 'see also' of article in question...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw the comment. I didn't understand then and still don't. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Article - Harmless Harvest

Hi - I work with Harmless Harvest, and I've added the brand to the suggested articles page (since it would be a conflict of interest to draft it myself). I saw that you edited the coconut water page and thought you might be interested in drafting the Harmless Harvest page - please let me know what you think!

Sorry for the delay in responding. Use Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and be sure to have sources that meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria. Let me know when it's ready for review and I'll take a look at it for you. --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dialogues External Links

Hi Ron,

Thank you for leaving a message regarding the link(s) removal. We are unclear on why external links to a person's interview page are considered inappropriate. Isn't it similar to linking to IMDB profile for their film credits? Or is it because Dialogues is aggregating interviews as well?

We have no malicious intent and are only looking to increase the value of any given profile by providing additional perspective and background.

Thanks for your time.

Thanks for following up with me. Briefly:

Please review WP:COI.

Interviews in general tend to be poor sources of information.

A link to a list of interviews is simply too general.

I was also concerned about copyright violations. --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Cayenne

I completely agree: that stuff totally isn't reliable, but I thought I'd leave at least some of the old sources other editors have been using, I've already got rid of quite a few links. I plan to add info on cultivars and more references now, and then get rid of the last alternative name 'red pepper' (as it is unsourced and rather like saying an alternative name for a football is a 'round ball') Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. Let me know if I can help further. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your comments to Russellbesq

Hello. I got your message. I am confused about what you think I did. The only thing I can think of is that I provided links to some resources that happen to be located at my firm's website. However, those resources have been relied upon by the Obama Administration, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and many others. I did not cite to anything that is promotional. I have discussed this in the past with editors, and thought it was resolved. Please let me know. Thank you, and sorry that this is creating an issue. RB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.37.120 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Sorry - this was from Russellbesq

I should note too that the materials are all academic-type materials. (I actually use them in a class I teach on the subject.)

Thanks for the quick response. I'm responding on your talk page given the need for others to be involved. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Worth getting involved again?

Have all the usual suspects that made WP a grind all those years ago still around and being pandered to by their admins? Shot info (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shot info. Good to hear from you. I don't know if I can give a very useful answer. I try to ignore the drama, and don't know how widespread it is. Tribalism is certainly alive and well. "Good editors" is too often used as a screen of protection. COI has a long way to go yet. BullRangifer seems to be much more involved in major content disputes. Maybe he would have a better answer. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

On the positive side, FRINGE and MEDRS are being followed more closely, so it's much easier to resolve those types of disputes. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice. That's something positive at least. Yeah, it's been a while since I bothered here :-) Good to see you still active though. Shot info (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope you will find a way to return that suits you. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I dont like this

I dont like this how u thinknthat famous birthdays is not reliable why huh its very reliable millions stars are on there and it was my first search result and if u have a better idea tell me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WidgetFan1234 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page, with a source that you should use. --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! (on behalf of User:Mnnlaxer) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Ronz

I know it was partially an automated message, but I was considering taking your advice about moving to a different (non-fringe, non-sanctioned) area to contribute. I was wondering if U guys have a list of stuff that needs to be done, that maybe I could pick thru? It seems like it would be more effective than having to go out and look for things.

Also, I know U probably don't have time for this, but I was wondering if I could arbitrarily make U a kind of mentor, if I continue here? I would try not to abuse U. I have already followed many of the links that u suggested and would try to get most of my info on my own. But, as I don't know anyone here, it would be nice just to be able to ask a question once in a while (like is there a spell check on here?)(jking, I can see now that there is.) Thanks --Psylocyber (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to ask me questions, but I don't have the time to mentor. WP:ADOPT can help you find a mentor.

User:SuggestBot can be used to get editing suggestions. Wikiprojects are also a good way to find articles to work on with editors interested in the same topic areas.

I hope this helps. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

If I didnt mention it earlier, thank you for your words of welcome and introductory information last year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaisgreat (talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Following up

Hi Ronz, I apologize if I don't need to follow up here and on the other page, but I do want to make sure that you see that I am not ignoring your issue. So, please let me know if I should continue to write here as well as there - or just here. Thanks. RBRussellbesq (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)russellbesq

Thanks for the reminder. Your page would be best. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Jan David Winitz Page

Hi Ronz, I left a message on the Jan David Winitz talk page Talk:Jan_D._Winitz on October 11th about reviewing a citation to be added to the page. Have you had a chance to review this? There are a few other references that I think would add value to the page as well. Could you review the below content and additional references as well? Lastly, since you revised the text and citations on the page can the tags be removed from the page now? Thank you for your help with this,Rug Connoisseur (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Page content with added citations for review:

Winitz was born in 1955, New York City, the younger of two sons. His father, Dr. Milton Winitz, was a biochemist who worked for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). After graduating from high school in Palo Alto, CA, in 1973, he enrolled at the University of California (Berkeley). He obtained a Bachelor of Arts double degree in English and German language and literature in 1977 and a master's degree in Education in 1978, from the same school. Upon graduation, he became a high school English and German teacher at Sonoma Valley High School, Sonoma, CA. While teaching, he met his future wife, Christine, and together they pursued their mutual interest in antique Oriental rugs, buying and selling carpets privately. In 1980, Winitz abandoned his teaching career, creating Claremont Rug Company with Christine at its present location, and became president of the company, a title he continues to hold. Starting with an initial inventory of 40 rugs,[1] Winitz developed a following in Northern California as a keynote speaker at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in 1985. By the late-1980s, Winitz built the Claremont inventory to nearly 700 rugs, obtained in private transactions, employing a network of buyer/collectors who sought rugs globally. Currently, its inventory has grown to 3500 antique Persian and tribal rugs.

Sorry about that. I responded to what is on the talk page. If you're requesting further changes, please do so on the talk page.--Ronz (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

References

the famous people as a source

Hi,

 I am still surprised I added this reference as a source, as I also would not consider it a reliable one. Thank you for noticing! I'll pay better attention in the future.
 Best,
  Laura  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljdowning (talk • contribs) 08:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC) 

Spammer

Hi, Ronz. I noticed you rolled back most of the spammer Lrodrp11's edits. Thank you. I was just wondering, do you have Writ Keeper's mass rollback script? Use with caution, like he says, but for a case like this, it's marvellously convenient. One click! (I have just used it for the few you had left.) Bishonen | talk 17:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC).

No. Thanks for letting me know about it. I seriously need to tool up. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Uploading the pictures

Hi Ronz,

Thank you for getting to me, I was actually trying to upload some pictures, but couldn't. They are pictures of diffusers as I was editing the article about aroma lamps. The pics of devices i wanted to upload didnt have any mark or trade sign.

