User talk:Hipal

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

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

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

Archives

---

Edits by 75.175.252.49

I'm not vandalizing, I'm making the articles better by getting rid of the annoying things about cleanup — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.252.49 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No you are not [1] [2] [3] --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikify has been deprecated

Hi Ronz! Just a friendly note to let you know that {{Wikify}} has been deprecated in favor of more specific templates. Therefore, I have removed it from List of hunger strikes and added {{Orphan}} and {{Uncategorized}} instead. Thanks, and happy new year! GoingBatty (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the uncategorized tag. I'll eventually get to the talk page to discuss other improvements. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I just added the same four categories that are on Hunger strike to the List of hunger strikes article, and removed {{uncategorized}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Seems like there should some people/list related ones. I'll mention on talk if someone doesn't add them first. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Theresa Spence ANI Discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the recent Theresa Spence-related disputes. Thank you. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent addons Theresa Spence

Hi, concerning the part i recently added to the Theresa Spence article, it did contain a citation of a reliable source, the National Post. Its not a blog in the paper's site, nor an opinion piece, its a regular article like all other news articles used as refs in this, and many other biographical, articles. If citations must be from peer-reviewed sources, almost all other citations in this, and many other, articles, must be called into questioned, if not scrapped. Nguyen1310 (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what you did here, nor does it address my concern, that you used your edit summary to soapbox. --Ronz (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That also was a credible source used, CTV news. Aside, some Canadians think a hunger strike can still result in a person that looks rather healthy in appearance and weight after 29 - 30 days. Despite a diet of tea and fish broth, yes the person striking would still be alive, but, they would've lost a significant amount of their original weight, and would appear very pale and weak and reluctant to move around, and their body will be consuming lots of adipose tissue to extract energy from the saturated fat in the adipose to make up for the lack of energy normally obtained from food sources like in carbs, just saying. Also, just as my opinion, but i may be wrong, but please ask yourself this question - why does Spence, and her husband Clayton, constantly dodge all questions from the media and public about the alleged financial mismanagement of government funds and corruption, instead of trying to prove otherwise any way she can, to prove her innocence and that the allegations brought before her are utterly false and truly the government's attempt to discredit her? Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nguyen, you have still failed to address Ronz's main concern: that you are WP:SOAPBOXing in edit summaries (and I believed you just did so again in that comment). Additionally, it is quite ironic that you claim to be defending the article from "POV-driven" changes when you yourself just tried to push your POV on others! RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no evidence of corruption, and the only mismanagement in evidence is the lack of detailed accountings.

I don't bother asking questions, instead I look at the sources in light of writing encyclopedia articles. --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Ronz. I'm currently doing some clearing up of Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user and noticed you have the adoption request userbox on your userpage (which puts you in this category). It's entirely up to you whether you retain it or not, but I strongly suspect most potential adopters finding you will take one look at your work and think, "He's ridiculously experienced, what the hell would he need me for?" (I certainly did, and I consider myself a fairly experienced user). I think it's fairly unlikely that you'll find an adopter, since most of us concentrate on helping new users learn the basics - users like yourself, who are evidently totally competent, don't really need an adopter to explain copyright or show them how to use a citation template...

As I said, it's totally your call as to whether or not you keep the userbox and its attendant catagorisation; I just thought I'd let you know that (in my humble opinion) there's not much point to it. All the best, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I'm aware (see User_talk:Ronz#Regarding_adoption). I'll be using WP:ER in a few months, but I would still like further mentoring if I can find it. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Last warning to ip for edits to Hunger strike

Hello I've recently been trying to remove Theresa spence from the section under hunger strike but it keeps getting reverted and now it says if I continue vandalism ill be blocked from editing?! Every time I remove it I have put a perfect explanation of why she shouldn't be on the hunger strike page and have even submitted a link http://www.theprovince.com/touch/story.html?id=7803933 She doesn't deserve to be on the same page as Gandhi and I would appreciate if I would get my warnings removed because I'm not trying to vandalize I'm trying to correct the nonsense someone has created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.249.150 (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. If you'll look, you'll see that there is a discussion on this topic on the article talk page. Please join the discussion there rather than edit-warring for your preference.

I've gone ahead and replaced the vandalism notice with one for edit-warring. Please do not revert again, but join the discussion instead where other editors can help decide what changes should be made. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Weston Price Foundation

all of the new sources are reliable, and sufficiently counter the sources that were previously given. You are abusing wikipedia's policies and engaging in censorship.Pottinger's cats (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. My concerns were WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, not WP:V and WP:RS. And please focus on content.

Looking at it closer, they are blatant WP:SYN violations as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

External links to publishers and pictures of books

Thanks, Ronz, for telling me about the recent disagreements, but I disagree. Part 5 of the Wiki-rules on adverting state: 'External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article.' - since in all three cases you've editted the authors came to prominence through their written work, I think links to these sites are fair.AlexMoore300 (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, this doesn't make sense. A picture is informative. It can tell a thousand words. The picture of a book shows people whether the book is mass-market or academic, cheap or expensive etc. People are used to judging a book by its cover. That's why music album covers are often shown on Wikipedia, and there are lots of other comparisons which can be drawn. I accept a description of a book could be non-neutral (eg describing it as 'readable' or 'good'), but a simple image of it decorates the page an tells the reader things they wouldn't otherwise know from just the list of titles. If you disagree with this analysis, please show me wiki-policy to back up your viewpoint, or let's have this discussion out in a policy forum. But your simple deletion of my pictures is tantamount to vandalismAlexMoore300 (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree, and you still have not addressed my concern. More on your talk... --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Earl Mindell - Jan 2013

Earl Mindell received his Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy in 1963. He wrote 55 books onhealth and nutrition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alannna (talk • contribs) 06:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And that has what to do with your repeated removal of sourced information from the article with no explanation? --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several inaccuracies that I want to clean up on Wikipedia. How do I go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alannna (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Join the talk page discussion that I started for you here. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ronz,

There are a number of inaccuracies that I have tried to correct. If this is where you would like me to direct my information, then I will flood this space with corrections. Where can I submit verification of records, other factual info that I would like added to the wikipedia site?

Thank you ---Alannna--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alannna (talk • contribs) 02:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Given your editing to date, I wonder if you understand English, or are instead using a translator to communicate. I expect you'll be blocked and then it won't matter. If you don't want to be blocked, stop edit-warring and instead join the discussion on the article talk page as has been pointed out to you multiple times now. --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

see this - Weston A. Price Foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weston_A._Price_Foundation#John_Robbins_misleading_statementPottinger's cats (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're continuing to attempt to discredit criticism by interjecting primary sources and changing the content to your liking. We've been over this. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Humaima Malick

Hello Ronz, I've gone forward with your protection suggestion on the above page. I did, however, discover that you removed a newly added photo in your reversion of the unsourced additions. Please try not to remove actually helpful edits in the process of removing bad content (unless I'm missing something here). Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 00:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sorry, I should have started a talk page discussion on this to make it all clearer. I don't think the image is helpful, and have stated so in my edit summaries multiple times and to the only editor that is not using a dynamic ip. --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I've removed the image. Airplaneman ✈ 17:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Now if only some of the people behind the ips or the one editor would. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

how do I get my resume/bio added back - Rich Gossweiler

Hi Ronz, I see that my bio/resume was removed (but my colleagues' remain). How do I create verification for my prior employment such that it will stay (I really do work at Google and have worked at NASA and PARC)? I'd like to add my publications/patents as well, but worry that effort will just be removed.

thanks, Rich Gossweiler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Gossweiler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.46.34 (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rich. Thanks for contacting me.

If you can provide independent, reliable sources that demonstrate your notability, we'd be able to expand the article around them (and prevent it from being deleted in the future). I strongly suggest placing them on the article's talk page for others' to assess, in following with our conflict of interest policy. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I found refs for all the recent Google work you've done - but couldn't find anything pertaining to the previous jobs really... That info may need to be slightly trimmed but otherwise the article now looks OK Nikthestunned 11:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Certified Professional

Also Ronz I wasn't advertising I even linked the child prodigy page which is another wiki page and its just facts that not allot of people know and is overlooked in no way was i advertising the people who passed the test I just wanted it to be a form of common knowledge when someone views the page. Unknownfacts33 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

"I put that there to give some form of recognition to the young men who passed the exam I just wanted to do something fairly nice for them even though its not much on a large scale." [4] That would be promotion. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My India Experience - Etan Doronne

Hello Ron,

Leaving you a thank you message last month was not aimed to bribe you in any way into becoming my blind-eye editor who approves my commercial spam.

I have read your message to me: I am not an Indian nor Hindu, do not live in India nor married/blood related (What "very close to a subject" you are talking about?), not running any business or even non-profit (which "conflicts of interest" are you talking about) and have no agenda other then share my personal experience, earned by extensive living in rural villages across India to shed light on these hidden places/culture/tradition etc...

Please look at my user page, Google me up (I appear always under my real name) to verify the above.

I put in a great deal of my time and dedication to document by photos, writing and videos. The fact that I do not look for a compensation doesn't mean my time and efforts are negligible.

If you are a volunteer too, you should know what I mean.

If I am not mistaken you had gone ahead and systematically deleted everything you could find that is related to my name. If I am wrong please correct me otherwise your action has emptied air out of my sails. If you can justify this dozing down of my work, one value at a time, please do. Otherwise I will reduce my contributions, to minimize my wasted time and look for other, more enlightened and less bureaucratic channels then the Wikipedia which you represent for me at the moment.

Will appreciate your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan Doronne (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.

Sorry you feel this way. I suggest taking the matter to WP:COIN.

"Leaving you a thank you message last month was not aimed to bribe you in any way into becoming my blind-eye editor who approves my commercial spam." I don't know what you are referring to. You left me a message? Where, when, through what account?

I removed the most obvious and blatant coi-violations you made. I didn't look to see what others you may have made. Now I've looked just a bit and found 59.99.178.215 (talk · contribs), 64.134.226.36 (talk · contribs), 68.107.77.129 (talk · contribs), 71.110.144.69 (talk · contribs), 71.189.170.28 (talk · contribs), and 76.168.205.194 (talk · contribs). I expect at least some of these are you. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes... the 2nd and 4th are my contributions (not the other ones) and sorry, since it's not mandatory for link contributions (unlike photo contributions on Wiki Commons) I do forget to log in sometimes. Yet, you haven't answered my question: why did you delete any of them?

Did you check for conflict or what are your criteria for "too close to the subject"?

A writer/researcher/journalist who publishes a book about a lifelong area of interest is too close to the subject?

Does a writer whom book is listed as a reference is considered promoting his book, soliciting for profit ?

Are you only allowing published writers or maybe only recognized or famous publish houses to be listed/linked ?

Is Wikipedia meant to be an open source encyclopedia to open the closed loop of publishing industry censorship ?

People were sent to gulags after quick field courts (or without, just based on rumors) because of officials being too lazy, lacking interest or biased to check facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan Doronne (talk • contribs) 04:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I see you're quite passionate about this. However the policy exists for good reason.

You have a conflict of interest. Please don't add external links of your work into articles and please follow WP:COIN. If you want to dispute this, take it to WP:COIN.

The links have been spammed extensively in the past, so I'm going to put together a report just on the spamming. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am passionate about this and so should you be concerned about freedom of information, as an editor in Wikipedia. However you seem to be busy with correctional activity rather then content focused as a prime. Remember you are a public servant not a policy maker. Wikipedia came to be because of too many policy makers that forgot most about the importance of grassroots content. It's the third time I ask you to base your accusation about spamming and conflicts which you systematically ignore. I have selectively added relevant links of pure information from a first hand, own experience and documentation. My pure activity is documentation and presentation and I do not charge any fees or promote other businesses. As you said I am passionate and that is what motivates me, free sharing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan Doronne (talk • contribs) 04:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry you feel this way.

You have a conflict of interest with the material you added. If you are disputing this, take it to WP:COIN.

You've spammed the link in violation of WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:NOT. If you dispute this, take it to WP:COIN or wait until I have the spam report done then discuss the matter there. If you'd like me to start the spam report before I'm done looking into the situation, I could do that as well.

