User talk:Ronz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not Admin.svg This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)





Contents

Walnuts thank you[edit]

Thank you for the encouragement to have this article revised. Sometimes these articles can sit as be without review and if someone does attempt a revision reverted in whole and labeled vandalism. My attempt was not meant as an absolute but rather than wait for someone else to go at it did a quick rework and left it for someone else to make the refinements that can include content removal.GinAndChronically (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for all the work on the article! --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ronz. You have new messages at Talk:United States Senate election in Maine, 2014.
Message added 17:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

331dot (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for info & tips[edit]

Hello Ronz - New to editing on Wikipedia and learning the ropes as I go. Thank you for the reminders and tips. --JessicaDMRF (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help.--Ronz (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

findagrave[edit]

Going through archives, I think I had seen you commenting about this link, consider checking WP:External links/Noticeboard#findagrave, Thanks. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 02:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Responded there. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying external links, spam, etc.[edit]

Hello Ronz,My Name is Kuldeep, and I'm regular reader and contributor of Wikipedia since long. I've Edited some links for the quality content of Wikipedia but i got a message that you removed link, [because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia.].

it'd be great if you can give provide me details for these links so that i can keep it in mind from next time.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuldeepofficial (talkcontribs) 06:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

All the links appear to have been added in an attempt to draw traffic to the sites. The relevant policies/guidelines include WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, WP:EL, WP:SPAM.
You're a regular contributor? Were you using a different account in the past, or just editing without logging in? --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Omez[edit]

I see you've been helping with restoring the Omez redirect to Omeprazole in line with other proprietary forms of this drug. Do you think the page should be Semiprotected -- and if so -- can you help do this. I've struggled with the unclear instructions!Jrfw51 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think such protection is called for at this time. So far it's just been two WP:SPA editors. If ip's or other new accounts join in, then semi-protection would be helpful. If either of the two continue, then they would be facing a block fairly quickly.
What about the instructions is confusing? I've done it so often that I don't pay attention. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Linkfarm[edit]

Thanks for your contributions.

I like to clear linkfarm and whenever I had any doubt about the links, I would simply add them to my list. Check User:OccultZone/Linkfarm, it may be hard but you can surely help. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

No Spam Barnstar Hires.png The No Spam Barnstar
Thank you for being so vigilant about spam, linkfarms and the myriad of related problems plaguing articles! The work you do too often gets overlooked, but we do notice. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Glad to have helped. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Threats[edit]

LOL, wtf is the threat? You've been editing since 2006, presumably you know the rules. 3RR and all that. Blanking an entire article like that, a longstanding one without controversy, during an AFD, is bad form. I'm normally quite well-composed, but get upset by uncivil behavior like that.--Milowenthasspoken 19:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It got some substantial discussion going, which is what is needed. I'd already said I didn't want to take the route of actually enforcing WP:BLP to that extent while the AfD was open, but it seems other editors would rather WP:IDHT than collaborate.
I appreciate your comments on the article talk page. How about removing the threat [1] and focusing on the content/policy-related discussion? --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: List of Playboy Playmates of 2014[edit]

Hi Ronz. You may not remember me (until a few hours ago I could not have recalled the [on WP:AN/I] where we had crossed paths), but a few Wikipedians asked me to intervene in the dispute at this page.

First, let me say I've looked over our record in the two years since our last meeting, & you clearly are not the person I encountered then. It's clear you have taken on some difficult issues & handled them -- better than I would have. You are clearly an asset to Wikipedia.

However, in this incident it's clear you & a number of other editors have greatly different opinions about this article, & I don't see where a compromise can be found. You took this article to AfD, & the result was a keep. Your further attempts to work on it are only causing frustration on both parts. My suggestion -- one I vigorously suggest, but I'm still leaving the choice to you -- is to walk away from this group of articles & let them be. A few unsatisfactory articles will not destroy Wikipedia, so there is no harm walking away from them. According to the front page there are over 4.5 million articles, so there is no lack of other articles that could stand improvement from your attention. Do that, & in the long run I think you'll do better at Wikipedia than sticking it out at List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 & dealing with the consequences. -- llywrch (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated all.
I'll give it careful consideration, and in the meantime start with a month away from the articles. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The related external links problems[edit]

For anyone paying attention, I realize that my starting this discussion in conjunction with [2] [3] might be seen as cutting it too close to what I agreed to above. Let me know what you think. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • More than too close.--Milowenthasspoken 13:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for the response. Could you elaborate so I could understand where you think I should draw the line? --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To elaborate, if you have a question about whether its too close, its probably too close. Here, any involvement with the same article, or playmates generally for that matter, will be used against you. Its only likely to draw you back into the same stuff, with the same editors, and very unlikely to be productive!--Milowenthasspoken 17:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Very good points. Thanks.
My concern was with the warning to him, and I'll definitely draw the line at any further such warnings.
Hopefully, that will be the last time it anything remotely close even comes up. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

AN/I notice over your editing behavior[edit]

Semir Osmanagich -bibliography[edit]

Finaly I found the way how to communicate with you about the editing on Semir Osmanagich. you wrote:"we don't provide a directory of his writings but rather highlight those related to his notability or are otherwise prominent".

How do you know which books are related to his notability and are prominent

if you don't know even language in which they are written, like German, Turkish, Croatian..

I see wrong information for ex. in this line below:

  • Sam Osmanagich, " Alternative history - traces of Atlantis "- Indrija, Zagreb (385/1-370-7688)

right spelled this line is below and you can check it here

"Alternativna povijest - tragovima Atlantide" – Indrija, Zagreb (385/1-370-7688) ili Sveznadar (www.sveznadar.hr)(language:Croatian)

(by chance I was born in Zagreb and could read and understand this line)and see that it is the same ISBN.)

Old line in English is misleading readers who don't know..and trust that Wikipedia provide right information.

Why someone from Germany could not find information that there is Osmanagich's book written in German language,

or Turkish person to know that there is in Turkish language.

Can we give just ,facts, right information to readers?

..without much personal judging (as there is so here in this article,generally, as I feel.)--Indija (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Indija! Sorry you had such difficulties contacting me.
It would be better to discuss this on the article talk page so others can easily see and contribute to the discussion.
I was using "notability" to refer to Wikipedia's Notability policies, specifically WP:BIO in this case. Osmanagić is notable for his claims of there being pyramids in Bosnia, and his efforts to promote these claims.
By "prominent" I was referring to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, specifically WP:WEIGHT. Usually prominence is determined by the amount of coverage a topic receives from independent sources. For instance, a number of sources have mentioned Osmanagić's book The World of the Maya, and claims in that book.
From what you've written, I'm not clear what information is wrong, nor do I understand what the numbers are. This would be best brought to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

what is this Ronz?[edit]

I hope that this 2 links below my talk on your User talk are not from you

.. they are without signature..and appear after my talk

and they are non-related to my talk ..what is this?..spam? --Indija (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The links below are references mentioned in previous discussions, similar to the references you see on an article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

regarding my edits on head/tail breaks wiki[edit]

Hi Ronz

Thanks for your comments. I am Digmaa. I don't want to promote anything, just putting a link which directs to Github respiratory which stores the implementation of head/tail breaks theory and this is approved by Binjiangwiki who created this page. This time I put the link in External Link section, hopefully it is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmaa (talkcontribs) 08:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. Unfortunately, such links are generally not appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Semir Osmanagich[edit]

Reference nr 11 is dead link. I don't understand why an old version of this site cannot be edited?--Indija (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a dead link. You want to edit something? I don't understand what you are referring to. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Semir Osmanagich[edit]

Thank you,Ronz,for kind answer. I am new on Wikipedia and it takes little time in my orientation where and how to ask and answer.I go to site discussion.--Indija (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Osmanagic[edit]

I was going to warn Indija about edit-warring, but that's a bit tricky as you are at 3RR - permissible of course but it would look odd to a newbie. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get some discussion going. I think we've a language problem on top of whatever concerns the editor has. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nofel Izz[edit]