[User:Valeryia2017|Valeryia2017]] (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi. I am not familiar with the site or how they obtain the information available on the site. therefore I can't give an objective opinion on the matter. --MR.HJH (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm not clear if you want to discuss it further. I have looked into it a bit and they seem to take user-submitted profiles and edit them to fit their format and style. The quality of the writing and content of their articles is extremely wide, suggesting they do very little. I believe that it's use as a source has been discussed at RSN a few other times besides the discussion that I linked for you, as well as in deletion discussions or the like. I've yet to find any favorable discussions for it. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Hipal. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 17:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into it a bit more. Arguing for independent sourcing isn't as difficult as it once was. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ronz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Cinema online

Hi Ronz. Further to your note on Avriliza's talk, what is your opinion about cinema.com.my as a source? Dr. K. 03:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You had to ask... I started looking at the sources and balked. Let me take a look... --Ronz (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Even the best of such movie sites are poor sources, and this doesn't look to be one of the best. I can't find any obvious discussions about its reliability in the few hundred uses in Wikipedia. Probably not reliable. I wouldn't use it. --Ronz (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for looking into that cinema source. I agree. To me, it looks even worse than IMDB. I will remove it. Btw, I just removed a ton of wordpress fluff. Dr. K. 03:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yoga

Another one of your anti-quack campaigns, Ronz?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how that description could apply. I spotted some very complicated edits that were hard to make sense of, and did my best to put some light on them. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Gino D'Acampo Date of Birth

I will try and locate a more reliable source. Rusty1111 : Talk 18:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Birthday source

I'll remember to find more reliable sources next time. Firezzasd (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my citing

hello Ronz I am new here so i might be wrong but i think that if i provide citation for a piece of text which needs citation, and whats in the text is the same info provided on the cite i provide and at times even deeper reasonig and logics then what part i am doing wrong that you have to revert them? Regards Para90

Hi Para90. Thanks for following up with me about this. The citations you have supplied are not reliable, and one was clearly not a citation at all. They've also been spammed by a number of ip's during the same time period. Please don't add them back, or any similar links. If you disagree, we can discuss it more, or we can get some assistance from others if you prefer. --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

hello Ronz

I do not do much with wikipedia, so I thank you for your response. I think you made a response a couple of days ago about Max Gerson (and a case that turned out poorly) but I cant seem to find it now. Your response seemed to indicate you were at least rational about this subject, so I thought I would try to appeal to you regarding being fair on this subject.

Right off the bat, most people with a stage 4 or stage 5 cancer are going to die. So, for somebody at that stage to go on a holistic diet (Gerson or somebody else) and to die is not a fair "sample". Is there a potential upside to the Gerson diet? Absolutely. I know of a person who is living more than three years after being given 12 months to live because of nutrition. He had a 2% chance of living today had he gone the conventional way. Doctors are astounded, but they also don't WANT to HEAR HIS STORY! You see the problem is that none of these success stories ever get off the ground. I know people who have been threatened for trying to get their story out. This is NOT heresy, it is first hand information. Another friend of mine went on a Reams diet about ten years ago. she had breast cancer. The doctors said that she had a 90% chance of living with chemo, and likely a masectomy, but she chose to go on a holistic diet (Reams method) and eliminated it completely. She has been cancer free without the downside of having to take chemo. By the way, this is not rocket science. What is so hard to believe that a certain intake of food, liquid and supplements can flush out cancer cells? WE generate new cells every day? this is basic science.

One of the problems with holistic diets is that you must make a lifelong change of eating habits. This is very difficult. Because what brings the cancer on to begin with, will often bring it back (unless you change the environment). so, yeah, maybe 97% of the people who go on a Gerson diet die and many of them because they do not have the discipline to stay on the diet. It is hard work.. for a lifetime. But those same 97% die the conventional way also. The few percent that make it (and STAY on a diet) might live while those going the conventional way usually die because it comes back.

I can tell you of other stories.

The big problem is those at wikipedia have simply given into the medical establishment mindset because they are "authority". This is just wrong. They have a vested interest. This is not to say they are bad people. It says that everybody that goes thru medical school will be indoctrinated with the mindset that nutrition is quackery. It is somewhat akin to living in the south during civil war times. How do you think most people in the South thought of slavery. Mindsets are extremely powerful.

All I ask is that you give this a fair shake. Personally, I think you have it backwards; you call the Gerson diet dangerous? taking chemo or radiation when there might be cures otherwise is dangerous.

But a compromise is that at least leave it so that "the jury is still out" There is certainly evidence to suggest that you cannot say with any kind of certainty that holistic is any more dangerous than conventional. Max Gerson was a genius. What about what he did for Albert Schwietzer? How can that be overlooked? Or are you going to say that was made up?

Please keep an open mind. One of your loved ones might have his/her life saved someday because of it.

thanks for listening.

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodKingJohn (talk • contribs) 13:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

While I don't want to be dismissive of your experiences and beliefs, we're here to build an encyclopedia. "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work."

In my opinion, an "open mind" is a start, not an end.

"The big problem is those at wikipedia have simply given into the medical establishment mindset because they are "authority". This is just wrong. They have a vested interest. This is not to say they are bad people. It says that everybody that goes thru medical school will be indoctrinated with the mindset that nutrition is quackery." I hope you have an open mind to other possibilities. Take a look at WP:MEDRS and evidence-based medicine. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Heja2017mexicomexican

Apologies - I was already pulling the trigger on this one and overwrote your final warning. Kuru (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the help. --Ronz (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Butkusmi

My name is Mike Butkus, in the days of 8 character login names I created butkusmi six character of the last name, first two letters of the first name.

You want me to use MButkus ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butkusmi (talk • contribs) 02:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You're username should be fine. I'm responding on your talk page to make sure others don't make the same mistake that I did regarding your username vs the link you have been adding. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Foam Pits Source Deletion

Hi Ronz,

I noticed that you'd recently made edits on a page of mine. I'm very keen to get this page live, but as far as sources go, there isn't much on the subject. As such, I'd like to request your assistance in finding sources which you feel are appropriate.

Many thanks Derrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerrickDiggler (talk • contribs) 09:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping you would discuss how you will manage your conflict of interest first. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Request.

HI Ronz, I need to ask you what type of source you want to know.Please listen to lecture of Shri Rajiv Dixit Ji .There he has said everything you need to know.Even in R D wiki page D P agrawal is seen with R D . — Preceding unsigned comment added by BK knowing (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliable, third party sources with historical context are ideal. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest - corydigital.com

Hi Ronz,

You left me a message about me being a conflict of interest on an article about content writing. I was just linking to a blog that is online about a topic relevant to that blog post to expand the knowledge of the user. I notice that you do not have pages or articles about On-Page SEO or Off-Page or Technical SEO. For that matter an up to date one. So me posting a very up to date article about the topic that the people who would be visiting that page would be interested in doesn't seem a conflict of interest.

I believe that this is a mistake and I am messaging for you to please re-post that link. I am also in the middle of writing content for Wikipedia to have set pages for On-Page SEO and the other factors of SEO for your selves. This was just the start of my journey.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes, Cory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corybeevers (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me. Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Hipal. AfC submissions Random submission ~7 weeks 1,452 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Ronz,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. I know you think your impressive number of edits are a "meaningless statistic", but your length of time being here is worth celebrating, yes?