I'll inform you when the spam report is posted. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I will probably stop contributing to Wikipedia. Have no interest to waste my time on learning how and which forms to file to which councils and comittees. I guess you can mark it as your achievement. Maybe you'll even make your quota for whatever bonus, slap on the back or brag with friends you're after. Wonder what's the flavor of victory for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan Doronne (talk • contribs) 05:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Scratchpad for spam report

Extended content

12.219.160.114 (talk · contribs) 59.99.176.245 (talk · contribs) 59.99.178.215 (talk · contribs) 64.134.145.12 (talk · contribs) ** 64.134.222.47 (talk · contribs) ** 64.134.226.36 (talk · contribs) * 64.134.226.74 (talk · contribs) ** 64.134.227.97 (talk · contribs) ** 66.166.54.42 (talk · contribs) Could be unrelated 68.107.77.129 (talk · contribs) 69.106.136.171 (talk · contribs) 69.111.188.139 (talk · contribs) Could be unrelated 69.111.190.173 (talk · contribs) Appears to be good faith edit unrelated to the spamming Could be unrelated 71.110.88.181 (talk · contribs) ** 71.110.144.69 (talk · contribs) * 71.189.170.28 (talk · contribs) 76.168.205.194 (talk · contribs) 117.207.113.161 (talk · contribs) 216.70.142.249 (talk · contribs) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/jpgmag.com Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/jpgmag.com http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/LinkReports/myindiaexperience.com myindiaexperience.com is blacklisted 76.169.198.119 (talk · contribs) Rural tourism [5] [6] [7] Spiti Valley, Nose-jewel, Pavagadh, Hammock, Sesame oil, Jiangling Tractors, Mahindra Tractors

70.68.157.30

Shared IP address, please do not block, an account will be created in order to prevent further violations. My patient here is also stating that his last edit to the Gwen Stefani page is accurate. I run an in-house for at risk youth, just hoping I can clarify this, wouldn't want to lose Wikipedia as a resource to my staff and residents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.157.30 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

You won't lose access to Wikipedia, only the ability to edit articles from this ip. Likely it will only be for a short period of time, depending upon others' assessment of the situation. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Palm oil

Hi Ronz, I saw that you had commented on Talk:Palm oil and I wonder if you would have time to review my proposed revisions to that article? There are two pieces of replacement text I have prepared for the Market and Malaysia sections, to add information and provide clarification of existing text. The full request on the article's talk page is here. I'll be watching the article's talk page, if you have any questions. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, thanks for your review of the two revisions. So far, there has not been any other feedback despite the request edit template. Seeing that you feel these revisions are improvements, if no one else comments in the next day or so, would you feel comfortable in being WP:BOLD and making the changes? YellowOwl (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies 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/Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies 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 template from the top of the article.

Revisions_for_New_regulations_and_Malaysia

Hi Ronz. Was this Request Edit completed? Just trying to clear out the queue. CorporateM (Talk) 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We're currently hoping someone else will give an opinion of the proposed changes. --Ronz (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, were these changes ever made? Talk:Palm_oil#Revisions_for_New_regulations_and_Malaysia Trying to close out the stale Request Edits. CorporateM (Talk) 14:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. No, the changes haven't been made. We'd like more opinions first. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Human Capital

Did you delete the schematic for Intellectual Capital from the page Human Capital? If yes, why? On what basis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbankingMM (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

See your talk page for a start.

You're trying to use Wikipedia to promote your company. If you continue, you'll be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is your area of expertice? Are your qualified to make any determination regarding this subject?

Integrating the use of Human Capital in the concept of Intellectual Capital and including a schematic that delineates the flows of value so that a common user can make sense of a complicated subject is in the best interests of all. Everything I have written is factual, documented and not remotely self-interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbankingMM (talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll notify you when the WP:COIN report is ready. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sir, it is you that is engaging in disruptive editing. If you continue to delete factually correct and useful information you may be blocked from editing.

You must not delete information unless you have good reason to believe, based upon your area of expertise, that it is not correct or correctly referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbankingMM (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I take it you still haven't read WP:COI yet... I'll let you know when the report is ready. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's highly advisable that you address the WP:COI concerns at WP:COIN. I can go into more detail if they're not clear.

If you want to comment here further, please try to better follow WP:DR, WP:TALK, and WP:AGF. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

personalfitnesstests.com

Ronz, I can see from the information left about you from other Wiki users that this isn't a first time you've interfered with Wiki pages. Please leave the links alone on the MSFT Wiki page, as you're taking free resources away from Wiki user’s interested in the MSFT. There are many links on this page, again you might want to look for the links hidden in the text over links to genuine resources. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.1.190.73 (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. If you think the link is somehow appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, you should be discussing the matter at WP:ELN rather than spamming it. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, could you explain the difference between the link for Personal Fitness Tests at www.personalfitnesstests and the others i.e. Complete Guide to the Beep Test - TopEndSports.com and Background information on the Beep Test - Rugbycoach.com?— PFTests (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:45, 25 February 2013‎ (UTC).

Ronz, this user has been blocked along with the IP range. If the spamming continues file a report on the MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad the other spammer stepped forward.

It's at XLinkBot right now. I'll take it to the blacklist if it continues further. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

3O

Hey, Ronz. Regarding this edit, I think its OK to remove the Talk:Cord Meyer listing in that it appears User:Mark Marathon's response there was the third opinion. Location (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It looked like an accidental deletion when an editor was adding an inappropriate addition... --Ronz (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought, too. As an "involved editor", I didn't want to take any action on it. Cheers! Location (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Art of Living Editing

The Art of Living organizes workshops. to help people de-stress. I attended it. Found it useful. Saw many articles on the same. Why am i wrong in writing what exists? Or is it that the way i express is wrong. Please guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy.went.wandy (talk • contribs) 05:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

See the article's talk page: Talk:Art_of_Living_foundation. --Ronz (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not the question of sourced information - there are thousands of posts on news about Art of living Foundation - the real question is what make you think that these type of information can contribute to wikipedia which is more about giving encyclopedia+ information! There should be proper stand of adding relevant material which contribute to quality of page and don't degrade it by hyping negligible content like hate blogs! Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but once again you just seem to want to make the article to conform to your personal viewpoint. You need to either step away from the article completely, or find a way to approach the concerns without a battleground mentality. The label of "hate blogs" and the attacks against those that run those websites needs to stop. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

New request on Palm oil

Hi Ronz, I was wondering if I could trouble you to look at my most recent request on the Palm oil talk page for revisions to the Social and Environmental sections, both of which are in need of an overhaul. I don't want to monopolize your time here so please let me know if you are too busy to help. Also, if you know of some other editors who might be interested in this topic, I can try reaching out to them instead. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins

Ronz

I have followed your edits of the above-titled page with interest. My understanding is that you don't consider the featured products to be notable according to Wikipedia rules, which seems to be a somewhat circular Wikipedia rule, i.e. (if I understand correctly) that the software products should have their own pages on Wikipedia to be 'notable'.

In my view, the list includes a couple of non-commercial products that are not that notable in the real-world sense since they are not commonly used. On the other hand, it has been created to be extremely objective, so I assume that nobody has dared to suggest which should be included and which should be left out. The removal of the features list makes it less obvious to the reader which products are more substantial, so I wondered why you removed it.

At a guess (I have worked as a consultant in this field for many years and know several of the products very well), there are probably well in excess of 100,000 users of Monte Carlo Excel add-ins around the world, and really big decisions are routinely made using these products. As an application genre, they should certainly be notable. It might not seem so to someone outside the field, but they are quite firmly a product type that should not be mixed with others (like decision analysis or project risk or statistical modeling software) since no practical comparison could be made between them.

I have looked at your edit log, and recognise that you are fair and straightforward. I would not like to see this page removed, as you have suggested, but would be willing to help improve it as you requested. Can you offer any suggestions on how that might be achieved?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risk modeler (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on AfD. We should take this discussion to the article talk page, but when I've encountered such situations in the past, we've started with the notability of the entries first. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

JJ

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding a hostile editing environment. The thread is "User:J._Johnson_-_hostile_environment.". Thank you. --Elvey (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think anything useful is going to happen until he's subjected to Arbcom enforcement. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the copy. JJ had gone so far as to notice which notices I'd signed, but I could have considered other issues. I don't feel like I know how to/can do what you suggest - for multiple reasons. If you can do it, you're more than welcome to (assuming my effort fails as you seem certain it will). --Elvey (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Palm oil: Blood lipid and cholesterol

Hi Ronz, I noticed that you reverted an edit to the Palm Oil article yesterday. Obviously this unregistered editor was not trying to do anything constructive here, however my current request on the talk page addresses the Blood lipid and cholesterol section where this edit was made. I am not sure if you have noticed but several of the sources in this section fall far below Wikipedia's standards. I also think the section is too technical to be of much value to the average reader. My request on the talk page explains everything in more detail and provides a suggested revision. I've also posted a draft for the RSPO section, which is largely plagiarized and unsupported. I hope you'll be able to look over these revisions. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Facilities Management

I am at a loss to understand why you and others have deleted large sections of Facilities Management, much of which is cross reference to external authoritative sources such as standards, laws, regulations, best practice and many cross referenced to WIKI articles. I agree it would do better with some text, but this would have been worked around the references that you have deleted. I am sure nobody now wants to put all of these reference back in. Any chance of an explanation as I am at a loss to understand this? I am a Facilities Manager of 40 years experience (now retired) and I do have an MSc degree in the subject. And why leave the "see also" section if you want to destroy the references. This bit has some shockers in it for example 1:5:200 - what has that got to do with FM? Perhaps you could also have left a comment in the "talk section" of the article as I did with explanation?

Sidpickle (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave an edit summary and a comment on the talk page. I'll follow up further on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll do the same. I've added some text but from experience I know this page is targeted by the "trade" and vandals and I have always been reluctant to spent too much time on it. I have added some text but if you want to start again I have no problem. One other issue is that UK and USA are different and being in the UK I have only access to our version of things so you really need a USA author to get involved

All the best - Ted

Sidpickle (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey

I'm about link what you deleted. I guess you are wrong because my site is informative especially about Kids swimwear what i did not find any other useful link for that. and as i read in wiki guidlines: "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" I'm tallking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimsuit

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokiys (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

By "my site" I'm assuming you mean that you have a relationship with it. In that case you shouldn't be adding it at all. I've already pointed out WP:COI on your talk page. Please follow it. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

JJ and Elvey

ArbCom is unlikely to be interested, especially as there has been no RfC (remember I was an ArbCom clerk, although that doesn't mean I am definitely right). Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 21:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Neuromarketing

Ronz, that's ridiculous. To post a link from a blog is not a promotion. It's the opinion of an academic in the neuroscience field, which is exactly where and what it was categorized under - Neuromarketing under the criticisms page. I have zero reason to promote him or his work. It is a valid perspective from a professional in the field concerned. Tr38back (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You've not addressed my concerns. I'll explain them in more detail on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did address your concerns in my response. Bennett's background is worth noting because he works as a researcher in cognitive psychology, which has an extremely substantial overlap with the breadth of neuromarketing. The post was made in the criticism section of the article, and the fact of the matter is that the majority of the academics within the field criticize neuromarketing for the exact reasons I specified. His view is indicative of the popular view on this emerging field, and he's a respected scientist in the field. It's not a rant, and it's not an endorsement. The intention is to add a rebuttal to the popular criticism and show exactly where SOME people are taking the field, thereby giving a full picture. As it sits, what I wrote was properly categorized and aptly displayed under the "criticism" section. Also, I didn't touch Dawkins's citation because it came from another page. However, your "further reading" section doesn't adequately demonstrate the differences within this field. There is academic study out there, and that is the basis of this work. There needs to be a designation that indicates a difference between the academics furthering this field and those people writing how-to books that are basically marketing pieces. I'm not exactly sure what your deal is, but you clearly know nothing about neuromarketing. You're doing the entire field a disservice by not highlighting the multiple paths people are taking. There are books people can read to learn about he field and related fields - such as those by Zurawicki and Dawkins, and there are the books that are promotional sales books by corporations who have a service to sell, such as those by Zaltman. He is an academic, but his books are promotional. Please do everyone a favor and ask a few questions prior to playing edit Nazi on here. If you don't know anything about the field, exactly what makes you think you know what should go on the wiki? If someone makes a formatting error, that's fine. For example, I don't care that you changed the Dawkins citation. However, that is clearly not what you are doing. You had infinite opportunity to revamp the books and further reading section, but you didn't because you don't care about the field or the wiki page. It seems as though you just get off on undoing other people's work. So please don't make edits based on your ignorance of the field you're editing. Educate yourself first. If you have a question, ask. It's pretty easy. Tr38back (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

"Bennett's background is worth noting because he works as a researcher in cognitive psychology.." Says who?

You make great points. Problem is, they're just your opinions so far. Provide independent and reliable sources and we'll be fine-tuning the presentation rather than arguing if it deserves mention.