Hi Ronz. I saw your question about Nofel Izz on Johnmoor's talk page. I'm aware that one editor was recently hired by Nofel, and looking at who has been editing that article, I'd guess that at least four editors were hired. I'll go through it later today and see what I can clarify - I have a lot of teaching commitments, but once I knock them off I may have a bit of time. I had warned some of the editors about the new disclosure requirements, so that may require following up, unfortunately. - Bilby (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just quickly, I can confirm that Nofel Izz recently hired four Wikipedia editors. I had suspected a fifth, but at this stage I have to assume not. I'll handle the warnings and remind them that they need to disclose their relationship with the client. - Bilby (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
To update, there's a fifth very likely paid editor (definitely a paid editor, was recently hired, but I can't definitely confirm it was by Nofel). That one I'll block as a sock of a banned editor. The final editor does do paid work, but I have no evidence that they were hired. Normally a maximum of 3-4 get hired - this is the first time I've seen 5 or 6, but I gather Nofel Izz understands WP well enough to play hard. - Bilby (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to share what evidence you have before they try to hide it all? --Ronz (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, making it publicly available would involve outing, so I can't share the evidence. However, all six editors (I've confirmed the 6th now) were hired by the same client. Nofel hired BiH, Renzoy16, Anupam, Inlandmamba/InlandmambaPLU, Johnmoor and Anishwiki12. I had been intending to block Anishwiki12 anyway, as a sock of banned editor Kavdiaravish, so I've taken care of that now.
It is frustrating to see that many editors hired to skew an article. - Bilby (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
If Johnmoor is one, he's not been hiding his identity (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Editor_Johnmoor). He has tried to hide the fact that he's a paid editor though. If he's back as a paid editor, he should be blocked. If he's back to his old editing habits, I think there's a good case for blocking him regardless. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll revisit Johnmoor in the morning - I'm curious as to how he will respond. I've got a couple more ducks to line up before I handle the last two in the list, anyway. - Bilby (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Bilby, Your suspicion or conviction about me being a paid editor has been on for years already.
Ronz, I wonder how you would use your administrator privileges if you ever become one.
Thank you.—JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Psychedelic drug advocates[edit]

Thanks for removing those additions from so many articles. This is probably the third or fourth time this editor or a sock has done this. And tucked in amongst all the bogus claims are one or two legitimate ones. Makes me crazy. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help! --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Conflict of Interest[edit]

You are correct that skyhooks are a subject I am very familiar with. I have also been working very hard at being as neutral as possible in what I write on the subject. If there is something that I have written that appears biased please point out the specific statement or passage that concerns you and I will do my best to address it. Thank you for your time and your comments Skyhook1 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I wanted to be sure that you were aware of the policy and let other editors know that you've been made aware. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

RE Brahma Kumaris article[edit]

Hi Ronz, I was a bit disappointed to see your comment, coming from such an experienced editor....I'm not sure if you know the history of this page, but it basically gets regular ambushing from WP:SPA accounts on both sides. While it's not really our problem except when it gets so lame it starts to discredit Wikipedia (and I agree with you the article needs work), I thought to check if you had read the edit comments from the person you are encouraging? So far they have just deleted lots of RS - material from other encyclopaedia's without legitimate explanation. If it's so obvious to everyone that it's advertising, why is no one able to specify the offending text rather than just launching a chainsaw operation.

It's also this editors first edits on Wikipedia, yet they are clearly not a first timer, which begs the question why they aren't using their previous editing account/s....anyways, hope you don't mind me saying. Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I was only commenting on the state of the article. Sorry if I made it sound like I had reviewed and was encouraging his edits. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding CoQ10 wiki page - inclusion of ubiquinol[edit]

Dear RonZ:

Thank you for taking the time to send me a line on some recent edit(s) on the CoQ10 page. I have chosen to factually include the information that ubiquinol is part of the CoQ10 family. As you know, CoQ10 is comprised of ubiquinone, ubiquinol, and partially reduced form (ubisemiquinone). Ubiquinol is a member of the CoQ10 family just like Texas is a state of the USA. Let me give you an examples of the text that you removed on the basis of "soapboxing", which hinders the reader's basic understanding of CoQ10:

Example 1 Your text: Coenzyme Q10, also known as ubiquinone, ubidecarenone, coenzyme Q...

My text (which you removed): Coenzyme Q10, also known as ubiquinone, ubiquinol (unoxidized form), ubidecarenone, coenzyme Q...

Example 2 Your text: In its reduced form, the CoQ10 molecule holds electrons rather loosely, so this CoQ molecule will quite easily give up one or both electrons and, thus, act as an antioxidant.

My text (which you removed): In its reduced form ubiquinol, the CoQ10 molecule holds electrons rather loosely, so this CoQ molecule will quite easily give up one or both electrons and, thus, act as an antioxidant.


This removal of the word ubiquinol from the definition of CoQ10 is factually incorrect and not undue soapboxing. Though I can undo your edit, which is not a mature option, I prefer to approach you on a scientific basis so that you may, yourself, decide to undo your edit.'

I hope this is reasonable and I thank you for your help.

Committed molecules (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Committed Molecules

Please WP:FOC. You're clearly interested in promoting the substance, and appear quite defensive about your personal preferences. Please try to cooperate with others instead.
If you can provide reliable sources to support your changes, especially WP:MEDRS sources for anything health-related, then do so on the article talk page and I'm sure we can come to some quick agreement on changes. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

etechnologytips Linkspam?[edit]

Hi ronz,

We want to know why our website etechnologytips considered as linkspam. We're already linking it from couple of months ago and the others not having a problem with it. Maybe you can tell us so we can improve our website for a better result. Thanks

Regards, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.136.245.76 (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi James,
Thanks for contacting me, as I was going to recommend the site be blacklisted if the spamming continued without some sort of communication.
Multiple editors have been removing the links, almost as fast as you add them. It's pretty clear the links are to articles that aren't reliable sources, nor are they to material that cannot be found in reliable sources and added to the article as references rather than external links per WP:EL.
To exasperate the matter, I think it is a fairly safe assumption that they are being linked to drive traffic to the website against a conflict of interest.
If you disagree, it would be best to take up at WP:ELN or WP:RSN, depending whether overall you feel it is more suited to being an external link or a reference. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Change to Modification[edit]

Hi Ronz,

Sorry for the trouble - didn't mean to go against Wikipedia policy. I'll try to do better with future contributions - thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottmatta (talkcontribs) 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Links[edit]

Hi Ronz,

You recently left me a message about removing links I had added and you invited me to reach out with questions. Please could you let me know why you felt these were inappropriate?

Thanks. Y528s (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.
Basically, the links you were adding were examples rather than references or proper external links. Additionally, adding examples in this manner appears to be promotional in nature. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Raksha Bhandan[edit]

Dear User:Ronz, I just wanted to thank you for this edit on the Raksha Bhandan article. I've had the article on my watchlist for a long time and it's good to see positive changes there. Have a great day! With regards, AnupamTalk 12:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to have helped. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Bradley C. Edwards is no Nofel Izz :-)[edit]

Hi Ronz, Thanks for your anti-fluffery work over there on Nofel Izz. Based on your comments on the Bradley C. Edwards nomination for deletion, I have the feeling you may think the Edwards article is similar to Nofel Izz. In case you do, I'd like to argue otherwise. Like I said in my "keep" comment, Edwards is the man. He is as solid & notable as Izz is flakey & puffed up. He's the major figure who got Space Elevators (real ones) moving in the early oughts with thorough design and engineering. His article is stubby and doesn't reflect his impact, but that's only because he hasn't been puffed like Izz. Notability is required for the subject, which Edwards has in spades. So, there you go, just in case you didn't know.
Skyway (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. The problem is that the editors are not backing their opinions with information that others can verify, hence the concerns of both myself and others. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