Best regards, LovelyLillith (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Reason for revertion

Hello Ranz, I just saw the you've reverted my edit to clear the disambiguation on Naveen Jain. If you check the source, it clearly says, Bellevue-based BlueDot pays to license research that comes out of NASA and national laboratories within the Department of Energy, so, I think there is no doubt in that. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Good catch. I was concerned about where the Viome tech was from. I'll revert, then follow up to see what I can find. My impression is that Bluedot expanded their tech searches. --Ronz (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Viome tech is from Los Alamos, so we're good. Thanks again. --Ronz (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

TRIZ Page

Hi Ron, thanks I was unaware of the COI stuff. Is there anything I need to do? I would like to remove any references to me or Trizics from the TRIZ page and to remove the Wikipedia page Trizics completely. How do I do that? I appreciate your help,

Gordon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trizyin (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gordon. Thank you very much for responding.

As far as removing all references to you, I'm not clear what you mean. As far as your account goes, I'm not familiar with what options there are. Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing seems to cover the topic. If that doesn't cover what you're asking regarding your account, I'd recommend asking at WP:HELPDESK.

As far as what is in any Wikipedia articles or other content, it probably would be best to identify exactly what you want removed and clearly describe why you feel it would be best to have it removed. If you want something beyond just a regular removal of content, I again recommend asking at WP:HELPDESK with specifics.

If you want to try to clarify what you're seeking with me further, I'll do my best to help. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing dICO References

Hi Ronz, I'm new to wikipedia. I manage some of the written content for KomodoPlatform.com We received multiple requests from community members to correct the record, as several of our community's innovations are being claimed by other groups. That includes information regarding dICOs. You mentioned in your reason for deleting the edits that I would have a conflict of interest, which I think might be correct. I'm new to all of this, so I didn't realize how things are done around here. Would it be acceptable if another member of our community came and re-posted the material? It would probably be exactly the same, as there was nothing in there that I would consider inaccurate.

Hi Siddhartha-Komodo. Thanks for following up with me.

No, it would not be acceptable to have others make the edits for you.

Please use article talk pages to propose changes so they can be reviewed by others. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, thank you for following up with me.

I don't understand how this specifically works, nor who specifically would be in charge of making final decisions. Still new to Wikipedia. Is the case that I would post proposed changes on the talk page, and then someone (who?) would make the final decision on what's most relevant? We have a lot of non-paid people in this community who would like to have their work honestly and fairly represented. -- Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, if you're going to remove references from atomic swaps regarding Komodo, then you should also remove references to any other project.

What is there now is both inaccurate, and was likely posted by someone with a coi anyway. -- 63.140.105.216 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

See the article talk page.--Ronz (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ron, I left feedback on the talk page. --Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Responded to your response there. Sorry for posting here and there. I'm not sure how notifications are formed in Wikipedia. Still new to all of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddhartha-Komodo (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I thank you for your hard work in supporting wikipedia. I don't know you personally, but from what I can tell it appears that you are simply working hard to create a genuine library. That is a noble cause.

Regarding atomic swaps, the place where we've left things is not acceptable. It is both inaccurate, and it is damaging to our business as Wikipedia is one of the first five google results for atomic swaps, and thousands of people are searching for atomic swaps right now, for investment purposes. Furthermore, the Cryptocurrency Task Force to whom you reached out for support is full of people with conflicts of interest. Some of the members are on the Factom and Gridcoin project, and all of them will probably have bought Bitcoin in its infancy. Atomic swaps remove the need for Bitcoin as an intermediary source, and therefore Bitcoin's value will likely drop as atomic swaps enter public awareness. As a protector of my community (and we number well into the tens of thousands), I cannot rely solely on the Cryptocurrency Task Force to be an arbiter of historical accuracy in this regard. What I suggest is that you simply remove anything at the end regarding any specific project. The information that is there now is verifiably false, and appears to have been put in place by our competitors. I will leave the other page, Initial Coin Offering, alone for now. But the advent of decentralized ICOs, which we invented, are a game changer. The Forbes (i.e. a non-cryptocurrency news resource) article specifically references this. You can bring that Forbes article back into the discussion if you wish. It does not mention Komodo by name, and you can leave that part out for now. However, you should also then remove the obvious advertisements for Ethereum in that page. (i.e. the lines about Ethereum's ICOs etc.) I look forward to your response. Thank you. --Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If you would point out specific problems with the article on it's talk page, I'll try to address them.

The Cryptocurrency Task Force is no arbiter, just a group with expertise in the area that I thought would respond quickly. Since they have not, let's find other ways forward.

My suggestion is to get some good discussion going on the article talk pages (specific proposals, clearly identified possible references, etc), so we have more to work from.

I left you a detailed welcome message on your own talk page so you could have a better idea of how Wikipedia works, and to give you an idea of what other options we have.

As for many other editors possibly having conflicts of interest: Yes, it's obviously a problem that's difficult to manage when there's such hype and financial speculation going on in the industry.

On a side note, do you have any thoughts about Airdrop (cryptocurrency)? --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to look into this. I will leave notes on all three pages (atomic swap, initial coin offering, airdrop). --Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Feedback provided on all three pages. --Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ron, it's been several days since this began, and the situation is still not resolved. Would you like to be involved with the resolution? If so, if you can please make it a priority, I would greatly appreciate it. --Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Looks like no one has responded anywhere. That's disappointing. All I want to do at this time is get some experienced editors to help. I've tried with WikiProject Numismatics this time, which is more active than the Cryptocurrency task force. I'm not sure what else to try. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Would simply removing references to any project on the Atomic Swap page be a satisfactory temporary solution? That would at least remove the false-advertising that is there now. --Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. You may also want to remove the next sentence (the one that mentions Decred, Komodo, and BitcoinAtom). It doesn't make any sense, it appears to be put there by someone from the decred team looking to advertise, and it's just going to cause further issues. A page that simply states what an atomic swap is by definition and nothing more is probably most appropriate for the time-being. Thank you for working on this and bringing your Wikipedia experience to the issue. --63.140.105.216 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

rv my edits on atomic swap

How is filling out references (probably admitedly badly) a coi when the guy adding komodo things with komodo in his name isn't? --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 17:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're referring to. Let me see if I can figure it out. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit summary is a bit confusing. I reverted Siddhartha-Komodo's edits, along with your edits to fill in the references in those edits. I will run Reflinks again. Thanks for catching this. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi neko-chan. You may be interested to read my comments above. I am new to Wikipedia and am just trying to figure things out. We have a lot of volunteer people in our community who would simply like to have their work honestly and fairly represented. I am on payroll with Komodo, so apparently that would be a coi, and I support Ronz in removing the edits until we can sort this all out. -- Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Herobust page

The beginning paragraph on the herobust wiki is copied directly from the herobust official website. If I add that as a source, do I need to source every sentence too? -- IamJstncrdble (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi IamJstncrdble. Thanks for following up with me.