"...and the fact of the matter is that the majority of the academics within the field criticize neuromarketing for the exact reasons I specified. His view is indicative of the popular view on this emerging field..." This is exactly why we need such information in the article, however it has to be verifiable.

It would be nice to see the article rewritten to clearly distinguish what actually has strong scientific evidence behind it, vs promising research, vs evidence-based practice (if any exists), vs current practice, vs hype. I'm not holding my breath that we'll be able to find sources to do so.

The guidelines for the Further reading section are rather vague (See WP:FURTHER). I've trimmed it back. I'd prefer to see it removed, with the best entries used as references in the article instead.

Thanks for the detailed follow up. Please try to focus on content as we continue. At some point this should all be taken to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Neil Strauss still active in the Pickup community

Strauss has been open on the factual stuff I've mentioned. Which specific items do you need references for, and I will provide them. Don't just delete an entire Talk entry. It's there for discussion. Be specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop (talk • contribs) 22:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for you and your friends to take shots at each other. --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Art of Living March 2013

I am finding multiple issues with the editing of the Art of Living Article it looks highly biased with negative tone now. I really don't understand why hate blogging group is promoted as Art Of Living raised suit against it! Art of Living filed suits against may be 100 odd organizations/individuals - It is clearly not having place on wiki. For your information, Art of Living is world's biggest volunteer driven NGO and biggest ever Spiritual Organization. Further founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is having highest following. Further, I don't understand why In wikipedia we can't write Project Details, Activities etc! I am having direct knowledge of the subject so we can post better and more authentic! Advertisement were quote around 3-4 years back when benefits of Sudarshan Kriya was about 1 page section. For more facts and figures please visit Art of Living Facts and Figures 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs) 06:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you should work on articles where you don't have such an attachment? Wikipedia is not a venue to promote organizations or personal beliefs about them. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with your editing of the content I have added in the Criticism section. Please refer to the talk page.Parjorim (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments on the talk page of the article. thanks203.191.35.22 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Velvet antler

Hi Ronz, much as share your attitude towards spamming and advertising, don't you think you might have a bit severe in labelling this as "adverting?" There are hundreds of WP articles with sections on "health benefits", proven or not, or couched in language that leaves it clear that these claims are most likely 'traditional'/ folklore. The section you removed does make it clear that it is not proven (see bolded words below). In the interest of representing 'folk medicine', should we not leave the section and just make it more clear that these are folk beliefs or similar? Ideally, we should be able to say something - as in other articles in the WP - about specif uses by specific nationalities. What do you think? Regards,

"Deer velvet antler is purported to be a tonic which restores balance to the body. There are over 400 active ingredients in deer velvet antler which have an effect on many body systems. Deer velvet antler ingredients are precursors to substances used by the body for a wide variety of health remedy and health maintenance purposes. Velvet antler is said to be effective as an anti-inflammatory, anticancer, immune stimulant, and progrowth agent. Modern scientific research indicates deer velvet antler may improve general health, increase blood circulation, reduce blood pressure, increase energy and endurance, increase muscle development, improve joint health, increase muscle recovery, and improve sexual health. Almost 250 papers have been published since 1930, by Russia, Korea, China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, on the manufacture, composition and biochemical effect of deer velvet antler."

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

See the talk page comments. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you were so disappointed with the reply above.

As you will note from the talk page discussion, none of the material is verified by the source. I'd expect that would end any discussion about keeping it with the source.

You'll also note the efforts to find reliable sources to expand the article. Perhaps we can focus on those instead? --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

See talk page. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Joel Wallach edit.

Ronz,

My name is Andrew Blanford. I am Libertas Maximus. I am in no way affiliated with Dr. Joel Wallach, the MDA or Jerry Lewis. I am an individual.

Whereas Dr. Joel Wallach is unable to edit his Wikipedia entry himself, I have taken it upon myself to update his page. I am waiting written approval to reuse Dr. Wallach's biography from his web site or I will write an original. With written approval, would I be allowed to add Dr. Wallach's biography to his Wikipedia page?

Also, I did not receive a message regarding the entries I made on the MDA and Jerry Lewis pages, regarding his firing from the MDA. Were the sources not good enough or what was the problem there?

I am in no way affilliated with Jerry Lewis, the MDA or Dr. Joel Wallach. I am an individual who wishes to edit accurately a couple of incomplete Wikipedia entries.

Thank you,

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertasmaximus (talk • contribs) 14:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up.

So you have no direct conflict of interest. Great! Let's move on.

The conflict-of-interest note also highlights a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They apply to all editing.

No, getting permission to use Wallach's press doesn't solve anything in this case. While yes, your violated our copyright policy, there are many more policies that also apply to such content even if it were rewritten to avoid any copyright or plagiarism problems.

One day I'll find a better way to present this, but I feel it's important to do so regardless of the presentation. My apologies for giving advice at this point but: I highly recommend you learn your way around Wikipedia first, before taking on an article like Joel Wallach or attempt to introduce his opinions into other articles. This essay provides details on why it's so important to learn your way around first. The topics that you've chosen are atypical of Wikipedia - rather than being something that can be casually edited with a great deal of leeway on how well you follow the relevant policies and guidelines, most attempts to edit on these topics will result in outright deletions of the information if they don't fairly strictly follow the policies.

So I suggest finding something non-controversial that you might enjoy editing, and work on that instead. That way you will learn that most of the editing on Wikipedia can indeed be enjoyable. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Palm oil: Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil

Hi Ronz, it appears that the conversation has gone quiet on the Palm oil talk page. Did you have any suggestions for the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil section? I'll also be contacting Watti Renew who I see recently added new information to the article about Indonesia, perhaps s/he will be interested in helping out. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, last week I posted my final two requests on the Palm oil talk page. Since then Guy Macon has helped with part of the request, however the portion dealing with the Biodiesel section remains. I'd appreciate it if you had time to review my suggested revision. Though my revision is a significant change, I have detailed what I have added and removed on the talk page for clarity. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The revision has been reviewed and made by Guy Macon, so I have closed my request on the Palm oil page. As this was my last request on this topic, I would like to thank you again for your feedback on my other revisions. YellowOwl (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion for 76.189.111.2

I'm going to try to use my talk page to communicate with you, since you don't want me using your own.

I'd like to discussion your accusations against me. I don't believe it will be possible to continue to address the content dispute until we do. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies that you're so upset by all this. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(As an aside, no one owns their talk page. An editor's talk page is the primary forum for communicating with that editor. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC) )

Given the situation I want to make it perfectly clear that I started this discussion after suggesting it to you, so I could avoid posting on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And please watch what you say about other editors here on my talk page. Please keep it to their talk page, yours, or another appropriate forum. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

BLP/N dispute

I left a message for 76.189.111.2, polity asking him to assume good faith, focus on content, and suggested he read WP:DR. I am sure you have read it, but I suggest that a review is never a bad idea. the dispute is potentially disruptive, and the sooner it is resolved, the better. I also suggest that you don't post on his user talk page for a while, and avoid conflict. Aunva6 (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

and, predictably, he removed it. well, some people don't want help, I guess. Aunva6 (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, we tried. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it a very good sign that he's actually restored it. Now let's see if anything else changes. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Spoke too soon. It's gone. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

and now he's mad at me... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't take it personally. I think the best thing to do is to give him some time. --Ronz (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani's page

There's NO facts about Gwen Stefani being diagnosed with ADHD at school. The only thing that has been brought up was her dyslexia. ADHD is some made up stuff. Just google it, and you won't find anything about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Non-cynical (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You removed a source and the information on dyslexia. Why? --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Hkmediaac01

I doubt if we'll see any more edits from Hkmediaac01 (talk · contribs) in any case, but could you review your addition of a {{uw-coi}} below my {{Welcomespam}}? The result looks rather overwhelming, and the two messages cover the same ground. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was a bit overwhelming. I've replaced it with a coi-username notice, in a separate section. I would have requested an outright block myself, but I agree that I doubt we'll be seeing more from the company. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Much clearer, thanks -- John of Reading (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Joel D. Wallach for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joel D. Wallach 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/Joel D. Wallach 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. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi I apologize for that. I didn't realize the guideline. We are part of a dental hygienist group at a public university and am trying to build a ultimate site to career information on Dental Hygiene . Anyhow, I didn't realize the guideline on Wikipedia. Apologize for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derschizo (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Pets and animal welfare

Dear Ronz, I removed the text because it's a single opnion and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreemgross (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Please try to use edit summaries or comment on the article talk page.

I agree with the removal of the "slavery" claim. It would be best addressed in animal welfare. On the other hand, there should definitely be a section on animal welfare in pets summarizing the other article with emphasis on pets. --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

LAGbook

Hi,

Do you think that LAGbook warrants an AfD nomination at this point? I CSD'd it once before as spam, but socialnerd learned to provide third-party sources. However, it looks like the vast majority of the sources are Nigerian press and we now have good reason to believe that these sources are just rewriting questionable press releases. I find it very difficult to take LAGbook seriously. At the time I CSD'd the article, their logo was an exact copy of the facebook logo except using an "l" instead of an "f" and green instead of blue. GabrielF (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree an AfD is the next step, unless better sources are identified or other suggestions are offered in response to the NPOVN request or other discussions. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Bloggish ref at MOOC

I put back the ref you deleted at MOOCs. Not that I entirely disagree with your removal, but this is a fast moving topic, the article/blog seems accurate enough, but most importantly, I'd like to encourage new folks to join in editing there. Please see the talk page if you have any questions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As I indicated, I don't think it actually verifies the information. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramid Hoax

Dear Ronz, I am unsure who or how this is viewed or considered? Nevertheless, I comment on the wiki article 'Bosnian Pyramid'. I have invested personal and professional time investigating the science of this controversial site. However, when I consult wiki I find biased writing primarily dating from 2006-8 opposing every aspect of the proposition. In the past 5 years much has been understood through application of science and physical investigation.

My primary issue is with an attributed quote of the idea being a HOAX. This statement is dated 2006, just some 6 months after the proposition was put forward and is biased in the extreem. It is time to re-visit this and amend as necessary in the interests of informing the public.

There is little doubt the thesis of a Bosnian pyramid is difficult for some to cope with. However, to claim a HOAX demands evidence of a premeditated action intended to defraud or deliberately mislead the public and not just one persons opinion. There is a total absence of evidence in support a HOAX is at play. The comment is attributed to an individual who in not in a position to consider the evidence gathered over the past 8 years.

Accordingly, I object to the rejection of my re-edit and i intend to pursue correction.

thank you.

Archatype

This isn't a court of law, it's an encyclopedia. Personal opinions about how reliable sources need to back their claims that the promotion of the hill as a pyramid is a hoax violate WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Ronz, in spite of supposed differences, I would like to express my gratitude to you. I love you.

Thank you for having been a part of my evolution.Pottinger's cats (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Latest Posts from ridha1981

Hi Ron, If it's not clear why the information in my last four posts are factual, let's discuss before going back & forth in a tug of war. Maybe it's the phrasing and the referencing (linking to www.najat.ca) that needs to be adjusted... albeit content wise I am referencing an expert in these fields - it just so happens that she's an artists who sells her work.Ridha1981 (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)ridha

Thanks for following up with me.

Let's take this to your talk, since it's more than one article. --Ronz (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Data mining

I think it is time to split the Data Mining topic like the Cross Validation topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.107.236.202 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following, the article certainly needs a lot of work. Can you explain on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Pain Management comment

Hi Ronz,

I appreciate the comment you left regarding my revision and, appropriately enough, someone did in fact delete my revision. I just had a read through WP:COI and WP:MEDRS and will make sure to comply with these guidelines in future edits.

However, I would just like to point out to you why my history of revisions seems to be one-sided. The fact is, I prefer to contribute solely on the topic of medical marijuana and its various applications because that is the area I specialize in. Likewise, I would not contribute to page about 19th Century Spanish history or Taylor Swift, because I am not familiar with such topics. Moreover, I believe that all of my past contributions have been entirely valid and scientifically backed. While I may be a personal supporter of medical marijuana, and I do realize that it is a highly debated topic, all of my contributions come directly from the factual interpretation of scientific studies.

My revisions are merely attempting to fill in the gaps of selectively provided information, in which medical marijuana research has been left out. I think that these gaps are glaringly obvious when it comes to subjects such as Pain Management, Insomnia, etc., where numerous "treatments" are listed, some of which are by far less scientifically supported than medical marijuana, and yet medical marijuana is not given a single mention. It's a societal bias that continues to be perpetrated widely, even on websites as liberal as Wikipedia.