..hnnmmm...So, if I may ask you, Ronz, why would you not vote on this—Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley C. Edwards? I supposed that you equally avoided this one—Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpaceShaft, did you not? —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you ask? --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Ronz. It's hard to back up opinions with evidence when the subject was so quickly put on the chopping block. That takes some time. Usually, notability debates start on the talk page, then move to the AFD after some debate if there is some validity. Here, it looks like someone without a background saw the article, got pissed off that the subject appeared to lack sufficient notability by the article, so it was submitted summarily to WP:PROD. When that failed, it was immediately submitted to AFD. There was no discussion on the talk page at all.
Yeah, the article is in a sorry state and it does lack evidence of notability. I can see how someone who isn't familiar with the field and it's history could look at the article and question notability of the subject. It shouldn't be too hard to fix that impression in the article with a little bit of research, but time is needed, and maybe a little talk on the talk page. Skyway (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Struck a gold mine[edit]

Hi there, I just have put together some real sources Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Real_sources_to_improve_the_article for the "List of villains bought by the oil industry to put disbelieve in the great truth of global climate change put on be Nobel prize winner Michael Mann and other Great Prophets". Serten (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't have the time I'd like to help. I'm not sure what can be done with those sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Point is, there ae various articles that claim the IPCC consensus IS the mainstream assessement. Those mmay be edited ;) See [4]. I would like to have the intro to be based on Grundmanns findings, and Hulme and Curry be included in the list. Serten (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there any portal for wp authors that oppose_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming? I see now how it works at the IPCC talk page and have taken that for while from my list. Sigh and nice weekend Serten (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
If you like, have a look on Talk:Global_warming_controversy#Global_warming_controversy.23Public_opinion_and_some_other_quality_issues. Its about the list as well. I made a bold move and used my content in Ozone depletion and global warming Serten (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Nofel Izz[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nofel Izz. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Contributing to Wikipedia is not about WP:WINNING, so do not be WP:POINTy when your contributions are challenged; most contributors do not agree with you here—Talk:Nofel Izz#PufferyJOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see what you're complaining about. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELN[edit]

Hi, Ronz. Would it be helpful to post the material in User:Location/Sandbox13 to the discussion in WP:ELN? I don't want to clutter up the page, but I think it's important to the discussion. Location (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

External links on Amharic language page[edit]

Ronz, I agree with you that there were too many external links to the Amharic language page. Some were about the script, not the language. But I was surprised that you recently removed a link to a medical dictionary. In the list of written sources, there are dictionaries and grammars. This medical dictionary should be consulted more often than Armbruster's old grammar, which is safely listed. If it was a broad, general dictionary would that be more acceptable to you than a medical dictionary?

We both want this page to be useful and in conformity with Wikipedia's policies. Please tell us what you think would be acceptable for external links for this language related article.

Please remember that I have not been involved in any comments about where people are writing from. I am only trying to improve the article about a language that is very important to me.

Pete unseth

As you know, we've a discussion ongoing on the talk page, which is where this discussion should be as well.
Yes, a general dictionary would be more appropriate, because the topic of the article is the language in general. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at his block log yesterday. Seems he just won't learn. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

the hidden wiki[edit]

Mind having a look at the revert after block expiry ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand... --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring editor, I blocked for 31 hours. First thing he does on The Hidden Wiki is revert his link back in (sorry, am on mobile, less admin tools etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Gokhale Method Page[edit]

Hi, Ronz! Thank you for your helpful feedback! I have read the relevant sources you shared with me, but in reviewing the material in question I do not see how the article in question contains (a) promotional content (b) content representing a non-neutral point of view or (c) inappropriate external links. I recognized that some of the information in my first draft could appear as promotional material, so I removed that information, and I removed adjectives that seemed to represent a non-neutral point of view. The external links cited are the source's book, the source's website, and numerous articles from reputable sites about the source. I have looked and have not been able to find any articles written in opposition to the source, but I agree that they would be a great addition to the article if they become available. Could you please help me understand what specifically in the article strikes you as (a) promotional content (b) content representing a non-neutral point of view or (c) inappropriate external links? I would be happy to improve the article. Dandem1 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the article talk page. Given the article is up for deletion now, it would be best to focus on notability, which is the first item I brought up on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ronz! Thank you for your reply! I have read the notability section that you linked to, but given that the subject of the article has been written the subject of an article in The New York Times, has delivered a talk at Authors@Google, has given a TEDx talk at Stanford University, and is a published author, on what grounds is the topic considered non-notable? Please help me understand what specifically makes you feel that there is an issue of notability. Also, I thought that the first issue you brought up was that the article seemed to be written as an advertisement, since that was what you had commented on the page. Given that classifying an article as an advertisement signifies that it is (a) promotional content (b) content representing a non-neutral point of view or contains (c) inappropriate external links, I will restate my question as to why you gave the article that designation. What specific material do you see as (a) promotional content (b) content representing a non-neutral point of view or (c) inappropriate external links? And then additionally, why specifically do you see the article as a non-notable topic? Thank you, Dandem1 (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
As I pointed out, I already started a discussion on the article's talk page. Let's keep the discussion there so others can participate more easily. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I have made the revisions you suggested to the article and explained what I've done on the talk page for the article. Cheers! Dandem1 (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Content[edit]

Hi Ronz, you sent me a message saying you deleted some of my content. I'm just curious as to what I can do to make the content less promotional. I believed that the content was important for consumers to know, and the page seemed to lack information on variable annuities. At the same time, I do not want to violate Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMH182 (talkcontribs) 15:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


That's completely understandable, Ronz. My boss has written a book published by the American Bar Association (http://shop.americanbar.org/eBus/Store/ProductDetails.aspx?productId=214487). That should be a reputable enough source, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMH182 (talkcontribs) 16:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you look over WP:COI? --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm having a difficult time identifying exactly who the authors are, but I think the book would be a suitable source. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Esther Gokhale[edit]

Hi Ronz, thank you for your constructive feedback on the page I made about the Gokhale Method. It was the first page I made on Wikipedia, and even though you were telling me things I didn't want to hear, once you explained your reasons I learned a lot from you. I took your suggestion too and created a page about Esther Gokhale instead, since that page had more solid notability. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing it if you get a chance. I think I made this one better. Thanks Dandem1 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you're giving it another try. I'll definitely give it a look. Feel free to remind me if I don't get around to it quickly as I catch up. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a lot Ronz! I'll check back and remind you if I don't see anything on the page in a bit. Thanks again for your help Dandem1 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Open Kanban Mention[edit]

Ronz, you deleted the Open Kanban mention on the Kanban development page, the reason you mentioned was related to marketing material on Wikipedia. This makes no sense whatsoever, the actual mention in that page is about Lean Kanban University Kanban, a fully paid, non open source, proprietary Kanban. One that has several paragraphs, and reads like an ad. Yet you did not delete that one, you deleted the mention about a free, fully open source Kanban method! Please stop and learn a bit more about this subject before deleting anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeLeanVoice (talkcontribs) 15:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you the same person that I already discussed this with, or someone else using the same account?
The matter has been discussed on your talk page, and you said you'd find better sources before adding it again. Sorry if you'd forgotten. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

re: functional medicine[edit]

The article on FM fails to note that the Cleveland Clinic, which is about as mainstream as it gets, just opened a functional medicine institute. 24.15.55.23 (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct. This is an encyclopedia. As I pointed out on the article talk page, I don't think it belongs per WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


Thanks Ronz! I am still trying to learn how to use Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to message people, so hopefully this message reaches you.173.168.39.10 (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to your comments on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


I would argue that the opening of Cleveland Clinic's FM Institute is big and informative - so would like to see it somewhere on WP. "Newsy" and related news: a woman chiropractor in Virginia recently filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the Virginia Board of Medicine which had previously fined her $25K and suspended her license for practicing FM. The board comprises all MDs. The one chiropractor on the Board of Medicine did not participate in the decision to fine and suspend the license. The hearing in Arlington, VA is scheduled for December 2014. (Petrie v. VA Board of Medicine) Watchquackwatch (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The opening of the Cleveland Clinic FM Institute should be mentioned somewhere.173.168.39.10 (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Naming compliance[edit]

Can you check that the username QuackWatch and its type of organization complies with WP rules, and tell me why?