You shouldn't be copying directly from anything, and should always identify the sources you use. His official website might be used with care following WP:BLPSELFPUB, but you'll need to find far better sources to prevent the article from being deleted outright. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have cited much of the info on that paragraph, I also cited the management info. What else needs to be done to prevent the page from being deleted? I've been working on it for the past 3 days. (will site the discography later) --IamJstncrdble (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC) IamJstncrdble (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look, and respond on the talk page for the article. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Contributor

Dear Ronz! Thank you for the information you sent me on my talkpage and thank you for your extreme attention to my contributions. No doubt, you are so careful towards to others new BLP contributors. I really appreciate your long-term hard work. I applied to Help Desk and will continue to consult and ask for Help. It would be an honor for me to get Your Help and advices in future. Best regards, --Lidiia Kondratieva(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to get you some help with your editing. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Herobust page again

I didn't see any responses on the herobust talk page so I thought I'd leave another message here just so I know what to do to prevent the page from deletion. IamJstncrdble (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I answered your questions in the talk page. Hope that clears things up. --IamJstncrdble (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Hello, Ronz! I didn't understand what did you mean here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greg_Fischbach&diff=prev&oldid=821621165 . Could you please explain it in some other words? Thank You beforehand. Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC) + And are there the same strong requirements for soursces where from I want to verify only date of birth? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Greg_Fischbach&diff=prev&oldid=821620678 ) Thank You! Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page concerning the notability concerns. I did some further searches and didn't find anything, so perhaps it's nothing.

There are always strong requirements for sources when it comes to biographical information about living people. Mylife.com is not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

K12

I don't know if I walked on you with my edit on K12. Rhadow (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. I started some work, then realized I didn't have time to do much, so I just reverted and left the first round of trimming to you. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

K12 (company) is now admin protected. It doesn't get much interest, but for one SPA, who I suspect of having a COI. Please put Talk:K12 (company) on your watchlist. I trust you to be a reasonable voice in edit discussions. Rhadow (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

SOAP?

Hi, Ronz! Here I just mentioned about direction of the singer's activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Olivia_Hime&diff=822151196&oldid=822151014 Could you please provide me more information that it's really "SOAP"? Thanks Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. WP:SOAP, the use of Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia articles should be written from a historical perspective. Highlighting recent touring like that is simply showcasing their tour. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Mindfulness at work

Dear Ronz Sorry you feel there is a conflict of interest in the text I contributed to Wikipedia. I was in a hurry with first set of amends, so i can see why you came to the conclusion you did. I have uploaded more content which i have ensured is adequately cited and verifable.

I act as an expert advisor to the UK government on mindfulness at work. I do not feel that what I have most recently posted presents a conflict. Please could you review and reinstate? Mindfulness in a workplace context has grown and expanded in recent years and content on this is lacking on wikipedia.

Thanks for your consideration

Kind regards ~~mindfulnessatwork~~

Thanks for following up with me.

What you describe is a conflict of interest.

Please discuss and make proposals on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Mention of you on my talk page

Just to let you know, you were mentioned on my talk page. Also probably lots of other places, possibly too many to count :) MPS1992 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Why does this remind me of Whac-A-Mole? --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

SealFAQs and William Calmes Buck

Just to clarify a few things: Although my website, SealFAQs, does include a blog, the website contains a substantial amount of technical information about end face mechanical seals, including a section on the history of end face mechanical seals. It is a worthy source for information about end face mechanical seals. Hard to believe that you deleted the link to SealFAQs but kept the link to a commercial site. Take a closer look at SealFAQs.

Just because William Calmes Buck was my 3G grandfather does not mean that I cannot write objectively about this notable man.

I'm not sure where to reply to your question about the link to a commercial site. In SealFAQs, under the Reference section, the first entry is * What is a Pump Seal? This links to http://www.pumpseals.net/ who are manufacturers and distributors of pump seals. The site includes an option to purchase a seal.

I'm retired now and seals are just a hobby. I get no income from SealFAQs.

I'll copy and paste this response elsewhere to be sure that you see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonsbuck (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Gordon (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• End face mechanical seal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs lots of work, and you're correct the link is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Adopt - a User Project - apologies

Hello - I must apologise for having just had to edit one of your archived talk page - not normally something I would ever do. However, you had a very old "Adopt offer" template present in one of them which was skewing the Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. I'm trying to get this scheme more operational again, and need to delete around 70 old templates lurking in the forgotten userpages bits of the Wiki. Out of interest, did you ever take up the adoption offer? How did it work out for you? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The template you removed (not a problem), was made in jest.

As for the real attempts, I can't imagine it going much worse that it did. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Undue "weight"

It's always a pleasure to work with a reasonable editor, even if we may sometimes disagree over what constitutes undue "weight" (and height). Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nicole Eggert & Scott Baio refrences

Thanks for your note for stating that the reference at above 2 pages from popculturefan.com was not reliable. However, I was not the one that used that source, another editor did. However, I did use this source https://theblast.com/nicole-eggert-scott-baio-minor-charles-charge/ which I noticed it has been removed as well. Please note that first of I don't care what reference is being used because this news has been covered in multiple news organizations, but the reason I used this particular one is because it is the only source that contains the full video interview with Nicole Eggert from 2013 stating the sexual molestation. Since the most important part of the reference is not in writing, then it cannot be considered unreliable. You can see the video and then decide. I do not want to bring the reference back myself and be accused of vandalism, so please bring it back. I like to add that actually the whole section on Nicole Eggert page has been removed by another editor and I do not know why! I think the page is under protection, so maybe a higher up editor needs to add or approve it. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. This should be discussed on the article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking for some help

Hey Ronz. You are the first person to leave me a message about my submissions. Which I'll get to editing as soon as I get some time. But I was wondering since you've taken an interest if you'd be willing to help me out going forward with maybe some proof reading, and giving tips or advice? I currently have a very specific issue that I've created a section for on my user page. Maybe you have some input on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopCultureSuperHero (talk • contribs) 02:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure. --Ronz (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Awards

Awards from XBIZ, AEBN, NightMoves, Exxxotica, Penthouse, and High Society each have their own Wikipedia article in addition to several of them, 11 other awards, from these same sources are already on this article and elsewhere. Demonstrating that they are not significant is an uphill endeavour. 156.194.53.205 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm copying your comment to the article talk page and responding there. --Ronz (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz. 156.194.53.205 (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Ronz, Thank you for letting me know that famousbirthdays.com is an unreliable source. I was unaware of that consensus and I can see how this is an unreliable source now. Thank you for linking me to the notice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information

I've searched a little harder for sources regarding this person's birth year. Thank you for your feed back, I will get onto fixing that source ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonton 5722 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi.

This is Ramesty. I was just wondering, on my Abdallah Smash article (draft) what was wrong with the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.23.219 (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Besides what's in the discussion I linked, or does it need further clarification? --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, what have they been know for that makes them un-trust worthy? 69.18.241.212 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The question should be: What have they done to demonstrate they independently fact-check their articles, and have they established a reputation as a reliable publisher? --Ronz (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Before we continue this conversation, something I did not notice is that you left me a message in my talk page, so let me read it first. Ramesty (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That explains a lot. Sorry. I was assuming you had read it. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Demetrice Nguyen

Hello, I was thanking you for letting me know about the reliable sources. I had a quick question. How does the page look so far? Is it acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Original Know It All (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.