I just wanted to make that clear and I mean it all with the fullest respect to you. Once again, thanks for your advice and please feel free to leave me a comment on my page if you want to discuss anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.28.68 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Without the changes I mentioned earlier, they're likely to be removed quickly. Replace the truthonpot reference with more authoritative ones, and back the medical claims with MEDRS sources. The 1999 report fails MEDRS, and probably shouldn't be mentioned at all.

It would probably be best to start a centralized discussion on the article's talk page before these discussions go much further. --Ronz (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

??? I'm sorry, but now you're starting to lose credibility. The 1999 report was published by the Institute of Medicine, which is CLEARLY listed on WP:MEDRS as an appropriate resource. I really don't know what else to say..

In terms of the TruthOnPot.com source, it is referenced for a very subjective and introductory statement. There is no medical claim being made when I say that pain management is one of the most common uses of medical marijuana, rather it is a evidence-backed observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.28.68 (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to WP:FOC here.

Please read MEDRS. It's been pointed out to you many times now. In it, you'll note that that a 1999 report fails MEDRS because it is not recent, per WP:MEDDATE.

You'll note that I'm not saying MEDRS applies the the info sourced by truthonpot. What I am saying is that it should be replaced by a better source. --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Grilled Cheese video

So, after you removed the grilled cheese video, did you at least have the courtesy to leave a note for the person who put all the hard work into it? -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought about giving him an edit-warring notice, but thought better to just let it go. Feel free to do so yourself.

So what do you think about removing the section completely? --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference on E-Learning Page - alison.com

Hi Ron,

I'm wondering why my addition on this page was removed? How can I stay within Wikipedia's terms of use in future?

If you could give me some guidance on where I went wrong on this then that would be great.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saunders 1980 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me. I've responded on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Pho

Hi Ron, I understand, I will try searching for sources that are more reliable or more information of Pho's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panhle93 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz / (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Brand management edit

Hello Ron,

I appreciate your prompt response to my article edit and the advice given! I immediately felt welcomed and validated by the community, and for such a large, anonymous network, I see that as comforting and simoltaneously impressive. Thanks again for the tips posted on my user page - I will definitely use them in the future! Happy Friday and happy editing.

Sincerely,

AboveTheIssues (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)AboveTheIssues

Information - Coworking

Ronz, I did add information related to coworking matters same as wikipedia already have, including reference sites with coworking places list in UK. Also we are working to grow coworking moviment in Latin America and we start "Roaming Coworking" with means, if someone paid to work into any coworking could work in any coworking based into a membership. This information has been published into very important portals in Brazil and try to make easy people that need a good place to work to find us. Yes, it will forward information to a coworking place - for sure - however it is the first one that start to work like that, there is no other one working like this. So, can you help me to post this information? Regards Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcapilontra (talk • contribs) 11:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying that there is similar material in other articles, so that justifies your own, then I'm sorry, but that's no justification at all.

Sounds like you're trying to use material form promotion. That's inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about sources

Hello! I have a question about what standards you are applying at List of breweries in San Diego County, California. You recently deleted several breweries whose source was the San Diego Reader, and I agree that the Reader is not a very strong source. But you left alone four breweries whose only source was a paragraph each in West Coaster, a San Diego craft brewing trade magazine. That strikes me as an ever weaker source. Am I missing something? --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's a weaker source. I just didn't have time to look over the other sources well. We should discuss on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Khewra External link

Hi Ronz,

I included the link because I am the one who owns that site. And i am working hard to makeup a great informational website for my city. so it is requested to undo the link removal.

Regards, Waqas Waqasahmad1 (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Follow WP:COI and you'll be fine. That means not adding the link again to articles until it's clear from talk page discussion that others agree it belongs - and even then best to let others add the link themselves. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)

Hi,

Though I am a registered user of Wiki since 2008, I have just started contributing. In fact I am just learning. So far 3 edits (since 2008) and all are reversed.

The last one I added was just a reference (link from a reputed newspaper website) to an already existing item. Could you please help me understand? How can that be considered as promotional?

Rajeswer Naidu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeswernaidu (talk • contribs) 15:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me on this.

I've been looking into your edit at Kanchipuram, trying to understand why it was removed. The editor that removed it is so far unable to explain and may have made a mistake. I've restored the material, but wonder if the source you added is reliable for the information.

As for your other two edits:

[8] is simply an advertisement based upon a brief article that shouldn't be used as a source at all, it clearly being a public relations piece made after the course was completed: "A number of hardcore prisoners at Varanasi Central Jail experienced mental peace and joy of life after attending a three-day advance course conducted by the Art of Living."

[9] This is WP:REFSPAM: the addition of a reference that doesn't actually support the material.

Given your previous edits, it appears you're here on Wikipedia for promotional purposes. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Message for Ronz

Hi Ronz,

Well done on all the editing you do - are you full time at it? retired? In any case, as a frequent Wikipedia user - thanks..

Now, I recently became a Wikipedia contributor - adding what I know I am fairly expert in. I got a message that you took down one of the links I posted. How do I see which link that was?

Many thanks,

B2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonian2 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You only have one other edit through this Bostonian2 (talk · contribs) account. I'm guessing you were editing with another account or weren't logged in. What message did you get and how did you receive it? Can you make some guesses what you might have been editing? I don't have time at the moment to figure what you're referring to with your one other edit. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Sir - Cover letter

Let me stop this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prk016 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Goa

I am extremely sorry Ronz. I think I have a long way to go. In case of an invalid link, what do we do? Should I just leave it and and another vallid link? 93.186.23.97 (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I don't think anything needs to be done. The reference is fine as it is. However, if you want to provide more up-to-date information with references, that would be helpful. --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

winitz additions

What I provided were third party references from current independently published articles with the proper citations and footnotes. The bio has been "up" for two years and I thought it needed to be updated with current, verifiable information. He is no less an authority in his field than Larry Gagosian (from Wikepedia)is in his:

Larry Gagosian

Lawrence Gilbert "Larry" Gagosian (born April 19, 1945) is an American art dealer who owns the Gagosian Gallery chain of art galleries. ...

8 KB (1,207 words) - 14:26, 3 May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gptobin (talk • contribs)

You added mentions of him - maybe appropriate for his pr, but not an encyclopedia article. WP:DR provides details on how to handle disputes. --Ronz (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: Links

Good evening, Ronz. They call me TurtleShroom. I'm not sure why you removed my links, because they were certainly needed in an unsourced article. I request to file dispute to retrieve them... if this is acceptable... --99.157.108.186 (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.

Are you discussing every edit from that ip? If so, then I removed:

• [10] because it was blatant advertising.
• [11] is a redirection link (inappropriate) to a self-published source.
• I removed these redirects because they were redirects and examples.

None of these articles is unsourced, so maybe you're discussing something else? --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to counter.

• I thought it was a first-party source and was very relevant to the thing at hand. I was not intending to advertise anyone. Isn't the person that created something a source on his own doctrine?
• I used Web Citation's redirect system because it permanently preserves a snapshot cache of the website. I did that so that someone doesn't click it one day and get a broken link. Obscure posts In addition, if you criticize this as a self-published source, why is Invader Zim's article allowed to reference a petty blog calling Invader Zim an affront to the Lord, when there is no theological or other proof to such a statement? I challenged and removed that as this guy, but everyone added it back. It was really just a link to mock Christianity and make us look stupid and contributed no actual information to the show's article.
• I don't understand why an example of a public enemy does not belong on the public enemy page.

The articles in question have the "unsourced" Template, saying it needs more sources, and such. That's what I meant by "unsourced".

I continue to stand by my challenge. Web Citation is a charity designed to prevent websites with fluctuating content from falling off the earth. If such a thing is illegal (and you can cite the doctrine saying so), I will properly correct that.

--99.157.108.186 (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your intent isn't an issue.

Maybe the webcitation site is useful.

As far as the rest, I suggest you take some time to review the relevant policies and guidelines: WP:SOAP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV

Looking a bit closer, webcitation may be fine as an archive url, but there are many problems with it being added as the main url, especially without any other reference information. However, I've not checked for relevant noticeboards for relevant discussions. --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick question about the medical ultrasonography page external links edit

Hi Ronz,

I just refreshed the medical ultrasonography page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ultrasonography) and noticed lo and behold, my edit was erased. Sorry for the nuisance if that link was unacceptable - I'm new and have only made a couple edits so far, this being one of them. I understand why this link would be perceived as redundant on the surface - assuming you felt it was redundant to the wikihow link beneath it - but the reason I added it here was because I found it much more useful than the wikihow link. That's why I placed my link suggestion above the wikihow... maybe that wasn't the right method, but I was confident there would be a review of my edits and I didn't feel comfortable deleting that other link. I found the wikihow page to be a bit thin and less useful as a resource, even a bit content-farmy - if you didn't have a chance to compare them prior to deleting my suggested link, it could be worth just checking it out to see if you agree with me. If so, the link I added could provide a better experience for our readers. If you agree, I'd be happy to add the link back.

Thanks, Br1anharsh (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. Wikipedia is not a how-to, nor do such off-topic external links be added to articles per WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks Ronz - I didn't realize that was not an appropriate link. So then, I should remove the wikihow link, shouldn't I? Or are you going to do that? (It violates the same rules you're talking about - how-to, off-topic external links) Thanks, Br1anharsh (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If you like. I was thinking the same thing, but it's specifically mentioned at WP:NOTHOWTO and heavily used within Wikipedia as a reference. I can't find any discussion of it at WP:ELN nor WP:RSN. There is a 2006 discussion here It's probably worth starting a discussion. I'm certainly unimpressed with the link we're discussing. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow - ok thanks for your help and for the information - yeah, it looks like there's a history with wikihow. I'm totally new to this so I think I'll just not rock the boat. My intention was just to understand how the editing should work. With luck, hopefully there are people over at wikihow who are as passionate as you are about the maintenance and integrity of content, so that they can hopefully improve their page over time. Thanks again - Br1anharsh (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

List of breweries in San Diego County, California

Hi, Ronz! Could you take a look at the new additions to the article List of breweries in San Diego County, California? I'm out of town and can't really deal. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Hope you're having some fun while out of town. --Ronz (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

change in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viso%C4%8Dica_hill

Ronz,

thanks for leaving a message. Please note that I do not agree. In fact, I should have removed all references to this "object" not being a pyramid if I would have remained neutral. The information referring to it as a "nature" thing is indeed a hoax (no references, nothing of the kind to anything scientific). Please look on the internet for all available information on this and check the sources I've mentioned before removing my comments again. I cannot honestly believe you've verified the video rerferences I've added. There is a ton of information out there that proves these hills to be artificial. What I've referenced is only the tip of the iceberg...

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SterreHart (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is extremely strong consensus for it remaining as is. If you disagree, start putting together references and make a case at Talk:Bosnian pyramids where there is far more discussion on the matter.

Please note that there is consensus that The Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation and its members are not reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Raw milk not neutral

"Hello, I'm Ronz."

Hi.

"Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view."

Read the article again. Look for the quote about Russian roulette being equivalent to drinking raw milk in the "Pathogens and public health concerns" section. In Russian roulette there is a 1 out of 6 chance of dying. Drinking raw milk there is roughly a 200 out of 200,000,000 million chance of getting sick according to the census information at the time. Neutral is hardly the word for the alarmist propaganda in this article. Most of the quotes about raw milk being bad are from the government. The article is biased toward the state, which is labeled as a credible source. Also I'm not sure how being part of the FDA suddenly makes someone a raw milk expert. Quoting a man from the FDA and the article not labeling him as biased toward the state is ridiculous. Yet I see citations from pro-raw milk websites labeled as biased. Anti-raw milk state sites are equally as biased.

"Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now."

Much of the article is statist, anti-raw milk propaganda. I even found one of the anti-raw citations leading to a blank page[citation 25].

I inserted the message of self ownership into the libertarian section. You also reverted some of my more benign citation editing, among other things.

"If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page." "Thank you. --Ronz"

If you rectify the situation, I may consider thanking you back. But from my perspective your actions are defending outright deceit of the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.46.143 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way. I suggest you work on other articles where ideological concerns won't be such an issue.

But that is the point! To correct the glaring pro-state articles to be more moderate and balanced. I don't want to contribute non-hot topic articles. Because it doesn't make an impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.46.143 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean all viewpoints should be treated equally. In this case, much of the statements made by raw-milk promoters falls under WP:FRINGE, and so their opinions, while still presented in the article, are qualified as their opinions and contrasted against medical consensus as best we can.