Thanks, Heather Watchquackwatch (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand. There is no user named "Quackwatch" nor is it an acceptable username, if that's what you're asking about.
You should change your username, or create a new one. Your current username is problematic on many levels. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Functional Medicine[edit]

Hi Ronz! Sorry, I am new and still learning how to use this interface. You reverted an edit that referenced several news articles discussing the launch of a new center for functional medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. Primary sources were also listed. This seems like a very relevant piece of information that should be listed on an encyclopedia article about functional medicine. The Cleveland Clinic is very well known and respected and a pillar in American medicine. The goal is to be factual, not promotional. Please let me know how you think this content can be edited to sound less promotional, but still convey factual information. Would be glad to discuss here or on the Functional Medicine talk page. Thanks! 173.168.39.10 (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Chyawanprash ‎[edit]

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

Hi Ronz, yes i am very much aware that we can't promote any product through wikipedia but if u have noticed the picture of chyawanprash used in the page is of dabur and there is also mentioned that Madhuri dixit is the brand ambasdr of Dabur.. so, isn't it promotion of Dabur. Why have you not deleted it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjalipatwal (talkcontribs) 12:07, 14 October 2014‎

I agree that the article could use a great deal of improvement. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Reiki Page[edit]

Hi Ronz. I left a response to your response to my Reiki edits but i'm not sure if you got it? Basically i'd like to work with you to get this page further edited.

We believe it is full of misstatements about Reiki which might come down to a he said, she said situation.

I certainly understand the issue with "promotion" and do not want to do that however my information comes from a living person who is almost as creditable and quotable as it gets within Reiki and there is so much that would be stated differently if writing our own page.

So if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my message for you perhaps i can start moving forward with edits that don't get erased.

Thanks!

Encyclojonny (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me. Sorry that I didn't reply sooner. It would be best to discuss it on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch[edit]

Understood. You're right, that last sentence I added did mention something negative about a living person and should have been deleted, per policy. My oversight. However the previous sentence should have stayed. The content was supported in the existing references and was the minimal that should be added to this blatantly promotional piece. Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you're discussing the rest on the article talk page. I'll weigh in if needed. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Robert_McClenon#FYI_on_evidence and my preparation of a move request on Talk:Scientific_skepticism#Sceptical_Movement might be of interest for you. Serten (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability of List of Scientists opposing mainstream assessment on climate change[edit]

Ronz, I'd welcome a statement along the lines of

After researching this more by doing XYZ, I am revising my prior opinions (whatever they may have been). Now I am asserting that the article (is/is not) notable because of 123.

In my view, another announcement that we should look at Policy (whatever is in today's drama que) isn't informative or helpful. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So you want to ignore policies?! Noted. --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd hoped I made myself clear already [5], noting specifically what I'm trying to accomplish and why. I'm sure you'll recognize it all, as it is how our more formal consensus-building is done (identifying relevant policies/guidelines, identifying how they apply, determining whether they have been met or violated).
I'm trying to approach the issue of notability with a fresh start in a manner that wouldn't cause personal offense. I've clearly failed to do so given your response. Maybe I should have introduced it better. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Any reply to those mis-characterizations would be pointless, so I won't bother trying. See you at article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm really sorry you feel that way. I gave it a try. I hope you'll reconsider and try again. As always, I'm happy to refactor my comments to remove whatever is upsetting you so in order that we might proceed. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Its an "eat the cake and have it" case. On could use external sources about external issues - as in the dissenter petitions or in papers actually dealing with sceptics - to provide a base for and all-inclusive climate sceptics categorization, but the wp internal CC team wants a) to use OR based claims to reduce visibility of sceptical voices and activities b) deny the political cloud and social science research about the topic c) to reduce the dissenters impact in WP in favour of "science is settled" fairy tale telling d) to deem sceptical climate change science as either non-existant or being based on bribery. Rather overachieving. The IPCC is much more aware and integrative about serious scientific scepticism and challenges towards ints own approach than the defenders of the (pre 2009) faith. Serten (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Michael Oppermann's unduly behavior and fringy opinions are not mainstream science, do you think we get the main IPCC project manager now as well in the list?
I been away for a while and the climate crowd went on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reiner Grundmann believing in lowhanging fruit. There was and is still some homework with Grundmann contentwise, but I invite you to have a look on the discussion, as set and scenery look really cute. Sort of Revenge of the Empire as I had the German interwiki Scientific opinion on climate change being afded and deleted properly last March.  ;) Serten 14:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Serten 14:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I simply don't believe we're able to currently follow our policies when it comes to articles related to climate change denial. There's simply too much money involved for us to find an encyclopedic and neutral viewpoint amidst all the propaganda and conflicts of interest. Good luck though. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't need money to get rid of that scientific opinion bullshit in the deWP. The closing was about deWP not having any articles like the prefered opinion about topic xy. You write about xy based based on scientific or noteable sources. That said, I am looking forward to a happy end ;) Serten 18:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice to see editors like yourself with the patience and energy to work on these topics. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Have a look on the Naomi Oreskes talk Page. The same guys that revere "Science" like a saint, try to get rid of a Nature review of Oreskes Marchants of doubt. Hilarious. Serten Talk 23:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This[edit]

I have been removed those now like three times from this article. Quite sneaky. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_tree&diff=630902217&oldid=630819008

Hafspajen (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Origin of phrase - customer experience[edit]

Here are my third party sources for the addition to the customer experience page. We have been going back and forth for years now editing this page and this is what you have needed: take a look -

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22carbone+and+haeckel+1994%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&as_ylo=1994&as_yhi=1998

1994-1998

Those 3 articles all cite the Carbone and Haeckel article from 1994.

May you update the page to reflect these changes please?

- JC17171717

Can we please discuss this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.48.249.2 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Times like this that it helps to have a Wikipedia account.
I've no idea what you're referring to, as you've never made any related edits from this ip address. Could you bring it up on the article talk page please? --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Found it. Replied. Sorry for the delay, and thanks for notifying me about it. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I was not logged into my account, I updated the talk page :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JC1717 (talkcontribs) 22:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.[edit]

I'll read up on the requirements.

Vince — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Cyboran (talkcontribs) 17:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Usability engineering ‎[edit]

I think the lede is better. We can continue to improve over the next few weeks. Here are my intentions with the article:

● Refine opening paragraph. Add more distinctions between Usability Engineering and Usability Interface Engineering. ● Add more inline citations on Usability Engineering that enhances understanding of the topic. ● Add an information box that will contain some of the common attributes from other fields. ● Add images to draw readers attention. ● Remove the “reading” list, or refine it so it doesn’t have just book listings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brc4783 (talkcontribs) 00:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you're off to a good start. I'll try to keep my eye on it to help. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your feedback Ronz[edit]

I will try to do better. Do you have any specific suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:6800:500:558:6DA6:271F:C069 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your comments and suggestions. I will try to better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivianolan (talkcontribs) 10:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me. Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Nofel Izz RfC closure[edit]

(Below is in response to:"I moved your closure comment an formatting to the RfC specifically, then pointed out that there was indeed a specific question [6]. I hope this isn't a problem.

How should I have worded the RfC to make the question clearer and more prominent?