As far as getting the article accepted in any form, it's best to focus on finding references that demonstrate his notability (WP:BIO criteria). I don't see any references currently in the article that meet such criteria, and I'm unable to find any with quick searches.

Once you have notability met, the article needs to focus on his past more, with little if any mention of upcoming events in his life. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits for pain control reversed

I believe the edits made to the pain control section regarding use of acetaminophen with ibuprofen are an informative addition to the entry. 1. It's cited from a randomized control trial from a reliable journal. 2. The section on moderate to severe pain only lists narcotics and opioids. Interested individuals that read the wikipedia entry on pain control should be aware those are not the only options available.

If the information which was posted is not relevant to the section I edited, perhaps you can suggest another section it could be entered.

Appreciate your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elasticknowledge (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this.

Did you look over WP:MEDRS yet? My concern it is a single, recent study. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

sources

Hi, Ronz! No advices from you for so long... I am concerned if everything is good with my contributions? Thank you for your prior help! Today, editing an article I doubted if the sources are reliable, so I decided to ask you if you don't mind.

first source seems to provide an accurate info: http://realbiographies.cf/people/ava-acres-actress.html

second one looks like some news: http://frostsnow.com/ava-acres

Thank you beforehand! Together we will make Wikipedia better! Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I've not looked at any of your edits in a long time. I'm hoping that other editors can help you.

I'm happy to look over articles or references when I have time.

Frostsnow is unreliable: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_219#Jessica_Yellin's_biography_/_personal_information_source:_FrostSnow.com. It looks like a group blog of some sort.

Realbiographies.cf is much worse and should not be used. --Ronz (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, thank you very much! :) Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, is it not a news site? http://frostsnow.com/trump-calls-oprah-winfrey-insecure-twitter They publish information not only about celebrities. How did you realize it's not a RS? Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I linked a WP:RSN discussion about it above. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Jared Taylors case against Twitter

Hi Ronz, further to your recent edit, I have raised the issue of whether or not to include details of Taylor's case against Twitter in the Talk page. Please feel free to add your opinion Jono1011 (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

I apologise if anything I did wrong. Thanks for your contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Net800 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Your message on Dynamic Applications

Dear Ronz,

first of all, thank you for your message informing me about the Conflict of Interest Policy. To be honest, i am not sure whether i have done something wrong or not. For example, i have edited a page about System Dynamics Archetypes here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_archetype

and i have added a picture there that i have found on German Wikipedia and found very relevant. And so, i have created the english version and also i have added the colouring (green/orange/red). I have also created a slide about this for Dynamic Applications, that i am using here:

https://dynamic-applications.com/about/system-dynamics/

so i have removed any remarks of my own organization to comply with the Wikipedia rules at that point. I hope that was ok? - My question is: should i have / could i have added a quote to the original source (as listed above)?

The 2nd example i remember is that i have added Dynamic Applications to the following list (as far as i remember):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_system_dynamics_software

It seemed to me that this is relevant, because the idea of Dynamic Applications is that we try to create the most simplistic form of a System Dynamics software that there is, and we're deploying it through more than a thousand freeware pages around the globe. And so Dynamic Applications is maybe the most influential organization about System Dynamics from the number of users. Now you could find this relevant or not.

My question is, how should i have edited that page to describe or announce a change. I am not demanding by any means to be allowed to edit the page directly, however, some information about this is probably only known by me (in being the Inventor / Founder of that organization). So how can i create or start a discussion page about it? - that's what i have not understood.

The central values of Dynamic Applications are Transparency, Privacy protection, and Participation.

So your comment is very helpful to me as i have probably made a mistake (not intentional, and i didn't know whom to ask). We have recently published detailed informations about the number of supporters of Dynamic Applications on the following page, to be in line with our own value system of Transparency (towards others), while protecting 3rd party customer information as good as possible. As you can see we estimate more than 125 000 downloads right now. From my perspective, it's probably more, but i am not 100% sure. It is almost impossible to count through 1100+ freeware pages and count all the download counters. If you have questions let me know, and i can provide proof.

https://dynamic-applications.com/downloads/hall-of-fame/

For the time being, i'd be a little more careful in mentioning Dynamic Applications on Wikipedia anymore. From my perspective though, we're facing the Innovator's dilemma here: the applications are eventually genius in theory, but most people seem not to be able to understand what it is. I have experienced this for a hundred times straight from 2016. People ask me on Twitter "hey you, what's that?" - "i've seen your page. what are you doing there, man?" - that's also why i wrote the F.A.Q. page on our website.

So this brought me to the thought that my work is probably of some relevance to the people, but i have to explain better what it is and how it works now, as a major effort and contribution. And so, if i have invented something new because i have seen some article on Wikipedia which was insufficient (last example: "Crowdfunding" - inserted a quote on Participative Teamworking) and i have solved that problem already, what should i do about it. In the given example, i see now that that was wrong, as there was a conflict of interest in myself (you could see that as self-promotion).

Finally, if i may dare to compare Wikipedia with Dynamic Applications, in my humble opinion the basic difference is that Wikipedia is displaying information so that people can learn by reading it. In contrast, Dynamic Applications are interactive. So they work much like an eLearning application (my central area of work as a Ph.D. for Fraunhofer Institute 2000-2004, so i have a little background there). And so, Dynamic Applications are more educational (education-creational) while Wikipedia is more like a book (education-display-tional). In using Dynamic Applications you train to think over time, so it creates a new level of conciousness. It is not new from the Wikipedia standpoint of course, as most of it was developed by Jay W. Forrester and the System Dynamics Team at MIT, but still a billion people or more on this planet will probably be no expert in it.

As Benjamin Franklin once said: tell me and i forget, teach me and i remember, involve me and i learn.

My final question is do you see it "allowed" or possible if other people would publish Dynamic Applications to prove certain aspects, like i did for example with Photovoltaic System (a self-contained system that explains the work of a PV System, including relevant aspects of Network Electricity Trading, and that also tries to be minimal in itself.)

For example, there seem to be simulations on the central "System Dynamics" page, that have probably been created through a competitor's software, or by a competing organization. There is a guy called John Sterman named as an author who seems to be working for MIT in Boston at that time. At Dynamic Applications, we have never taken any money from a public organization though, as i didn't find it justified to have the gouvernment charge other people to work even harder, just so that i can do funny experiments and inventions as people from all over the globe find them important. And so Dynamic Applications are financed by my own savings and the contributions (crowdfunding) of our followers, but we are not financed by public law of a certain state.