Quoting a man from the FDA who says that there is a 1 in 6 chance of dying from drinking raw milk *Russian roulette* when the statics easily prove otherwise is radically fringe opinion. Just because the statement comes from government does not mean that it is credible. I suggest you remove that alarmist comment from the article to balance it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.46.143 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've updated reference 25. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.46.143 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Fossil fuels and photosynthesis

Hi. I have reverted your deletion of the reference I added to the beginning of the Fossil fuels article--pointing out that the source of their energy was solar energy stored in chemical bonds by photosynthesis. The article at present does not mention this basic scientific fact. It is such a huge oversight one wonders if there is a political agenda behind it. The reference is on point, from a highly ranked journal.NimbusWeb (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me. I've responded on your talk page, started fixing the article, and started a discussion at the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

blood type diet

HI Ronz,

I wanted to be very careful when stating what is known and what is unknown when it comes to Blood type diet. I don't think it is scientifically accurate to state that there is a consensus among dietitians, physicians, etc. I think the only thing we really know is that proper studies have not been performed - and there is one recent scientific review that should be cited separately, as it is a completely different level of citation from others: Most of the references listed in the 'consensus' sentence are non existent or someone's opinion, which has the bearing or an opinion and not of a scientific study. That's why I don't want to lump all those references together. I think the original entry that I made is more accurate. It may be a bit complex, but not too complex. Btw, I am a 'professional scientist' and although it is clear that this diet is scientifically unfounded, no studies were actually performed to test it. And that is the bottom line.

HOpe this clarifies my point, and that we can go back to my previous composition of this entry.

Thanks, Bztasic (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Good points, but we're up against WP:FRINGE so I think the most important concern is not to give the diet credibility it doesn't deserve.

As far as the edits go, the repetition and inclusion of details in the lede was inappropriate. And, of course, just about any study is going to identify areas for follow up research. The problem here, as a FRINGE issue, is the diet is so ridiculous that there's really no reason to do any follow-up research, and plenty of reasons not to. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Contribution to "Further reading" in "Business Architecture" article

Hi Ronz, I saw that you deleted my bibliography add. Could you say me what I did wrong ? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodi1970 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The book is 1) recent, 2) extremely obscure, and 3) on a topic much narrower than that of the article.

See Wikipedia:Further_reading for more. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Your Opinion on ConsumerLab.com

Hi Ronz- I am requesting your opinion on recent additions I made to the ConsumerLab.com page (June 4)which were deleted, since you are familiar with the page. I added a sentence about CL president Tod Cooperman speaking at an NIH conference, a sentence about CL testing procedures as outlined by the company, and test findings which were reported in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Despite having reputable, third party references for these additions - as recommended to me by previous editors - these have been deleted and characterized as "self-proclaimed notable by company's PR editor." I think the additions were quite relevant to the public interest, and , as I said, reported by reputable sources - and therefore in line with policy about content. Can you please take a look at my additions and let me know what you think? Thank you. Absander (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Absander

I agree with the removal of the material and the repeated concerns about your editing. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Tea Snob

I added that because that part was for a long time in the Tea (meal) article. When an other editor removed it, [12] with the motivation that it does not belong to the article tea as a meal, but rather to tea, I put that there, that´s all. Considering that it was in the article for a long time didn’t bother much to check it. I do not know who made the initial contribution. Hafspajen (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - that explains much. I'll leave it on the talk page then. --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

See also sections

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.

I've rolled back much of your recent edits where you were spamming article links to See also sections that were only tangentially related. Please familiarize yourself with MOS:SEEALSO. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

i'm not intending to be soapboxing, spamming, or promoting any company by any means, seems to me you're just jumping to conclusions. and by doing so aggressively i'd even suspect your in actually the one who simply trying to promote and push your own personal views yourself by removing conflicting ones; if either of us is attempting such a thing.

What i was adding in the see also lists were out of other see also list on other pages, and they all seem rather relevant to me dealing with modern food production. i care less about the documentary movies, but they were on others lists so i figured no one had gotten around to adding them to these related articles on food production debate.

i'm genuinely just trying to make the articles more informative, and thorough, going off what information i'm learning as i do, as anybody does. by all means they should be balanced as possible as well. so have at it.

and as far the Non-GMO thing, If the Non-GMO project is merely a lobbying group as another stated; and not a simple but genuine endevour to state on packages whether food had been altered from it's natural state or not, as the general public should have a right to know, which as far as i have seen of it; the later is all it's attempting to do. Then in the case of the former, the Non-GMO Project article should be heavily updated with criticism section and counter points proving their efforts fraudulent, which no one has put on there. I don't work for some company to be promoting anything, i'm just trying to stay informed and healthy as i think any educated person should also be, and would so long as the information is presented to them, in which otherwise they would not be aware. whats so hard to grasp about that, than being something more nefarious? if they are not relevant then they are not relevant, but if there's any relation or connection, which there was to most if not all, then they should stay to help further inform.

Radical Ghost (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I agree with Ronz's removal of your See also link in Organic farming. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that you're so offended by a the warning message. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message - Salicylate sensitivity

Hi Ronz. Thanks heaps for leaving a message on my talk page (Another287person (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)) I've checked out the references and find myself in a difficult position.

Topic One The articles on Food Intolerance and Salicylate Sensitivity do need to be improved. The food intolerance article needs to be broken down into separate articles for FODMAP (fructose, lactose, etc), gluten and salicylate intolerance, at the very least. The article as it stands is bamboozling and unhelpful, in the way that it jumps between these threads. The diagnosis, symptoms and treatment for each different type of food intolerance is so different that it makes no sense to have these specific sections in the umbrella page of "food intolerance".

As a brand new editor who has just had their edits totally wiped, I do not feel confident to make these necessary changes. Do you know someone who might be interested enough in this topic to take on the task?

Topic Two The culture and rules of Wikipedia are going to work against the acquisition of good information on the topic of food intolerance. This topic really needs an experienced editor to use and defend their judgement.

There really is one single hospital in Australia which is doing all the work to identify the salicylate levels in various foods. They really do provide those food lists to people who are interested. And they really do provide capsules of salicylates, amines, glutimates, colorings, flavorings, preservatives and placebos, to allow anyone to conduct blind tests of their own symptoms. To reduce this information to a general comment about "Australian hospitals" is to introduce inaccuracies. It's not true. There is only one Australian hospital doing the work. It is more accurate to name the hospital and link to their Wikipedia page.

I can see how mentioning an institution which offers a service could be seen as "soap boxing". I would argue however, that the uniqueness and significance of this service warrants the inclusion of the information. It is the culture of Wikipedia to see this information and delete it, but the substance of this topic requires it be published.

Is there a more appropriate place to have this discussion? I mention it here because you are the only person who sent me a message (that I found). It is an important conversation, and I don't assume that you are the person with the answers. Can you direct me appropriately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another287person (talk • contribs) 12:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(Quickly replying - remind me if I don't get back to you with more.) Thanks for following up. Start a discussion on Talk:Salicylate sensitivity. Contact the two editors that removed your edits to see if they'd be interested in helping: Sciencewatcher (talk · contribs) and LeadSongDog (talk · contribs). --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, both Sciencewatcher and I had already responded on user talk:Another287person. Until he's taken the time to understand wp:MEDRS there's not much more to say.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! So we still need a discussion started on the article talk? --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like discussions have been started at Talk:Food intolerance... Good enough! --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

BracketBot - unmatched bracket

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of nursing schools in the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Washburn University]], School of Nursing, [[Topeka, Kansas|Topeka]] /School_of_Nursing_p187.html]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Very helpful bot! --Ronz (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonpublished.com

Hello Ronz:

Please do not scold me too badly. I did search for about an hour on how to send this to you. I will be brief until you tell me if you need or can use more information. My writing is to make others aware about a company who ripped me off over $300. I have documentation. I have been searching the internet for all websites that allow you to write a review. I am going next to LinkedIn as this company is listed and I hope to have them removed. I stumbled upon the information below and I honestly do not know what any of it means. I do intend to return at some point in the future to investigate this as it does look interesting; but, for now, I am on another mission. I read somewhere that folks use your site here for free advertising and if I can do anything to stop the company mentioned below from receiving ANYTHING FREE so that they can reel innocent folks in only to steal their money from them, then I will do what I have to do. If I knew who to write to on the internet who could make this company totally lose their privilege of even signing onto the internet I would. Okay Ronz, I thank you for the time you have taken to read this and I humbly ask you to forgive me if I have done something so wrong here. I do hope I hear back from you with any suggestion you may have with regards to others who you think may be able to use this information. Honestly, it makes me wonder just how people like this sleep at night. Thanks again, Kimberly medvedresearch@yahoo.com  :)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NonPublished.com[edit] • NonPublished.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com • 96.44.151.15 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs) • 96.44.161.152 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs) • 98.155.95.20 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs) • 98.155.85.34 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs) • 108.62.44.237 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs) • 108.62.51.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs) Spamming by ip's --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Added --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

To get to above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList

took me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#NonPublished.com this link is to the page the above info is on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbalina921 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kimberly,

What you've found is a request, that was approved, to have nonpublished.com automatically removed from Wikipedia whenever it is added. This was due to spamming by the ip's listed.

I'm sorry for your losses, but Wikipedia is not a place for such fights. I'm happy to explain in detail.

Best of luck to you. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Barrett

Yes, you have made a mistake. I simply left a comment, I didn't make any changes to the biography of a living person.Shadowmyst87 (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the notice isn't clear how BLP applies to anywhere in Wikipedia. I'll make sure it's clear on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

James Joyce Page - Resources

I am trying to offer all the universities in the world a major resource for Joyce's work. If you look at other academic sites, you will see that none has all these 35 volumes of Joyce Lexicography in one place, processed and focused on one point of major research, which is Joyce's meaning. One or two of them have mere pdf's of the books, and that is it. This site offers processed information, and -- especially - a research projetc that is unique in the world right now. This is a general Joyce resource that all Joyce scholars need to have -- not just for Finnegans Wake, but for Joyce's entire work. It represents long years of work, and, as an academic myself, I think it must be available to Joyceans all over the world. Please hava a look at it before you delete... Universitate ub (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the situation more thoroughly. I'll take a look this time, rather than rely upon the descriptions. --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

After taking a look, I don't see why it should be added. The majority of it is unrelated to the subject of the article. Seems like the original description was more accurate, though the page contains a great deal of completely unrelated material as well. If you disagree, please take the discussion to the article talk page where others can easily join the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of heatExch.com as an external link to the Heat Exchangers Page

Mr. Ronz,

You removed the heatExch.com as an external link to the Heat Exchangers Page three week ago. You said "Hello, I'm Ronz. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you."

I read the guidelines but could not figure out why it was inappropriate. The site has also improved in these three weeks. Would you please take another look at the site http://heatExch.com and give me more guide about if and how the site can be included. I can make more changes to make it suite of Wikipedia.

Thank,

Perry Ning HeatExpert (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

PerryNing@heatExch.com, 205-202-1118

Thanks for contacting me about this. You did take a look at WP:COI I hope...

It looks like a advertising-heavy site with information redundant to the article. --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits made to the SolarWinds page on June 23, 2013

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for taking the time to review and edit the page for SolarWinds. We want the page to meet Wikipedia standards, so your feedback in appreciated.

Before I make any additional edits to the SolarWinds page, I want to make sure you are OK with us making any proposed changes that could result in us restoring text based on the reasoning listed below:

- We were in the process of sourcing the list of acquisitions and products when the list of products and some of the older acquisitions were removed from the page. Are you OK with us restoring them when we have material that is independently sourced? - The awards section was deleted with the editing note: "it doesn't look like any of these are worth mention." Some of the awards and recognition, such as PC Magazine and Forbes Magazine recognition are noteworthy beyond readers whose interests are limited to Information Technology. Another award that came from Deloitte, one of the Big Four professional services firms along with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Ernst & Young, and KPMG, is also worth noting. That said, numerous other awards previously listed are in fact important in the Information Technology world. Our goal is to include as many of these recognitions without trivializing the section. But how specialized can these awards get? Is something local presented by the Austin Business Journal OK to include? We're trying to gauge what level of awards specialization is appropriate for Wikipedia. We'd like to restore some of them, but are looking for your guidance on what is appropriate to include.

- Lastly, are you open to including the SolarWinds Investors Relation Website as an external link? This was removed. It can be argued that it's worth including because the SolarWinds home page that is currently listed is geared toward customers and community members while the Investors Relations Website gets into the nuts and bolts about the company. Please let us know if you are open to us restoring.

Let me know if you have any questions. And thanks again for taking the time to review the page.