As the issue of all the sources being poor wasn't directly addressed or answered in the RfC, I'll be taking it to the BLP noticeboard after wrapping up the current issues: those brought up at FTN, the edit-warring and ownership problems that has driven a new editor away, and the coi and paid editing problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)"[7])

I agree with your comment that there is some confusion, but would like to clarify what the confusion is. You reverted my closure of an RFC on Nofel Izz. The RFC had requested commentary on sources. My closure did not remove the sources or the discussion of the sources. It merely boxed them. My closure had stated that there had been discussion of sources and that the commentary had improved the article. You or another editor had used the Request for Comments procedure. A Request for Comments is closed after it has been open for 30 days. If it poses a question, then it is closed stating what the consensus of the community was. In this case, it requested discussion and commentary, and my conclusion was that the discussion and commentary had improved the article. If you disagree with that conclusion, then the usual procedure is to request closure review at WP:AN. Based on your comment, it appears that you may have thought that I was deleting the commentary. I was not. I was merely closing the RFC. If you think that further commentary would further improve the article, I would suggest that you revert your revert of the closure (leaving the RFC boxed), and post a new RFC. If you simply agree that the commentary was useful and improved the article, that is what my closure said. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This diff better shows what I did: I moved the closure so it was specific to the RfC rather than the larger discussion. I never wanted the RfC to be a subsection like that, but another editor edit-warred to make it that way.
I'm for the closure, but wanted to make sure that it was clear that there was indeed a question and that never was addressed directly, as it will be taken to BLPN after being rewritten in a clearer manner so that the main concern won't be again overlooked.
To be clearer still: The purposed of the RfC was never addressed (though we did get some helpful discussions and changes to the article as a result of the RfC, as you note.) I'd like to determine what went wrong so that it will be addressed at the next attempt. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for reclosing the RFC. I agree with you that, if you have questions about the sources, you should go to the BLP noticeboard. Your RFC didn't ask a specific question. Although RFC stands for Request for Comments, RFCs that ask only for comments do not get real closure. An RFC that asks a question gets !votes and can be closed. Also, if a user edit-wars to change an RFC, I have learned that it is best not to try to accommodate them, but to go to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. I wish that it weren't necessary to report users who edit-war over RFCs, but they are edit-warriors, and, besides, if you try to compromise with them, they will take advantage of that. If you have a question about sources, they are better dealt with at WP:BLPN than by RFC. If you have a specific question about a specific source, that can be answered as Yes or No, or as A, B, or C, you can use an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the explanation. It's very helpful and I'll be sure to use the advice. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Contesting Umar Vadillo's Deletion[edit]

As you mentioned that my sources were poor and did not meet the wikipedia guidelines but the sources like BBC, Aljazeera, Official website of Govt. of Malaysia, many international universities and hundred of organization specially regarding gold coins mentioned him in there publications and websites. And some of my sources were poor because Mr. Gorge told me to mention resources extensively. (you may refer to my talk page for refrence) So it should not be totally deleted because his name (Umar Ibrahim Vadillo) is mentioned also in many Wikipedia's articles e.g. Abdalqadir as-Sufi, Modern gold dinar, Kelantanese dinar, Nazim Al-Haqqani, etc. So he is a famous person who make gold dinar (gold coin) as a legal tender in many states of Malyasia e.g. Kelantan, Perak etc. And he is a main driving force behind the restoration of Islamic Monetary Economics in Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, UAE etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefireball777 (talkcontribs) 03:52, 16 November 2014‎

Please discuss this on the article talk page, giving specific sources. Otherwise the article will likely be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

EMDR dispute[edit]

Further Ronz, when others revert the changes you made without consensus to the existing article, do not make false accusations of edit warring. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the policies are against the edits as well, as are the FTN discussions. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Identifying an ip[edit]

Also you can't tag IP numbers as being used by specific editors. An IP number is personal information WP:PRIV, and it could be used identify/out a user. Revert again and I will report you to an administrator Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see any problem. I'll follow up on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This just popped up on my watchlist. It looks like we have a case of forbidden WP:Sock puppetry. We've got one person using three identities:
all editing the same article
Evidence that they are the same person: here, here, here, and here.
They need to decide which registered account to use, stop using the other and close it, and always log in. Otherwise this may escalate to them all being blocked. I suspect that the history of editing and comments related to EMDR, and an WP:SPI, would reveal even more socks.
With 803 edits since 2010-02-05, Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd is the mother account of these three. Only an SPI could make clear if another account is the real mother account. I'll leave you to deal with them, but let me know of any further developments. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. I'm fairly sure that Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd has exposed his own ip, and it is not the same as the one above. It looks like he's just trying to cover for Saturn Explorer's exposure of using 50.138.191.112, based upon assumptions of ip privacy that don't exist that I'm aware. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that's a possible interpretation. In that case, Saturn Explorer needs to always log in. When an editor has been socking (by not logging in, or in any other manner) and exposes their own IP, there is nothing improper in noting it. Exposing sock puppetry is a duty for every editor, and defense of editors who sock is wrong. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
As discusssed on my talk page, have a read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#IP_addresses_and_outing Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok apologies, I accept I was wrong here, I wasn't aware that it is not uncommon for IP talk pages to be used in this way for evidence in possible present or future sock puppetry investigations. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Glad we worked that out. --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Umar Vadillo rewrite[edit]

I am going to reproduce Sheikh Umar Vadillo article and below is for your information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefireball777 (talkcontribs) 05:56, 26 November 2014‎

(Removed a copy of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Umar_Vadillo)--Ronz (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The AfD has been relisted, so just go to work on the current article. I should be able to help in a few days. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Loft Conversion[edit]

Dear Ronz, I am reaching out to you as there has been persistant spamming of the loft conversion entry which you have recently edited. It seems that the commericial loft conversion companies have been busy again and lately there have been a lot of links added to commericial loft conversion companies. The main culprits are Land mark lofts, Econolofts and touchstone lofts. The latest link added to the homebuilding website is nothing more than a page sponsored by Econolofts and links to their main website.

I propose that the page is restored to the 17:40, 14 November 2014 version which appears to the latest version without the spam links. I added the link to aboutloftconversions around four years ago and I believe it is an apropriate resource as it is not for profit website and purely a reference website, although the spammers regularly replace this with links to their own websites, fortunately these are fairly quickly removed by various editors.

I feel that the recent spate of edits, a lot of which are not from signed user accounts requires the attention of an editor. Once the spammers are defeated I have a few edits to the content that I am considering making, but until the spammers have gone I am reluctant to do so as there are so many edits going on. Is there a way for this page to be flagged up for monitoring for spam?

Thanks, --Jollyroger2009

I'll try to find some time over the next week to look over it carefully. I agree with your concerns. At a glance, the sources look poor with reoccurring WP:REFSPAM problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ronz. I've just had another look at the page and there is another link to a commericial website been added, I've not removed it as I'm sure another one would soon replace it. On reviewing the page there have been some ligitimate edits which I think should be left in such as the removal of dead links. I think the page on the whole is ok with the exception of the references, I have searched for a non commericial website detailing the types of loft conversions but have not been able to find a suitable one other than the aboutloftconversions one I added back in 2011. The planning portal and local authority websites do not appear to have any useful guides in this respect which is a shame. I think the first reference link to rightmove (a UK online estate agency) is a link that should be considered for removal as looking at the website I do not think its very useful at all at looks like REFSPAM. I not very experienced with WP and this seems a bit messy and I feel out of my depth so thank you for helping and I'm sure I will learn a few new things along the way. --Jollyroger2009 (talk) 14:57, 02 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just seen your edit, I think you did the right thing in removing the reference link, otherwise it would just become an edit war. --Jollyroger2009 (talk) 17:27, 02 December 2014 (UTC)

Entry for Cimpress? Your Thoughts Appreciated[edit]

Hi Ronz, I’m fairly new to Wikipedia – but I’ve done my homework and understand the importance the ‘bright line’ rule and conflict of interest policy. In the interest of transparency, I want you to know that I work in Corporate Communications for Cimpress. I’d really like to approach Wikipedia in the right way and am hoping you might steer me in the right direction.

Two weeks ago it was announced that Vistaprint NV was renamed as Cimpress. You can see the public filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission here. Today there is a Vistaprint Wikipedia entry and the Vistaprint brand will persist. In the past there have been some issues with individuals editing the Vistaprint page and I want to ensure we take the right approach.

My hope is that we can suggest a new entry for Cimpress be created. I’ve included the factual information about Cimpress below. We’d really be interested in having someone like you take a look and provide these edits or share with us the best way to make this suggestion.