And that is because we are working from a higher ethical perspective as the "standard" scientist (that's how i see it, but of course you don't have to share my point of view). In being the founder, i am developing the organization from this point of view as a question of reliability and trustworthability. If we claim that we do Business Model Calculations, and then we develop Business Planners for every person on earth free of charge, how could i demand from any Gouvernment on Earth to fund our expenses? - as far as i have understood what i have created there so far, this is some kind of an NGO, that will naturally result in a global open gouvernment initiative in due time. However, as i am also a living person on earth, i have also went to the local "village hall" and got myself a trade legitimation for 20 Euro. So that i am not put in jail directly just because i am operating a NGO and pay no tax. This also explains why we got www.dynamic-applications.com and www.dynamic-applications.org and both of them resolve towards that same website.

And so the question i am asking is who should be allowed to publish Simulations on Wikipedia if not the people who are developing Dynamic Applications. Forgive me if you find this exaggerated, i am really wondering about and trying to understand how to do it correctly, and i am new here and i am sorry for raising the question and consuming your time, just at the moment i know no other Wikipedia author in my village. Sometimes i just think this may be relevant and so i posted before you send me that Conflict of Interest policy (please forgive me and don't ban articles just because i didn't know how to do it right... i am open to any advice how to do it better).

If you could give me any hint in that question (may the people post Dynamic Applications on Wikipedia?) - i could then explain that in our F.A.Q. and so we can both try to avoid future problems here. At the moment i am confused so i don't know what to write as i have not fully understood what makes information "true" or "wrong" (as it seems). From my perspective, an information is true if most people believe it is true. But everyone can create a new reality from today. So for example Albert Einstein quantified the relation between mass and energy and then he used pictures to describe his thoughts that were so impressive that a thousand other physicians have re-written and adapted their formula according to be in line with his theory. But it was never proven that the Theory of Relativity itself is true. It was merely a definition (the formula) and that was funded in a lot of Theorems as i see it, and those have not been proven up to today as they are Theorems.

A more simple example would be 1+1=2. Most people would probably see this as "true". But from the mathematical standpoint, it is merely a definition and the number theory then includes an order of digits 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. And then there is a definition that creates 10 from 9+1. And all these then create all other numbers and we have defined addition (defined what addition is in itself). And from all that, you can then conclude that 2+1=3 is certainly true from the logical perspective.

So 1+1=2 is not "true" from the mathematical perspective (it's a definition) and it is only true by "public vote" if we make a survey with people around the globe (that's what i think). And so the question is can i write about this on Wikipedia or not, as it certainly relates heavily with the concept of Dynamic Applications calculators (values and quantification in form of value targets). If not, i would rather stay away from any mathematical questions on Wikipedia, as my knowledge is inferior and so i may not write again.

Thank you so much!

Martin Bernhardt Founder

P.S. most of the time i speak of Dynamic Applications in the "we" form, as every person on earth is already allowed to publish their own works in Dynamic Applications. I am just writing the website as a consequence of the user feedback. The method is agile, so i just go a step and then i step on driven from the crowd or user feedback, as it occurs. The one problem that i can not solve is to determine the exact number of users of Dynamic Applications if we are gathering no data at all. So i am merely citing 3rd party information without knowing is it true or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate all the thought and time that has gone into your reply. I wont be able to respond in such detail and address all your comments, so you may want to use other venues to get help. I've left a detailed welcome message on your talk page that gives you many options for how to seek help.

You have a direct conflict of interest, so you need declare your conflict of interest and work from edit requests on article talk pages rather than editing articles.

There's no question that your edits to date have been problematic, even if you didn't have a conflict of interest.

I strongly advise that you spend more time learning about Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies, especially in how they relate to the purpose of Wikipedia and Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Birthday reliability

Thanks for the notice about birthdays. No need to respond.Eschoryii (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: Ethnicelebs.com as a source

That's fine, I didn't know you couldn't source them. I know the website does do research though, do you think the family trees linked to on the comment section of the Norman Reedus Ethnicelebs page could be directly sourced here instead? Theo (contribs) 01:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

I'm not sure what family tree websites are generally considered reliable. I recognize a few that unreliable, so I personally wouldn't waste my time checking them all. If you want to try, use the search capability at WP:RSN. If nothing else, you'll learn what editors are looking for with such references to determine their reliability. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The first one ([18]) needs you to be a member of the website, which I'm not, but it apparently has the records showing his paternal great-grandmother was born in Riesi, Province of Caltanissetta, Sicily. The other sources ([19], [20], [21], [22]) are to show other paternal ancestors, John Joseph Butare was born in Calabria, Italy, and Mary Baldassarre was born in Naples, Campania, Italy. Ancestry.com is a fine source. Theo (contribs) 01:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry.com has user submitted material, especially the family trees: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_189#Ancestry.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I see, feel free to add any of the above family records as a source to Norman Reedus page if you find them to be reliable. Calabria isn't very specific though, it would be useful to know where in Calabria, and if possible, where in Naples. Theo (contribs) 02:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I just want to thank you for advice about my editing. I appreciate it very much. Usually i didn't add any edits without references to the sources I took the information from and I am learning wikipedia rules and principles every day. But I will pay a huge attention to the sources I use from now forth for them to meet the wikipedia rules about Verifiability. Thank you once more. Lyupant (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. You can always search WP:RSN to help determine if there have been past discussions about a source, and ask at WP:RSN if you don't find anything or are unsure. Doing so would also help you learn what criteria other editors are looking for in sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you prefer more or less editorial content on Wikipedia?

Hi Ronz,

The word "unwarranted" which you removed from my edit implies that the proper amount of doubt that is warranted is known by you or any other.

Doubt is doubt, and whether or not it is warranted depends on many factors that are not possible to be summarized into a single sentence. The article stands just as strong without the judgment of others' doubt.

Universeman (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have much to say beyond what is in my edit summaries and my welcome on your talk page. It appears to me that you're trying to change articles under ArbCom enforcement to suit your personal viewpoints.

Let's take this to the article talk page, and please provide sources to support your edit proposals. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Katarina Rodriguez wiki

Hi Ron, thanks for the info. I'll take note not to use imdb and famousbirthdays.com as reliable sources for Draft:Katarina_Rodriguez. Shenalyn2018 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Notes on Bryan Dyson's article

Lidiia Kondratieva has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

Hi, Ronz! Your cookie as promised:) Thank you for participation in the stub. As I noticed you have some doubts about the year of birth. Can we use this site to draw full date of birth?

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Dyson,_Brian_G. Thanks beforehand, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubts. All I did was correct the mistake in the article.

Astro.com is generally not reliable.

I've looked for other sources, but didn't find any that we could use. I would expect there were profiles written about him in the 80s or 90s, but they may be difficult to find.

You've not addressed the RSN discussion, other than to remove one of the three poor sources. Do you not understand why all three are poor and inappropriate for the content they are being used to verify? --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, my dear teacher:) Thank you for reply. Yes, I think I undrestand and I'm happy you payed attention to my contributions.

Can we use this source to verify a birthdate? https://prabook.com/web/brian_g.dyson/44846 I've found some more RSs to fix the article.

Are all birthdates in BLP articles verified by reliable sources as the NY Times? Please explain why have you decided it's possible 1934 year of birth (not only 1935)? I've not addressed the RSN discussion as there you asked for other editor's opinion, not mine. Thanks, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Prabook is not a reliable source.