Regards, Mdelavina Mdelavina (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. Yes, you can't go too wrong working from independent and reliable sources.

Please review WP:COI very closely. I've noted it on your talk page. Is it safe to assume that you're working for SolarWinds?

I've never seen a list of acquisitions work well in an article. Such information is of questionable value to an encyclopedia article on a company. Of course, individual acquisitions that receive a large amount of press should be mentioned. It would be best to simply include one or more references to business sites that maintain such information.

Products should be addressed similarly to acquisitions: mention the prominent ones with due weight the the press they've received. Of course there should be information on the types/categories of products as well.

Generally, awards for products should be presented with the content on the products, rather than in a list of awards. Likewise awards for the company should be included with the corresponding information about the company.

Yes, some awards are more prestigious than others. I don't know offhand which deserve mention, hence my edit summary. Search through similar articles of WP:FA or WP:GA quality to see what others have done on this and any other aspect of articles.

Again, as a general rule, you can't go far wrong when working from sources that are both independent and reliable.

As far as External links, links to subsections of the official site are usually not appropriate, per WP:EL (especially WP:ELMINOFFICIAL). --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My adjustment to Sandra Lee's story.

Exactly what more information could you want more than the court cases that were filed against her for patent infringement. I thought Wiki was all about the truth. The truth is that this person started her career on the backs of several hardworking people who suffered financially as a result of her actions. She cares on without ever acknowledging that she did not create these products. If you tell me what more you need I will try to provide it.

Margaret — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret O185 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with this.

Please don't edit the article further until you've looked through WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPPRIMARY, as I have pointed out on your talk page.

First, I'm unable to verify the information you provided. Given they are primary sources, I'm not sure how much it even matters if I could, but detailed information about those two references might be helpful. For example, the full names/dates/parties/etc of the cases so we have more information with which to search for them, and quotes from the cases pertinent to Lee.

Second, we need context. You've provided some information, none of it from verifiable sources, and none of the sources are about Lee specifically, so they won't give us context with which to add the information to the article even if we wanted to.

Third, we need to determine how notable the information is to Lee's life. While it may be extremely important to those whose work she relied upon, it may not to Lee herself. Kraft Kurtains doesn't appear to deserve a great deal of mention as is, let alone legal details about the product and business dealings.

So, provide more information and more sources, and some of those sources need to be both independent and reliable while not being primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of my external link on CAPTCHA

Concerning your undo of my edit. The link isn't off topic. It's a small piece about client-side CAPTCHA software. Microphonics^talk 20:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't mean by "my external link" that you have a WP:COI of some sort.

We agree it's a small piece. I'd say a very small piece on a very small and specific subtopic, hence not relevant enough to be included. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Human capital

I am no longer after being retired for 10 years, up on all of this new technology. I am a retired physicist, author of one book on the future, and for which I am quite willing to defend. I have recently been called to task(?) about an edit to a Wiki page in which I footnoted my name and my book, apparently against the rules?! I wish to recitfy this and also speak to the gentleman who has bro't this up, but I do not know how!? Sorry, help me to fix my naive intrusion? Allen Reeves, DoD physicist retired, and on Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abreeves (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel like a lost puppy! Yes, I did read the pages you advised. I am quite willing to undo what I heve done in the interest of expanding and providing new insights into the growing importance of Intellectual Capital which I feel is a better term for Human Capital since Human is strongley implied by the term Intellectual, I think. If you haven't read my book, I strongly recommend it, but since I am not the least bit interested in selling books, I would recommend a Kindle version for only $3.99 USD. If you are the admin person and I have made a Foo Paw, then pls feel free to remove all of what I have done, and if you care after familiarizing yourself with my book's contents and predictions, then advise me where I might make it more publically noticeable without the $8000 USD expected by my publisher who wants me to go on somekind of writer's lecture circuit. Allen Reeves, DoD physicist retired(2003), parttime physics/astronomy prof. at MTSU and Lipscomb U., Tennessee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abreeves (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My book talks to the point that Intellectual capital(IC) is going to be a commodity of tomorrow and as a result we may very well become a two-tiered society globally of haves and have-nots and the probable future that that bodes. You really should read a copy. I am/was looking for a medium to insert its existence to the general global public for them to have a think-piece unlike any other to guide them and their families toward another kind of probable future. Incidentally, thanks for the expunge edit you did for me. Sorry, didn't mean to have caused such a ruckus. ABReeves, DoD physicist trying to be retired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abreeves (talk • contribs) 21:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits reverted on list of arab entrepreneurs

Hello dear,

I'm new to wikipedia, and i've been trying to edit out some pages lately, most recently you reverted my edits to this page, although i did mention a reliable source, and i didn't have any COI on it. Can you help out a brother in finding out what the problem is so that i can fix it? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Arab_entrepreneurship_initiatives&oldid=561849884&diff=prev#.C2.A0Jordan

MohammadLafi (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. You've been adding links to startappz.com after the article creation was declined. Concentrate your work on the proposed article, demonstrating notability. Once that article is approved, it would be appropriate to add links to it to relevant lists, etc. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

go2goldensands.com External links

Hello. I am the webmaster of go2goldensands.com. I posted an external links on this page: Golden Sands

My website is information one for Golden sands resort. It offers very good information about the hotels, the beach, entertainment, accommodation and night life in the resort. Site is not made with commercial purposes but to familiarise everyone with that beautiful part of Bulgaria. The site is like online guide about the resort. Please do not remove my link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatriki (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
unlinked url. -- seth (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:COI and WP:EL. I've added more details about WP:COI on your talk page now that it's clear that it applies.

Because you have a conflict of interest, you should not add the links to any articles. If you think they are appropriate, bring it up on the relevant talk pages.

I've reviewed them, and I don't think they are appropriate. Please make your case on the talk pages and I'll help to get others to review the matter if no one responds right away. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

edits in the OpenCourseWare page

Hi Ronz, many thanks for your greetings and for your edits. However, I would like to refer Veduca, which is a Brazilian start-up in education that aggregates OCW content and puts subtitles in Portuguese in them. I didn't understand why you have deleted my referal :(

Thanks for following up on this. Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Neil Strauss

I found the picture of his kittian passport. Is it reliable? Ssspera (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange thing to find. It's a primary source. If I recall correctly, I've seen editors at WP:BLPN reject passports as sources for biographies. Worth bringing up on the article talk page and checking BLNP archives. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Occupational health psychology

Hi ronz. Asked people to simply discuss, (On my talk page if you like) before blanketing my good faith entry! No sources required for my entry by the way. If you think they are needed discuss with me first! You are not an administrator. You don't have the right. There is a similar inclusion on the industrial and organizational psychology article, by the way, for your interest. Anyway discuss with me on my talk page if you like. Up to you. But hands off my valid, good faith entry. We may need to get dispute resolution otherwise? I'm open to discuss my good faith entry but not open to people blindly deleting it! thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. You might want to take some time to learn your way around Wikipedia. I'd started a discussion on the matter on the article's talk page, which should have been done long ago. Please join the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. As a non administrator please refrain from placing false assumptions and warnings which don't apply, on my talk page. If you checked the edit history, I was forced to carefully re-write my last 'good faith' addition, because it was blindly deleted without any discussion, despite me being open to discussion as you can now see. I'm new to Wikipedia. But not that new. Thanks but please check histories first before pointing your finger at other good faith editors. Also check the page please and let me know if the same editor blindly deletes my good faith addition/improvement again without discussing it with me first. It is a good addition and improvement to the article and benefit to readers. We may need to get dispute resolution involved.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to learn your way around Wikipedia fast before you're blocked for edit-warring once again.

It certainly doesn't appear you are open to discussion in a manner that follows our policies and guidelines. I looked at the situation, made an edit, gave a descriptive edit-summary and discussed it on the talk page. You removed it with the edit summary, "re-wrote my good faith entry after vandal deletion," without addressing my concerns. That's edit-warring. It also appears typical of your editing history.

You're at a huge disadvantage when it comes to identifying proper editing and behavior. Best to stop commenting on others', focus on your own, and learn your way around Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I don't want to be involved in an edit war. I say that on my talk page. Mrm7171 can't put unsourced material on occupational health psychology's relation to i/o psychology. OHP is not a subdiscipline of i/o psychology although i/o psychology, health psychology, and occupational health have contributed to the founding of OHP, a fact that is sourced in paragraph 1 of the OHP entry. Health psychology descends from clinical psychology but it is not a subdiscipline of clinical psychology. I/o psychology is related to social psychology and psychometric psychology but i/o psychology is not a subdiscipline of the latter two disciplines.

What you observed is Mrm7171 working around the edges with the paragraph he dropped on the bottom of the OHP entry, the paragraph about i/o psychology and work stress, that you, because you have been a good Wikipedia citizen, took it upon yourself to edit for brevity. The paragraph is not necessary. Yes, a small number of i/o psychologists have studied job stress. Read Psyc12's comments on how research on work and health had been outside of i/o psychology. I conduct research in OHP but I trained in developmental psychology (Ph.D.) and epidemiology (post-doc). OHP has come into its own. It has its journals, organizations, and research programs. The paragraph that Mrm7171 dropped at the bottom of the OHP entry should be deleted. Moreover, it remains unsourced.Iss246 (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing links to graduate programs

Hi Ronz:

I am new to this so forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand why you removed the list of graduate programs at the bottom of the Occupational Health Psychology article. The list has been there for quite some time, I only updated it for completeness. Can you explain why it isn't appropriate? Thanks. Psyc12 (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The general guideline is WP:EL. The policy is WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTLINK, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A list of external links only indirectly related to the topic of the article is considered a linkfarm, and is inappropriate for any article. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. The section in the OHP article page you deleted with links about courses has now been reinstated by iss246, without discussion. In the interests of consensus and civility over this, and rather than another editor just reverting it again, can you have a look when you can, given you deleted it, and already explained why you did it. Also maybe iss246 can be encouraged by more experienced editors than me to discuss such controversial changes before doing them. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Thanks for your recent contributions and editing guidance to the occupational health psychology page. I have just made a new entry, based on previous work. I genuinely believe it is necessary to leave in. But I am open to further discussion. The entry is also discussed in detail on the article talk page and the range of reasons I believe it should be included. It is also now heavily sourced as advised. Again in the interests of civility and consensus, I am letting you know and to be involved, as you contributing to the numerous edits prior to the entries final form. I also do not wish to enter into any deleting with other editors like iss246, who has never discussed this entry with me on the article talk page. Thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Ronz, I just added a detailed explanation of this minor edit on my talk page. Could you please read my comments and provide your opinion as to this inclusion. I really want to move forward from here and get some resolution to these issues in a civil way, without further conflict. Your help and experience would be appreciated. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sources for Grammarly

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Johnmoor's talk page.
Message added 18:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Johnmoor's talk page.
Message added 18:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: edit on Crowdfunding has been reverted

In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crowdfunding&oldid=563885304&diff=prev Grow VC have had a significant role in the history and development of the equity crowdfunding on the global scale as such they should be included in the list.

For few sources please see: http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/15/grow-vc-launches-aiming-to-become-the-kiva-for-tech-startups/ http://www.c2ivc.com/news/growvcc2iventureslaunchnationalfundingnetworkforchina http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cmpnewsdisp.cms?companyid=4152&newsid=406793

Some more recent: http://www.pehub.com/2013/07/08/grow-vc-group-buys-crowdfunding-platform-kapipal/ http://crowdfundconference.org/presenters/ http://www.wtcdenver.org/events?eventId=704986&EventViewMode=EventDetails — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vc20 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me. Responding on you talk to clarify the comments already there. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Graffiti on personal training section

Hey there, You seem to be pretty plugged in to the personal training page. I have added a lot in the past but don't check it often. If you wouldn't mind, can you keep an eye out for vandalism on the American certification study? People keep adding their certifications and I don't notice it right away. The findings of the study were limited to NSCA and ACSM. ISSA and many of these others that keep getting added were not in the positive category. - winspiff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.170 (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up. I'll keep an eye out. Is it covered anywhere else besides Personal trainer? --Ronz (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Vastu shastra

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

8 Crore People using Parasara Vastu Ganitham to construct buildings in India. Formulas have taken from famous Sanskrit book and developed application useful to world. It it free. There is no trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtsreddy (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a means for distributing your java applications. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Translator needed to identify a person's titles

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Arny's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

cookwareappliances.com

Hi Ronz,

Thanks! Will read the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dranyam88 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding links as you've been doing. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi Ronz I am picking a few random names from editors who have helped me in the past, hoping that one or more might be around for a quick reply. I seem to have read somewhere that it is against policy to solicit others to join an action. At the same time I have often seen notifications of the type "because you have been involved with this article, we would like to let you know that ..." or something along those lines. Specifically, is it ok/ not ok to solicit others to go vote on a deletion vote? Much appreciated, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Replying on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sledgehammer

	Sledgehammer
	A Sledgehammer for you, for breaking through the clutter with ready-to-use pointers to the right information Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Translator needed to identify a person's titles

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Timbouctou's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank

Hi, Ronz. Thank you for put a subject, now I see that I forgot it.