Thank you for your time on this and if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Kind regards, Cheryl

Cheryl Wadsworth Director, Corporate Communications Cimpress 781-690-2120 cwadsworth@cimpress.com


Cimpress (NASDAQ: CMPR) is a global company that performs mass customization. It is the parent company of:

• Albumprinter • People & Print Group • Pixartprinting • Vistaprint

Cwadsworth (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I'm fairly busy right now, so I'll briefly respond on your talk page, where it will be easier for others to find and join in. --Ronz (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Imhofe's list[edit]

Hi there. With regard to Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Rewording your comment is welcome. Think it would be worth while to have the Imhofe list being included. Serten II (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you mean including each entry from the Imhofe's list into our article, absolutely not given all the NOT and BLP violations that would entail. My point is that the article's current inclusion criteria is an OR violation, and that the current appeals to OR against changes to the inclusion criteria ignore that we're not following OR to begin. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The Rewording section]] is NOT asking to mean including each entry from Imhofe, but have separates (higher threshold) being imposed. However have alook on IPCC consensus, that's rolling now ;) Serten II (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours

Weihnachtsschmuck.JPG

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of TalentWise for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TalentWise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TalentWise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BethNaught (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

PS This isn't your fault, the redirect was expanded with a copyvio. Feel free to join the discussion but I'm not accusing you of anything. Season's greetings, BethNaught (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi Ronz! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

regarding changes to my edits[edit]

Ronz, The edit that I made was relevant and NOT promotional. As well as being a professional editor, I am an InfoSec expert. Do you know what public-private organizations are? Infraguard and The Cyber Security Agency are two of the prime industry examples because they work together to bridge the gap between the general public, private businesses and local and national governments for the betterment of everyones Information Security Posture. I hope that you reconsider your removal of the relevant information that I posted. Sincerely, FormerPatchEditor — Preceding unsigned comment added by FormerPatchEditor (talkcontribs) 22:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but they were blatantly promotional. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nia (Fitness) edits[edit]

Hi Ronz, I saw your message about adding promotional material to the NIA article, and I would like to know what content you are referring to. What I have done is remove content that was previously marked as needing a citation, or added 3rd party references. All information I have added is supported by 3rd party links. Can you be more specific about the areas of concern so that I can rework them? Many thanks, (Delcydrew (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC))

Learning To Edit Wikipedia[edit]

HI Ronz, Hope you're doing well.

Thanks for bringing in to my notice that I was not adding the reliable sources. Could you please help me in understanding on how to make it better?

Kind Regards, Mshoaib271 (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for responding. Replying on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Youtube video links[edit]

You have now (on several occasions) taken down legitimate and factual references to official music videos that actresses have worked on. Why do keep removing them when thousands of other references are directly linked to the proof on youtube? Furthermore, why are you threatening to have me removed from wikipedia when I am just merely adding factual credits to actors' pages? Please let me know that you will no longer remove the factual credits that I post. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justthefacts2013 (talkcontribs) 19:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The posts are factual REFERENCES within the legal guidelines and not under the external links section, fyi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justthefacts2013 (talkcontribs) 19:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. If you can find sources that are independent of the subject matter that are reliable for the information, then add those.
If there's something that you don't understand about the comments you have been left, I'm happy to clarify. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

added information have many authentic references[edit]

I've added information with authentic references, on [tariq jameel] page, and we have evidences that they're involve in extremism. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaizanSid (talkcontribs) 18:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but such poor sources are unacceptable, where they in fact actually verified anything that you added/changed. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Gluten free diet[edit]

I don't know what is going on with this article but it is claiming that non-Celiac's gluten sensitivity (NCGS) doesn't exist according to clinical research and cites a study that actually gives evidence to the contrary. The article cited for the claim (Biesiekierski et al., 2012) said that gluten symptoms of NCGS improved on a FODMAPs diet but got worse when exposed to gluten. I edited the article and cited peer-reviewed, scientific studies that demonstrated symptoms of gluten sensitivity for non-Celiac's, how NCGS is diagnosed, and a review of literature confirming that NCGS is a genuine syndrome but it was all removed. I could have easily added 30 more studies to prove that NCGS has been recognized as a genuine, "evidenced-based" syndrome since 2012 [1]. But what would be the use? My 20 scientific studies are no match for a misinterpreted study? I can try contact some of the researchers involved in the original citation if that will resolve this issue but if the rest of the literature is ignored what else can I do? Thanks for your time.

The section needs a rewrite to accurately summarize Non-celiac gluten sensitivity, while emphasizing aspects relevant to a gluten free diet. Sorry I didn't make that clear with my edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Grazyna, C (2014). "Non coeliac gluten sensitivity – A new disease with gluten intolerance". Clinical Nutrtion. [In press]. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2014.08.012. PMID 25245857. 

Feel free to help me understand Wikipedia sourcing policy better[edit]

Hi, Ronz, I chanced to see one of your comments on a user talk page on my watchlist, and I thought it would be interesting to hear from you what you think some of the important sourcing issues are in Wikipedia articles. I see from your talk page here that you often discuss those issues with other editors. I'm trying to be very meticulous about sourcing some frequently edit-warred articles, and I'd like to do my best to get them right. Any comments you have would be greatly appreciated. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I can try, but I mostly police articles for spam. Looking at what you've written about your editing goals, I'm not sure I have anything new for you. Maybe you could point out specific articles or policies/guidelines?
User:Ronz#NPOV+BLP is my summary, focusing on BLPs. Basically, I don't think an editor can go far wrong in the choice of references that are reliable, independent, and secondary or tertiary. In the all too rare cases where the dispute actually rests on such sources, then the sources should be evaluated on level of scholarship. I find that editors rarely will examine the reliability of sources very closely and that time is better spent finding consensus in NPOV issues: what information to include and at what detail. When a dispute moves along that far, and there are multiple editors involved, I try to move on to other articles...
Is that at all helpful? Do you have specific questions? --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's helpful. I'm with you in thinking that editors here will have to learn more about evaluating sources for quality. I've found that a bunch of articles that I watch have had content inserted to make disparaging WP:BLP statements that source only to an author who runs his own publishing house--in other words, a guy who basically runs a dead-tree blog. It took me a while to figure out that there are reliable secondary sources, in turn, that point that out about that author's writing career. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Glad to help.
BLPs should be easy given that, "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." In my experience, it often takes a discussion at BLPN despite the strong wording of the policy. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So you are trying to circumvent consensus-making by going to ANI? WP:DTS. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

John (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Bah. I wish I had remembered the special sanctions. As I mention on your talk, we need a alternative as what we have now is simple obstruction that prevents us from applying broader consensus. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
[8] Watch out for number 12 ;-) Seriously though, the comment did kind of come across as unnecessary piling on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've blocked this account for 31 hours for twice violating the restrictions. Referring to "censorship" is unhelpful and is specifically forbidden under the restrictions. --John (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@John:

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ronz (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I upset an editor by bringing up WP:CENSOR and using the words "censor" and "censorship" without better context or explanation and continued to do so after the editor claimed it was a personal attack made in bad faith. I referred to "censorship" without initially identifying the specific policy I was referring to and why, not knowing it was on a list of banned words to use in the special restrictions for the article. It's a good lesson to learn with editors that assume bad faith in others as the editor did. I should have explained clearly and focused on deescalating the situation instead of pushing as I did. As I mentioned earlier, I cannot remember which articles (in the over 5,000 items from my watchlist) are under special restrictions and what they might be. The article is off my watch list. I won't participate in editing or discussions there for at least a month other than to identify I'm doing so. I doubt I'll be interested in editing it at all while the special restrictions are in place. I'll apologise to the editor and, if the editor is interested, explain my point of view on the editor's talk page. Ronz (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Fair enough. Talking about censorship isn't helpful as others may find it offensive, which is why I listed it (along with "quack") as an example of a word to avoid in the restrictions. I have read the exchange below and in my judgement this block is no longer necessary to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, so I undo it. John (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm focusing on the actual situation rather than the special sanctions.