The only reliable sources we have simply give his age as of a certain date, allowing his birthday to be possibly one of two years. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the respond:) Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Dasha Taran wiki

Hi, thanks for sharing the info.

Bee Pollen

Dear Ronz,

I see you have reverted the bee pollen article to its previous state. The current state of the article misses some very general points. Moreover, all of the information from the latest edit was based on a number scientific researches from scholars from all around the globe who explored and tested bee pollen's properties. May I ask the reason for undoing what I have written. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atanas.angelov.12 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me. My concerns were that the rewrite violated Wikipedia's policies for advertising, promotion of fringe beliefs, and biomedical information.

I suggest you start a discussion in the article's talk page, pointing out the very best independent, reliable sources that you'd like to use. For any health-related claims, clearly demonstrate how the sources meet criteria for biomedical information as well.

Please disclose any conflicts of interest you have with the subject matter, so we can get such concerns put aside right away. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Problem With Editors

Hello, I feel like user “SamHolt6” is purposely adding violations to an article I created “DreamDoll” because I removed a problem that didn’t seem right, after that I woke up to 6 new violations the following day, I fixed every issue and was wondering can I have them removed. I feel like i’m being personally provoked and and if it is issues can you fix them for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmissvoodoo (talk • contribs) 04:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.

That many tags might be overkill, but I have to say the recent work on the article is very helpful. We should be able to trim back the tags shortly.

Please discuss this further on the article's talk page, so others can easily respond. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? Failure software

Hi Ronz, I received a message about conflict of interest with regard to some links I added. I'm curious as to why linking to the software or company referenced is a conflict of interest. In most cases, my company was the only one that wasn't linked. I'm a little confused on the policy, I suppose.

So could a third-party create these links?

I'm curious what the rationale is here.

Thanks,

Chuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck.smith.hbmprenscia (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please review WP:COI more carefully. If you still have questions, I'm happy to answer.

I've only reviewed one of the three articles you edited, Physics of failure. Please note what I did there. I plan on getting to the other two soon. --Ronz (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I did some cleanup for Design Review Based on Failure Mode. It certainly could use help from someone with your expertise. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

And I finally got to Failure mode and effects analysis. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The COI Policy - virtual research institutes for independent scientists

I added the names (without links or adjectives) to the two biggest virtual research institutes that exist (to my best knowledge; and made a note that I was connected to one of these institutes). The information about the biggest of them was however deleted despite the fact that I had no connection to it at the time of editing the article. It would not be feasible to employ the COI policy retroactively on all articles. The current sentence seems incomplete to me, to mention that such institutes exist without mentioning a single example. Thus, I suggest we include at least the name of the biggest institute (I cannot add it again myself though because I am affiliated with it since a few weeks back). Rmwillen (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rmwillen. I share your concerns about how the article stands at this moment. Do any virtual research institutes deserve any mention at all? You bring up the size of the institutes (without any references). What do the clearly independent, reliable sources actually say? My impression from the Nature article you added is that it would be best to focus on what scientists working for such organizations have produced, not the names of the organizations or their size. But that's just from a brief skim. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.

Please follow up on the article's talk page so that others can easily join the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

citations

Hi Ronz, thank you for your comments. To be fair, when I was creating new Wikipedia articles, I was referencing other existing Wikipedia articles with similar content such as Ebac and Elkay. In fact, the author of the respective pages were using third-party websites and even their own website (such as Ebac's case) as a source for its company history. Perhaps those citations should be removed on their pages? The problem is that there seems to be very inconsistent standards all around. I often look at the community portal to find new pages to be edited for grammar and formatting and very often I see plenty of approved articles without even proper sourcing.

Clarevoyance (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, both articles have problems, including coi-violating editing. --Ronz (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Usability Testing and Expert Review

Hi Ronz,

I was looking at the Usability testing page, and was surprised to see a section on Expert Review. This is a topic that I would expect to find on the Usability inspection page instead. If I'm reading the page history correctly, then it looks like your account may have been involved in adding that section? If so, I'd be interested to know, please, what you would think of moving it to the newer page.

Kivi Jkshapiro (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That addition was by an ip.

If Usability testing is supposed to be only about methods where users are involved, then I'd agree. However, it appears that "usability testing" might mean evaluation methods in general. What do the sources say? --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Starting out on Wikipedia

Hi Ronz, thanks for the advice; Yes, I have just started editing on the spanish section and I'm still not familiar with all this. I got no relationship with the topics I edited.

I just wanted to asked a question; How do I know if a commonly used source on the spanish Wikipedia will be or not accepted as reliable on the english section? like the newspaper Página 12. Thanks!

Agustin6 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have little experience with other language versions of Wikipedia, but my impression is that there are sometimes huge differences. WP:RSN is a good place to search for past discussions and ask questions. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert of Net Worth source and/or NW for BLP?

Hi Ronz, thanks for the info. While I have been a Wikipedia member for over a decade, I don't edit too often and am always looking to improve. Sounds like you are stating my source is unreliable (if so I can find another source, there seems to be a lot) but why rv and not just tag it as such? I searched the RSN page you refd and don't see celebritynetworth.com specifically noted, so am assuming it's the type of source (eg. celebrity gossip). Or...are you saying don't include Net Worth for some types of BLP? I also read the RS page refd for info on what types of BLP should include NW (eg. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett) but that isn't clear to me either, since NW is included in many BLP articles. I'm guessing it's some combo of the two (BLP and source). Pls confirm.Lance (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like celebritynetworth.com has been mentioned at RSN for years now, but there have been many discussions [23], this being one of the most recent and includes discussion of alternatives. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays

I just used it for information on her age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankanspelar (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP strictly requires reliable sources, and even has a section on birth dates. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable Source

Thanks for checking over my edits, after looking at the source again I realize that you are right. I will find a new source for the information that I found and change it accordingly. Cole Phinney (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad I could help. --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

An extended welcome

Very nice. Is that something you wrote, and is it a template or just text? Doug Weller talk 04:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I wrote it, influenced by some messages that I've seen from others. I've been meaning to get some feedback on it and look at possibly making it a template.

Suggestions very welcome. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Sam Chui

Ok do I needed to do any more improvements is the draft qualified for article? Vnk414 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is unimproved since the last review, so, yes, it needs to be improved.

I think it would be best if you put the article aside and spent more time learning Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson

I filed a request, see WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson#Intro_discussion Rwbest (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I responded there. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Native Strength mentioning of documentaries.

    The 1st episode of Native Strength was shown at a the 2017 Mocs & Docs Film Festival in The Bug Theatre in Denver, CO based on the reference given. This has been on Hypatia's wikipedia.org page for weeks. It got deleted. Yet, the Sundance Film Festival in Utah is recognized by Wikipedia, refer to 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Film_Festival . Sundance film festival films are mentioned on it's wikipedia.org web page.