Best regards, Billiboom (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help! --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Bikini article main image replacement then reversion minor scolding of new editor, thanks!

Ron - no idea who you are or how you happened to find your way to the talk page of User:Kentongreening, but I appreciate your comment in support of my suggestion to them that they engage in discussion and seek consensus before making such a significant edit to an article like bikini as changing the main image from one of a set (of which one was previously judged a "featured" pic!) to a personal photo they took of a relevant but inappropriate-for-the-lead new upload. It's really a pleasant surprise to find such unexpected and civil support! BTW: if you have any feedback on bikini it would certainly be welcome (especially on photo selection and layout). Cheers! Azx2 22:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I don't expect anyone with dispute your changes and comments, but I'll comment if someone does. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Likewise, if there's ever something you need help with, lmk! Cheers. Azx2 03:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

BD

Ronz -- I appreciate your interest in improving the article, and want to work to make it genuinely NPOV. It would be helpful if you would take a more active role in this, finding new sources and improving the use of existing ones. hgilbert (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That is my intention. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Great. I'm looking forward to seeing this happen! hgilbert (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry this doesn't seem to be making progress. I'm curious, though: if you didn't want Lorand's work, which you had critiqued as a possibly unreliable source, removed from the article, what did you want to happen? I clearly misread your intention--would you prefer that I put the citation back in? hgilbert (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how "the solution is not to remove the sources completely" was misread to mean that the source should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Medical Tourism in Malaysia

Hi Ronz. I just spent few hours trying to edit the article to rectify the information with more accurate information from a reliable sources. but it has been undone by you on the account that the edited version is highly promotional. Appreciate if you can advise which section is highly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayieng (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. Let's discuss on the article's talk page, since there have been many, similar problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

you were right. i added that since i was really angry that the submitter of the plot did not credit the latex package documentation where this plot is featured. after a bit of digging it turned out the pic in the package documentation was reproduced to be in the style of wiki, and was thus not actually lifted from there. sorry.

Darko.veberic (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for the explanation. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

org listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Org. Since you had some involvement with the org redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Widefox; talk 13:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramids Labels

Ok Ronz I shall reiterate my message, taking in to consideration your delicate nature in grasping meaning. My issue is with the use of words 'pseudoarcheology' 'Hoax' 'pseudoscience' and other such defamatory labelling regarding the Bosnian pyramids wiki article. Since as the verdict is not yet out on whether this is the real thing or not, such misleading categorization only serves to highlight the editors of this article as being highly bias and small minded. The source for information on this subject is open. Not in the hands of ready unquestioning editors who toe the line of any band of 'official archeologists' who are ready to reject as'hoax' any information they see as incongruent with the general conception of history.

Please, in the name of fairness and objective enquiry (titles I assume wikipedia is founded on);

Remove These Labels, until it is proven beyond all doubt to be untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickneachtain (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the information is all verifiable by independent and reliable sources, following the relevant policies, especially WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have already written you a message in reply to your last one, it looking like its not been posted.. Did you read it?

You say you couldn't understand my previous statement, putting it down to my use of the language, well allow me to restate the issue for your delicate nature in taking meaning from words. Regarding the Bosnian Pyrimad Findings, I am calling for misleading categorizations on the relative wikipedia article namely 'Hoax', 'pseudoscience' and 'psuedoarcheology' to be removed immediately.

I came to this subject with an open mind and would like an open source report of the event to be unbiased. As it is not known yet definitively if the site is the real thing or not, it is far from wikipedia editors to make a call on it, brandishing the whole discovery for the rest of us. Encountering the word 'Hoax' straight away from wikipedia in google search results, was indeed shocking! ..Is wikipedia not supposed to be a fair and objective information source for people. Seemingly not.

I have read much reporting for and against, and the information to say that it may possibly be the real thing is just as, if not more convincing in places. Although some of the editors here are only too ready to agree with official archeological statements about the authenticity of the site, I believe that there authority on the issue should also be brought into the debate, and with that - the commonly held assumptions of today's understanding of pre-history and its relevance in the current era.

It's seems like I am not alone in this call for fairness. Please remove these labels as a first step as they do a disservice to the wikipedia open source image, and then we can discuss here about follow ups.

Niall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickneachtain (talk • contribs) 08:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

See previous response. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about why my edit on the "personal trainer' page was deleted.

Hey Ronz,

I edited the 'personal trainer' page yesterday. The page explains different certifications that are accepted to qualified as a personal trainer. I have been working as a personal trainer for years and one of the common misconceptions is that the only way to become a personal trainer is to become certified through an accredited certification like NASM, ACSM or NSCA. The edit I left explains that you can become a personal trainer if you have a four year degree in exercise science. Most fitness clubs prefer that you do have a four year degree because the knowledge obtained from it is much more valuable that any certification can offer. I was not trying to sound bias towards a degree vs a certification I was simply stating that a certification is not necessary to become a CPT if you hold a degree according to the largest corporate gyms in America. No where in the article does it mention that. And I resourced a great article that discusses the difference between the two and how it relates to becoming a personal trainer.

Maybe I edited the wrong section of the article. I put that information in the section 'accreditation' when actually I think it should have its own category. Like 'Qualifications needed to become a personal trainer' in which 'accreditation' could be a sub category within that. I am new to wikipedia and do not know to much about editing it. I do have tons of knowledge about the topic and think there can be tons of information added to the page 'personal trainer'. I am not bias at all, in fact I am also certified through two different agencies as well as hold a B.A. in kinesiology. Again, I was just trying to inform the public that there are more ways that to become qualified as a personal trainer other that obtaining an accredited certification. This is based on the hiring criteria from multiple different health club facilities I have worked in over the past ten years. If you have any tips on how I can get started on the right foot here on wikipedia so that I can contribute that would be great!:) Thanks for listening!

-Tyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerHRead (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at the comment I left on your talk page if you've not already done so. I'll respond further there. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ronz,

I got your message on my page but I do not know how to respond to it. Should I respond by just posting another message on your page? Thanks for replying to my questions. I would like to hear more about what you think I should do whenever you have time. Thanks again. -Tyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.104.52 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Responding on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads up on Pakistani-related socks

Hey Ronz, yeah I had noticed all sorts of problems with these articles. It's not an area that I'm actually interested in editing but sometimes I get sucked into these things. I wasn't aware of the sock issues but it's clear there are some long term problems at work. I'll do what I can to help. Is there a range of articles being affected? Is it possible to semi-protect them for extended periods? SQGibbon (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Same here: I only encountered this because I have a few articles on my watch list that are regularly affected, and I noticed that one of the problematic accounts was blocked. At this point, I'm trying to spread the word in the hope that I'll find someone that's written up a report somewhere. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Raw milk

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

ronz, what is neutral about saying that 200 people got sick from consuming raw milk? all i'm doing is posting facts. if you think those facts are not "neutral" then you are biased against raw milk.

facts are just that, facts. there's nothing biased about facts. the only bias is your deleting factual material.

if you are not biased, then you need to delete anything that is biased against raw milk.

gary cox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.76.248 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me about this. I hope you're interested in learning about the relevant Wikipedia policies that apply: WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEDRS. You'll also need to follow WP:COI which appears to apply to your editing.

This discussion should continue on the article's talk page, where you'll note I had already started a discussion about the new references you've provided. --Ronz (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

one and the same. and yes, i am neutral. i am merely posting fda's own data. that hardly constitutes bias. it's just the facts. hiding those facts from the public's view is biased.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.76.248 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt anyone familiar with Wikipedia's policies will agree with you. We'll have to get others involved before you get yourself blocked. Further response on your talk so others' can find it easier. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

not sure i know what i'm doing on this "talk" page. not sure how to engage in a discussion. or what "coin" means or those other acronyms you put out. i'm a newbie at wikipedia stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.76.248 (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And it doesn't help that Wikipedia is testing an alternative editing method. Instructions to your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

OHP

Hi ronz, Could you please add some input to the OHP talk? I have added a very well sourced diplomatic edit. I think another editors input is necesaary to achieve some civil consensus here before it goes any further. Your input would be appreciated. I also thought that self published newsletter sources could not be used? ThanksMrm7171 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it in a day or so... --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Might also put this to the wider community for help particularly on topic of self-published newsletter type sources used as references.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Are you still interested in assisting with the OHP article? You have had significant input. Iss246 has continued with a one way edit war, again blindly deleteing and reverting others edits to 'his' versions. I have not reverted. My editing remains civil. But this article needs dispute resolution and possible arbitration. Also can iss246 be reported for edit warring? Will wait a bit longer before initiating dispute resolution request in the name of civility and consensus. Thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a bit busy...

I find it helpful to identify on the talk page specific sources under dispute... --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ronz. I am not blindly adding or deleting. A good deal of thought goes into my edits.Iss246 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I add that I think Mrm7171 is using all his energy to undermine OHP. First he claimed that OHP was a province of i/o psychology. Now he claims OHP is allied to nursing. I think it is time for him to stop.Iss246 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Angel Investors

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

Dear Ronz, You have recently deleted my post challenging the fact that Angel Investors follow an industry pattern when investing but rather do it on a "gut feeling" aspect. The source I have quoted is from a secondary source. here is a link to yet another respected secondary source proving my point http://www.growingbusiness.co.uk/investments-made-on-gut-instinct-say-angels.html. The thing is the fact that Angel investor use gut feeling is a known fact, however the only source to quantify this knowledge is Angels den. I mean, yes the survey was done by Angels Den which happens to be Europe and Asia's largest Angel network (which is rather convenient I think to investigate on Angel Investors' Habits) , but the point remains valid. Moreover, most surveys are ordered by Companies does that discredit their findings ?

What do you think?

Kind Regards --Rhamusker (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope that Angels Den commissions the research from someone that could do a half-decent job. Even then, is information on such investing so bad that such research is notable?

At least you've found a better source. Good job. Add it back with the new source and trim make the introduction a bit more informative. Something like: "A 2010 survey found that 70% of angel investors mainly relied on their gut filling when investing in a start-up company." I'd expect there's far better research on the topic available, but it's a start at having something on the topic. --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know how they work to be fair. But I assume that they do. There has been PhD and MBA thesis on the subject, but the problem is that Angel Investor are almost impossible to approach. (I know because I tried !) In order to get a proper survey you need to have a big enough sample. And Angel networks rarely let anyone approach their networks. That is why Angels Den's survey is rather unique. I will do no worries! --Rhamusker (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waqar Zaka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VJ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

newsletter PDF links

Hi Ronz. Given you have experience with external links etc. can you advise on the occupational health psychology article. There are PDF links to an external newsletter which can only be accessed by a small number of members from that group. Is this a reliable source? Also there are serious security issues for Wikipedia readers downloading a dubious PDF acrobat, newsletter source, as the only way to view the reference? I am concerned that if readers download newsletters PDFs viruses, worms etc are a direct threat to be downloaded onto the reader's computer.

This is an important security issue to Wikipedia users without proper antivirus software. Can you or someone else maybe an administrator look at this. There have also been several 404 errors as you were aware from when you looked at the page, that were deleted because the PDF links used as actual references, were not working. Iss246says he/she has talked to the newsletter person who uploads their newsletters and these are now reportedly active again? I have also suggested that better sources than newsletters could be found? maybe textbooks or journals? but that is just my opinion? What do you think?

The security issues are serious risks to readers downloading foreign newsletters as the only way to view a reference, as readers are not members of the club who get sent the newsletters.Thanks Ronz. Please refer this to an administrator if you have not got time to look at it. Appreciate your expertise on this matter.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Chicken and waffles maintenance tag

It's great that you're working on it, but why tinker with the tag? The span template indicates citations are needed for the entire paragraph. Using a single CN tag implies only the last clause is in need of citation. Ibadibam (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Tag as you like. I just wanted to the content in to work on it. I just reverted to the version that I was working from.