Diffs: [9] [10] [11] [12] Special restriction. While I didn't use it for name-calling purposes, I should have backed off when the editor assumed bad faith and that I was making a personal attack.

WP:CENSOR starts, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." In my opinion, the editor (and other editors) is calling on social norms to be applied in such a way as to censor significant point of view (including categorization, identification, and labeling) from the article. That the topic is religious in nature is also repeatedly being brought up as rationale as well.--Ronz (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda context and religion[edit]

No one is suggesting censoring anything. Asking for context in not censorship. Since Kww brought up the religious aspect perhaps you'd like to discuss the religious points with him. My position and I do consider your and Kww cmts personal attacks, is that Ayurveda may have religious elements but is not religious, and at no time do I indicate this position has any bearing on the label pseudoscience. My cmt about religion is a rebutt of KWW suggestion that Ayurveda a health care system is religious rather than contains religious elements. I have to say that I am a little tired of being attacked for things I didn't say and especially that personal attacks are not the best way to deal with points under discussion anyway. Sheesh.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

My apologies. As I said, I should have focused on deescalating the situation as soon as you identified that you felt you were the target of personal attacks. From my perspective, that is a priority. We shouldn't expect collaboration if editors feel attacked. We must take the time to ensure we have a collaborative editing environment. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps one shouldn't expect collaboration but continued collaboration is what I am giving that discussion as long as I stay on that article. Thanks for your apology. I appreciate it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC))
Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramids removed edit[edit]

Hi Ronz :-) actually I think that it was not neutral and correct before, because the references and conclusion were outdated - excavations in visocica hill started in 2005 and criticism comes from 2006, while now in 2015 there is a lot of evidence and I think that wikipedia readers should be able to read about early criticism as well as about recent evidence. Especially "following a news-media campaign promoting the false idea" doesn't seem neutral to me. Few months ago I personally concluded that Bosnian Pyramids are completely hoax because I read these two wiki pages. Few months later, I heard from someone else and searched some new and additional info and found out that these two wiki pages are outdated and "hoax" conclusion might be wrong. Thank you for your re-consideration. Please, what can I do to make it neutral? -- Rihadavid (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.66.91 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is actually understating the reliable sources. Do look over the article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, let's just keep the earth flat :-) -- Rihadavid (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Is the pyramid foundation claiming that too? --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Naveen Jain[edit]

FYI. In my experience, most of the time when an editor says they'll get to something "next week", they are expressing a desire to make the time, but probably won't actually. However, I think that's as close to an apology as you'll get and may give you some relief from the feeling of being attacked. I can see why someone, like I did, would have assumed the article was more unfair than it was actually, being that a particularly negative article is NPOV in this particular case.

If you ever want me to look at something in the future, feel free to ping me. There are quite a number of cases where having an un-involved editor come in can help diffuse an otherwise combative situation. CorporateM (Talk) 18:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Archived already. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

COI related article nominated for deletion[edit]

Hi Ronz,

There is a new essay on the subject of COI that I recently nominated for deletion. There is a lot of back and forth going on as you might imagine, and I thought it might be helpful to ask some editors with a historical interest in the area to give their input.

Just to be clear, you are not being canvassed based on my perceptions of what your views are. I am asking for input from the top 10 contributors to the COI Noticeboard, expecting that some expertise and interest might be found here.

Thanks in advance for your input, if you feel able and willing to participate. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 23:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As I recently wrote at COIN, if there's no evidence, then it's inappropriate to bring up. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

my high level thinking on COI stuff[edit]

Talking about arbcom and dealing with COIN.... i wanted to lay out my thinking, and get your feedback.

Two key cases are:

In my view the TimidGuy appeal and Wifione case together make it really clear what the wrong way to handle COI concerns are, and what the right way is. There are three levels to this - the focus of the case, the behavior of the ones bringing it, and the choice of venue There is also a strong likelihood (in my view) that cases of longterm paid editing will continue to end up at Arbcom. I also want to note that i didn't live through the Will BeBack case and I know that case upset a lot of people that i respect; if i say something wrong or stupid about it, i apologize in advance and would like to be corrected so i understand it better.

  • Focus. In the TimidGuy appeal, the focus on COI alone, especially with no/little evidence of paid editing per se in-WP, gets nowhere. In the Wifione case, the concerns about paid editing were mentioned, but if you look at the evidence page, it overwhelmingly focused on NPOV editing behavior.
  • Behavior. obviously the outcomes were different. WBB (the white knight) was site banned for harassment; Wifione was desysopped and banned. Now part of that is the atmosphere, politics, and a lot of bad feelings following the WBB case, but the behavior was different. From what I can gather (and again i apologize if i got this wrong) WBB found used off-wiki material (mostly bringing it in the various off-wiki systems of communications here), and was aggressive in pursuing TImidGuy in a lot of forums here in WP. In the wifione case, while Vejvančický did bring things up in several places, but was much less aggressive about it, it did finally end up in the proper forum and Vejvančický was not even dinged for harassment. I asked Vejvančický about where he tried to bring this to the community here and my take on his reply was that he was a bit scared, and also very uncertain about where to bring to it, but he posted it several places - none of them where it could be acted on. And I said "yep". You have to bring things in a forum where people can act, otherwise it is a waste of time and approaches harassment. But bottom line here - if you approach this wrong, you may end up on the wrong side of the case. You have to keep your nose clean when you are pursuing something like this. As you know, Arbcom is infamous for rolling heads all around. Whether the venue is ANI or arbcom, you don't want to create a distraction with your own behavior, nor give them an excuse to sanction you. Nose clean.
  • Venue. Both arbcom cases are characterized by a lot of floundering and making of accusations (often the wrong ones) in the wrong places. Wifione was brought to COIN, but wasn't followed up on by folks there. And COIN has not been a real focus of community attention. As a final venue after COIN, I do think that arbcom may be the best place to do it, actually. It is much more controlled than ANI, where you get all kinds of random input, partisans who jump in either "side" and write frankly stupid things with their own agendas, and things are generally very easily derailed. Arbcom won't take a case unless it has been addressed elsewhere first. I don't think there has been a case yet where something was first, and unsuccessfully, addressed at COIN alone. I am interested in adding a process - editor Talk page to COIN to Arbcom - to the model that Vejvančický and the others who brought the Wifione case, created the last step of. We now have the model for the last step, which is great. We have to build out the model for how to get there. Those three steps are, in the ways of Wikipedia, a very clear and sound path, in my view. My thinking there may not reflect what the community and Arbcom are willing and able to do, but that is my thinking now.

There is someone i am 80% sure is a fairly longterm paid editor whom i have been watching for a while and have not approached under regular COI procedures yet. I am going to do that soon, and my sense is that the person is going to deny, and I think (am not sure yet) that this is going to be my test case for bringing a COI case to the community under NPOV. If the editor denies my initial approach on their Talk page, I will bring that to COIN and will try to get a resolution there. If I cannot (there are vanishingly few admins who pay attention there) I will bring that either to Arbcom or ANI. But when I bring it, it will be very clean - with no harassment or uncivil behavior on my side, and a very clear set of diffs showing a long term pattern of NPOV violations. Clean and straight. I need to wait a while to do this, as i have had too much drama at ANI lately.

Anyway, what do you think of all that? Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. COIN if there's strong evidence of a coi and of violating WP:COI's editing restrictions. Otherwise BLP, NPOV, and other content noticeboards.
It all comes down to content-editing behavior. Granted there are different behavioral requirements if there is a coi, but if there's no very strong evidence of an undisclosed coi then editors should simply follow our other policies.
COIN needs to become a more effective venue, given how important it is.
I find ANI to be unreliable for the application of policy. Bad faith assumptions run rampant there at times, sometimes to the point where content problems are completely ignored.
(I should respond more when I have then time...) --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thx, sounds like same page. would love love to have more experienced hands at COIN. follow up is so important there, and having patient conversations. in the meantime as always we make do with what we have. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverts in "Fringe science"[edit]

Due to a mistyping, I forgot to add a summary to my recent reversion. I was going to say "Regardless of what the reference says, inclusion of "New Age" here is POV and not permissible. The term "mumbo jumbo" alone makes the point." Wahrmund (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand how this context could be a problem, only it's removal. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

COI[edit]

Hi, Ronz. Thanks for the note about my contributions to Wikipedia, though you weren't clear on where I might have violated COI. I'd love to know, in order to avoid the error in the future.