   Fairfax Public Access has shown Native Strength per the reference https://www.fcac.org/schedule?channel=10&date=2018-04-09 based on this reference
given. According to Wikipedia.org's description of Fairfax Public Access, refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfax_Public_Access, is a "

a non-profit Public, educational, and government access (PEG) cable tv station based in Fairfax, Virginia". Yet, the Native Strength entry stating it has been shown there was deleted.

   Wikipedia.org's American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) page, refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company , has in it's "Daytime" section: 

"Daytime Main article: ABC Daytime ABC's daytime schedule currently features talk shows The View and The Chew, and the soap opera General Hospital,"

mentions current programming is mentioned.

  Both of the entries used viable sources and were not recognized. Yet, documentaries from a bigger film festival and current programming from a major TV network are considered acceptable. Not fair.

Please Respond

ProgressivelyAdding (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the comments I left on your talk page? --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ronz

Dear Roz

I apologise for using unreliable sources every now and then. I am not a full time editor on this website, so I didn't know it was as big of a deal as it is. But with all that said, was it really necessary to delete the rest of the information I added to Jason Marsden's page that didn't require any references? I'm just asking.

Please, let me know if I can help with any other errors I have committed.

Traptor12 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

The answer is already on your talk page, User_talk:Traptor12#January_2013, but to be clearer, WP:BLP states, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"

Simply, if you are if you are unsure if a source might be reliable, use article talk pages or WP:RSN rather than adding a questionable source. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Changes to UCW

Hi Ronz - thanks for your message. I noticed that edits to a UCW article I posted, a school I have a conflict of interest with (updated on my user profile) seemed to be focused with negativity rather than covering other interesting and newer updates that have been covered in the media. To that end I posted information about a more recent piece of activity with a First Nations leader, properly citing this media coverage. I saw that you considered this not to be relevant and thought to reach out to you to better understand why. Thanks again.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MenoPorsche (talk • contribs) 14:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for following up with me.

If you were following WP:COI we wouldn't be having this discussion here. Please declare your COI on all article talk pages where you'd like to see changes, and use edit requests on those talk pages.

Please review what I wrote in context of WP:NOT, use of Wikipedia for public relations campaign [24]. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

MenoPorsche, I have added you as a connected contributor to all the talk pages of the articles you have edited following your somewhat ambiguous COI declaration on your user page. However, if your employment includes editing Wikipedia articles on the GUS subsidiaries and on GUS itself, then you are a paid editor, not simply one with a "conflict of interest". If that is the case, you need to use the template {{Paid}} to make that explicit. In either case, given your seriously problematic past editing here, you should restrict yourself to making edit requests on the talk pages of the relevant articles and not edit the articles directly. Incidentally, I am in full agreement with Ronz's removal of the PR material you had added to UCW. Voceditenore (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Soapboxing and promotion

Hi, there. Thank you for sharing the soapboxing and promotion articles. I’m new to this and genuinely want to understand where I’m going wrong, so please bear with me if you could because I don’t want to be banned. I’m trying to flesh out the article about me with more detail and believed I was citing references with enough third party media sources. Was linking to other pages the problem? For example, if I produced a series for a network and both have Wikipedia pages, should I not link to them? If I create another draft in my Sandbox could I get your feedback specifically before I post? I really appreciate your help and want to get this right. Wilsoncleveland (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.

I'm concerned that you've rather blatantly violated the terms of your account being unblocked:

You were blocked in 2006 with the comment, all contribs have been adverts.

You successfully appealed the block in 2013 via an email request. I don't have access to your request, but it almost certainly communicated that you understood the policies related to promotion and that you would follow them carefully if your block was lifted.

My assumption then is that your continued use of Wikipedia for self-promotion violates the terms of your unblock request.

What am I missing? --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You're correct that I was blocked in 2006 for creating two articles for the same client that repurposed content and images from their website which was my only cited source. Obviously promotional and copyright violating. I didn't know any better at the time.

I don't recall what I communicated in my 2013 unblock request and would happily share it with you if I could locate it. I must have used the Unblock Ticket Request form because I can only find the response email: "Hello Wilsoncleveland! I have unblocked your account as I have deemed that the block is no longer necessary. King of Hearts English Wikipedia Administrator."

My understanding has been that I could contribute to articles I was connected to provided I wrote in a neutral tone and cited quality third party sources - which is exactly what I hadn't done in 2006 when I was blocked. I sincerely believed I was doing this the correct way. I've seen many in my peer group with links in their Filmography sections and I thought that's what you were supposed to do. At this point all I want to do is make a few minor factual and formatting edits then leave it alone. I just don't want to be banned. Wilsoncleveland (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

To address your concern, I'm not going to pursue having you banned at this point, unless something changes radically. I've not looked at your edits closely, and hope there's nothing worse than what I've seen the article about yourself.

Wikipedia's policies for editing with a conflict of interest have changed dramatically since your block was lifted, as has enforcement of policies related to conflicts of interest, biographical information, and promotional content.

A good step forward would be for you to disclose your conflict of interest on the talk pages of all the articles you've edited where it applies.

Also, please use edit requests for Wilson Cleveland, and consider using them for other articles and content where you have a similarly strong conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on unrealiable sources

Thanks for your recent comment about my post on Lauren Jackson. I was unaware of this section, and even after following the link I cannot work out how to check on whether an individual source is reliable in the future. I have been making great efforts to ensure that all my posts are appropriately referenced. I guess the common sense approach requires that if the source you use is an aggregation of facts, it must follow similar rules to wikipedia by linking to an original source. But I fear I may get caught again on this. Blue Moses (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not enough that sites link to original sources. When in doubt, check the source at WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Melanie Wright

I saw on my Facebook that Cole and Dylan Sprouse mother was listed as Melanie Wright, which comes up as a swimmer for Australia. However, her age is 31, while the boys age is 25, meaning, she must have given birth to them when she was 6? Is this correct? Can you please review both pages? I believe their mothers name is correct, however they linked the wrong person.NikkCartwright (talk)

I'll try to get to this within a week, hopefully much sooner. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

About my page, march 2018

Hello, Ronz! Thank you for message me about my page. I created this page. I created it on the basis of an interview with this person from articles on the Internet. But I was finally able to contact this person. and she said that a lot of information unfortunately is not really true. I'm trying to fix this as soon as possible. Don't cancel my fix on this page. half of the text was deleted due to the fact that so much wrong information on this page. Nedika (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

So you admit to having a conflict of interest and editing to it? I'm afraid you're going to be blocked if you continue like this. I gave the article a quick pass and tagged it for improvement. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We didn't have a conflict of interests. I spoke with this person and she will give me the right information. she wants me to keep on writing about her. Can I edit information or now it forbidden to me to do this?Nedika (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are here trying to change the contents to meet her interests.

If you can provide independent and reliable sources, you should be able to avoid problems. Avoid anything that could appear to be adding poorly sourced information or removing properly sourced information. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for answer. At the moment, the text that has the source is in this article. Now I will not add anything. Maybe I will add something later when there will be fresh sources and in the further I able to avoid problems.Nedika (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)