Thanks Leximaven (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I wrote, "See also WP:COI in case it might apply." If it doesn't apply, don't worry about it. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Links to Emotionally durable design subsection of Sustainable design[edit]

Hi Ronz, I made several updates today to a number of pages, which I thought were well referenced and objective. My aim was to improve and update these pages, which seemed a little out of date, particularly in reference to more recent literature on the subjects in question. Please can you reconsider withdrawing the edits I made? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmj2love (talkcontribs) 16:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. I think we should start with the comments on your talk page here. Did you see them? --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi Ronz, I have spent a great deal of time trying to put together some meaningful and relevant content on the 'product design' and 'industrial design' pages, which brings it more up-to-date and includes the context of environmental sustainability. The debates on product lifespans, articulated through the theory of emotionally durable design tickly important here. Professor Chapman's work in this area therefore provides an excellent example of how to deal with sustainability issues, through the disciplines of product design and industrial design, and it's importanthis work is featured on these page. Perhaps remove reference to him, but leave all references to the theory of emotionally durable design, and the supporting contextual statement? Thanks Mmj2love (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I already gave you advice on how to proceed in a manner. I'll repeat:
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
See also WP:COI in case it might apply. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


After looking over all your edits closer: I'd be surprised if you did not have a conflict of interest regarding Chapman and his work, so do look carefully over WP:COI and decide if it applies and how you want to address it.
As for highlighting Chapman's work: If you can find sources that are both reliable (shouldn't be a problem in academia) and independent, especially ones that provide a historical context, then take them to an article talk page and discuss the matter.
As for highlighting broader theories and ideas like design thinking, the same applies, but should be simpler to do given the amount written on those topics. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Please let me know if you have any questions. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Thanks for the clarification and advice. There is no WP:COI from my point of view, but i will rework parts of the 'Jonathan Chapman (academic)' page with a wider range of neutral and independent sources. I hope this will mean that this will satisfy the 'notability guideline for biographies'. Please can you check later on, to see if you are happy with it? I'll be revising the page this morning Mmj2love (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I have now updated the page 'Jonathan Chapman (academic)' with a wider range of neutral and independent sources. I hope you will be satisfied with it. If so, please can you remove the banner at the top of the page suggesting that the article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies? I'm confident it does. Thanks for all your help Mmj2love (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice to be working with you. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to continue this discussion on the article's talk page. I most likely will not have much time in the next to address all the issues I see, so let's see if we can get others to help. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Toronto30[edit]

Hello Ronz - When I was editing on Wikipedia, for example the case study for how to merge brands online, I only tried to help users as this is something many users, CEO's, SEO's and Owners of companies especially, don't know. The case study I used as a source was extremely helpful and I did not include it for promotional reasons ect. Also on Wiki I am constantly learning as I go. Thank you for the reminders and tips. I did not mean to promote anything, I just tried to help. Branding and mergers are tricky, especially online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto30 (talkcontribs) 15:09, 11 April 2015‎

Glad to hear you're interested in learning how Wikipedia works. You've already been instructed on what to avoid, but haven't yet done so. I suggest working on grammar, layout, cleaning up stray test edits and vandalism. Please avoid any edits remotely like what you've done in the past. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't mean for you to erase entire article on Bates Vision--sorry[edit]

Hi Ronz, Took out two lines from Bates article that showed your opinion/analysis of factual info. The article was good otherwise so I don't understand why you deleted it. The Bates vision method is interesting and needs to be in Wikipedia. Sorry if my edit discouraged you. Primofacts (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It wasn't anything I meant to keep. It was a very old version of the article that I was using to figure out accumulative changes made by others. --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Surface Mount Technology[edit]

Ronz,

Having deleted the citations we referenced, based on them being promotional, i have the following points to raise.

References 8 onwards could all be deemed promotional, as they are to manufacturers websites, and 19 is to a distributor of these components (an online shop).

The point that was referenced was clearly mentioned on our webpage.

It would be near impossible to reference such specific points without it being to a source that is actively involved in said activities.

I would ask that you reinstate the citation.

92.17.78.165 (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So you have a conflict of interest. Did you read the note I left on your talk page? I've added more details on our conflict of interest policy as well.
Yes the article needs a great deal of work. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:EL for Webby awards[edit]

Hi Ronz, I noticed this edit just now and I was confused by your edit summary. The relevant section of EL in this case would be WP:ELOFFICIAL and would support retaining the links, but they do seem to be outdated (i.e. they link to the main Webby site instead of to the 1998-specific section of it). So were you suggesting that they should be replaced by more precise external links? If so I agree. Removal without replacement would be a bad idea, though. -Thibbs (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Now as soon as I've said that I suddenly realize you were probably talking about the ELs in the body of the article rather than in this section only. I'm inclined to say that the ELs in the body of the article are OK too, but I'll have to think about that a bit more... -Thibbs (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
OK I've been thinking a bit more. So as you may already know the Webby Awards is an award ceremony for websites. Since the articles on the individual ceremonies cover the nominees and winners, I do think it would be more harmful than helpful to readers to remove the official links to the websites that were considered for awards on the given year. I don't see anything specific that covers this unusual usage directly in any of WP:EL's subsections. The topic of the article is the ceremony so ELOFFICIAL isn't really on point. Some of the websites are commercial in nature (implicating ELNO), but they are the specific subjects of the award ceremony so we would really have to jump through hoops to avoid providing their URLs and I'm not sure that would be helpful to readers interested in the topic. At present the external links point to the current version of the URL that was under consideration as well as a historical version of the URL (via archive.org) so that readers can see what the website looked like when it was being reviewed by the Webby committee. The 1998 article is in a bit of a disrepair and doesn't show this as well as something like the 2000 Webby Awards article. But anyway I'm pretty sure the archived links would be completely fine since at worst they only represent links to commercial products which were available in the past (in some cases more than a decade ago). But this is an interesting question. What are your thoughts? Should we bring it to Wikipedia talk:External links and try to find a consensus? -Thibbs (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate working with editors like yourself that look into the relevant policies and issues. Given that all the Webby award articles have the same use of external links, WP:ELN would be a good place to work from, noting it on at least the most recent article. If there has been any discussion, it should be noted there as well. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sonictheheghog21[edit]

DO IT I CAN CREATE MORE ACCOUNTS Sonictheheghog21 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I've requested you be blocked [13]. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Really sorry about that, I didn't even notice so thank you for undoing (and restoring my comment too). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It happens. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

British National Party page.[edit]

Hi Ronz. Do you know if anything can be done about the British National Party page, the membership figures? I'm very new to Wikipedia, so I don't know all the ins and out and the exact procedures.

Chrisdbarnett (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure where the figures are coming from or which should be considered reliable. Sorry. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Quotes in Refs[edit]

Just to provide you with an explanation why I removed a quote in the references of the article Reiki. WP presents the content of sources in a paraphrased form in the body of the article. In general I consider quotes in references clutter and redundant to adequate and accurate paraphrasing. I prefer references that are as clean, tight and uniformly formatted as possible. For many who consult WP, the references are the part of the article where they click through to find "the straight dope", keeping it clean and clear is of value.

Only an explanation not something I edit war over or feel so strongly as to bring objection on article talk pages often. I just wanted to share my opinion, as you had said in an edit summary you had no idea why it was removed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. In general, I agree. In a controversial alt-med article where the topic of the quote is a point of conflict, I think it would be better to keep. --Ronz (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I see the value in keeping in a controversial article. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

www.checkersorchess.com[edit]

Hi Ronz,

Does this look like a fit for the chess servers page?

Thanks, JD

checkersorchess.com is a redlink, so no, unless I'm missing something. --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)