I don't recall seeing info tagged that way before. Seems a bit strange in general, and I'm unclear why that specific information should be tagged differently. Tag as you like. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a guideline as to where the standard or span template is more appropriate, although we could stand to have one. The span template is handy in that in obviates the need to insert a CN tag after every sentence, which is visually disruptive. The red highlighting also makes it clearer to the reader what parts of the article aren't backed up by sources. I can understand why you would be inclined to switch to the "vanilla" tag, if you weren't familiar with the span form. Thanks for doing that research, by the way. Ibadibam (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OHP

Hi Ronz. Thanks for your recent help with the OHP article. I followed your advice regarding discussion of points of contention. Took the time. Please read my recent posts and other editors posts. Anyway, just logged in to see complete mayhem from these 2 editors working as a 'tag team'. Not sure if thats how Wiki should work but anyway, its the integrity of this psychology article I am concerned about. Complete overriding Wikipedia protocol from these other 2 editors while I'm respecting the rules here, because I appreciate Wikipedia as a great resource. I really have tried with this article, just to get something of high value to readers. Anyway I am going to request mediation. The two editors are obviously members of this same OHP club, society or whatever, and 'ganging up' and they cannot be bothered with how Wikipedia works, or the fact that it is an encyclopedia, not a private website. If you could maybe you could lend a hand, final advice here in the name of civility it would be appreciated. If not, that's cool, I understand this is all voluntary and will try for formal mediation. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, it is not mayhem. My goal is to have an informative and readable encyclopedia entry. I earned a Ph.D. in psychology, and I have published extensively. Mrm7171 and I have disputed a number of points. I will concentrate on one right here, the definition of OHP.

1. I am not double-teaming him with Psyc12. In fact, Psyc12 upended the definition of OHP that I wrote. My feelings weren't hurt. I found that the new definition was superior to the one I wrote. I did not dispute the new definition. I recognized that the new definition was an improvement. My goal, like the goal of many other contributors to Wikipedia, is to have a clear, informative, and readable encyclopedia entry. Because Psyc12 did a better job than I did with the definition, I accepted that change.

2. That definition comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is a reputable organization. A major division of the CDC, NIOSH, conducts a great deal of OHP-related research. As a result, the CDC has a great deal of experience with OHP. As an OHP researcher, I recognize that the CDC definition is very good. It overlaps with many extant definitions. The CDC is an excellent source.

3. There are dozens of books on social psychology (you can select another branch of psychology). There is overlap and there are differences in how writers define social psychology (or another branch of psychology). The definition of social psychology (the psychology definition of social psychology; there is also a sociology-oriented social psychology I am not addressing) in Wikipedia comes from an edited book published in 1985. The writer who was sourced, Gordon Allport, was dead almost 20 years before the reprint of the paper was published. There may be other definitions with which Allport's definition differs somewhat. There is overlap too. But Allport's definition adequately serves its purpose. It would only confuse readers, especially readers new to psychology, to pile up multiple definitions of social psychology. Similarly the CDC definition serves its purpose reasonably well.

4. There is no benefit to do what Mrm7171 would like to do, and show multiple definitions of OHP when there exists a highly satisfactory definition from a reputable source. Using multiple definitions of OHP would sow confusion. Think about the confusion multiple definitions of OHP will cause in the general reader of Wikipedia, particularly the reader who may not be that familiar with psychology.Iss246 (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, from my skimming the discussions, I think Mrm7171 needs to better focus on following WP:DR, and I said as much. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I joined wiki in June to help with the OHP article after Iss246 put out a call to a group of leading OHP scholars to help with this article. The entire time I've accomplished not much more than help clarify the definition because every time I made even the smallest change, Mrm7171 would change or delete it, and then argue with me about it on the talk page. After he/she was suspended a while back, we were able to finish the definition, and for a while things were fine. Then suddenly a week or so ago, Mrm7171 decided to delete the definition and replace it with something that was confusing and incorrect. So again we are wasting time in a vain attempt to convince Mrm that he/she has things confused, and he/she just keeps arguing and complaining that until he/she agrees with us, we are not allowed to do anything to the article. Almost no progress has been made in the time I've been involved. Iss7171 and I are both very experienced scholars with hundreds of publications between us. We are volunteering our expertise to try to make this article as good as possible. We are certainly open to good ideas from anyone, as we certainly don't have all the answers, but Mrm is not making a positive contribution and is just in the way. I wouldn't mind if it were just discussion on the talk page, but he/she keeps undoing and changing what we do on the article, and is preventing any progress. Psyc12 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

10% Rule of Preventive Maintenance - Rickysmithcmrp

Ron,

Thank you for your question. The 10% Rule of Preventive Maintenance has been used by some of the best industrial plants in the world along with many of today's militaries. It is not confidential or owned by anyone. I believe information like this should be shared with others so they have the chance to be successful by using a process such as this.

I hope this helps.

Ricky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.230.138 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that you're adding your own work as references and links, in violation of our conflict of interest policy and other policies as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Rob Kardashian

Apologies, I assumed that somebody had just chosen the wrong Rob Kardashian from the Californian State Records and added the about.com source were it's listed with his sisters. Although, I'll add I did provide an explanation - it was to correct his middle name (which I considered to be wrong from that source). Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 21:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hancinema link in My Girl (2005 TV series)

• My Girl (2005 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

please stop revome Hancinema of My Girl is database of Korean movies and dramas by --Sunuraju (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As I noted, the information seemed redundant, so it doesn't belong per WP:EL. Please address these concerns, perhaps on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

fiza ali edit

Mr Ronz....i hv Edited according to an interview of fiza ali which was publiched in her early career times .at that time she was saying that she born on 1980 plus told about her sisters & brothers. next about subh ki fiza i entered is from news. about bangladesh,she is from their she told this in many interviews and even she can speak bangali . SHe married to fawad farooq and she is in lahore now i edited all this so that her wiki could be more accurate .if my edit could n't accepted its ok bt its full accurate bt i hv no single sourse u can hv her interviews and specially previous interview on jung magazine in maybe 2002 or 2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverMind 22 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding your meaning. My concern is that the edit was made without indicating any sources. Given WP:BLP, we need sources for such changes. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Superfood

Dear Ronz, I kindly invite you to talk about the Superfood subject. I am simply replacing a statement that refers to commercial journal with another that is backed up by many scientific studies. If there is a point I am missing, please let me know; otherwise please reconsider my changes as I believe they are true. With best regards Candlelight2 (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"that is backed up by many scientific studies." I'm sorry, but the description you provide here doesn't match what you're keep trying to change. If you have far better sources, discuss them on the article talk page. If not, then it's probably best to move on. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar page

Dude!

Thanks for pointing out. After reading thru the zee article again, it does look like a press release.

However, the other reports from DNA and Times of India dont look like press-releases to me. How did you find out that they were press-releases?

Thx, Traintogain (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A warmed-over press release is a press release. As you know, it is regular and ongoing problem with the article for editors to try to make it into a soapbox for the company's press and pov, rather than an article about the person. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thx. I'm aware of some weird edits on that page. Will be more careful. Any other way I can contribute better?Traintogain (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't your fault. You're doing fine. Working on such articles can be frustrating. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So you're not an admin, you reverted my changes, huh?

I don't know how to label an article as not a neutral article, but that one is definitely not neutral. The changes I made were to the Gary Null article, and they were to:

1. Create a Criticism section to collect the criticism in one area.

2. Add publicly known information such as his books, dvds, and social activism videos. The sources were Amazon.com, and youtube. I didn't quote sources becase first, it's a huge pain, and second, then you'd have complained that I was selling his products. Damned if I do, or don't. So I simply named his most current books, and people could go look them up in a library if they want.

3. I added his credential, nutritionist in the state of New York, which is widely known, and even his critics don't dispute that one. I added a sentence characterising his usual subjects of interest that were omitted from the article, organic farming, healthy living, etc.

All you did by undoing it, is make the article negative again and frustrate somebody who was trying to help. I'm not editing again, it's not worth my time or effort. Far as I care, you guys can suffocate on your ignorance. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

− I don't know how to label an article as not a neutral article, but that one is definitely not neutral. The changes I made were to the Gary Null article, and they were to: − − 1. Create a Criticism section to collect the criticism in one area. − − 2. Add publicly known information such as his books, dvds, and social activism videos. The sources were Amazon.com, and youtube. I didn't quote sources becase first, it's a huge pain, and second, then you'd have complained that I was selling his products. Damned if I do, or don't. So I simply named his most current books, and people could go look them up in a library if they want. − − 3. I added his credential, nutritionist in the state of New York, which is widely known, and even his critics don't dispute that one. I added a sentence characterising his usual subjects of interest that were omitted from the article, organic farming, healthy living, etc. − − All you did by undoing it, is make the article negative again and frustrate somebody who was trying to help. I'm not editing again, it's not worth my time or effort. Far as I care, you guys can suffocate on your ignorance. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

timesofbook.com

why you are mentioned timesofbook.com is a spam blog? this blog provides valuable information to users. its totally irritating me and disappointment me. please give the way to new one boss...

Do you think timesofbook is a spam blog? Please revert back all links which is removed by you. the traffic of timesofbook may help some orphans as like me. try to understand Ronz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.182.254.33 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a blog.

It was spammed.

You'll note that I'm not the only editor that thinks so, as all your additions of the link have been reverted.

Discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

shivaconnect.com

Thank you- just trying to provide accurate and detailed information- Sharon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonrosen (talk • contribs) 16:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Simple trying to provide accurate information to people who want to learn about Jewish Bereavement and/or sitting shiva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonrosen (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't add it again. It would be helpful for you to acknowledge that you understand the message on your talk page and WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

4goodnessgrape and ForGoodnessGrape

Hi Ronz,

My name is Lisa List and I am an artisan and the single owner of ForGoodnessGrape. I am also known as The Lip Balm Queen. I have the largest online boutique of handmade lip balms on the internet. I'm also a nominee in the Martha Stewart American Made Awards. You can see this here http://www.marthastewart.com/americanmade/nominee/81129?=EML_AM_2013_CONFIRMATION. ForGoodnessGrape has been reviewed by many online reputable websites which I intend to reference here as well. ForGoodnessGrape is a trendsetter and I feel that since ForGoodnessGrape was started in 2010 and has such a large international following that it only seems right that it be included in Wikipedia. My works are original copyrighted pieces owned by me personally for which no one else has rights to. I'm certain there are entries in Wikipedia for other artists as well. Perhaps I should write the page about myself and then share story of ForGoodnessGrape.

Please let me know what you think would work best.

Thanks! Lisa List

Here are other artists I've found on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handmade_%28Hindi_Zahra_album%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shea_Yeleen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Juice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Heebner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gordon_%28photographer%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Rankin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Leavitt_%28artist%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4goodnessgrape (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lisa. Thanks for following up with me.

It looks like you're in the process of changing your username. Great!

You'll almost certainly need help creating a new article about your own company because of WP:COI. If you start out with this in mind, it should go much easier.

We'll need references that meet WP:CORP - at least one reference from an independent, secondary source that meets our reliable sources criteria and discusses the company in depth. I did a quick google search for such sources and didn't find any, so your knowledge about what has been written about your company will be very valuable.

It looks like you're already working on the article. I see you're very good at promoting yourself and your company. However, an encyclopedia article on your company will need a very different tone, presentation, and content that what you have so far. If you write the article based mostly on independent and reliable sources, then you can't go too far wrong. Primary sources such as your own press should be used with caution to provide additional details on subjects already mentioned in the main sources.

I'll place a welcome message on your talk page with more resources for you. --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Bowen

Your accusation that I am editing from my own personal viewpoint ignores the content of the edit but also diverts from your insistent misplaced removal of valid material. A secondary source is a source which discusses a primary source and as such has the right to be included in information relevant to a subject. By signing in using my own name and email address to edit, I am clearly stating my interests, it would be easy to create an identity and secrete my IP. It is no secret that I am one of the world's foremost experts on the subject of Bowen and an author of two books on the subject, hence my username clearly being displayed in edits.

The fact remains that a secondary source is persistently, mischievously and incorrectly being edited by you who have no knowledge of either the subject or indeed it seems the definition of a primary source. Please desist in accusatory and ignorant remarks as well as edits which breach the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. The public have a right to relevant and up to date information and I am beginning to question your neutrality. Joolsbaker (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. You're mistaken. Shall we continue the discussion, or are you just venting your anger? --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the article doesn't present a picture which will be useful or factual to members of the public seeking information, but instead seeks to suggest that there is no basis for any efficacy. The systematic review has been mis-quoted by you. If you'd read the whole review, it's clear that the authors are wildly supportive of Bowen, yet the selective quote suggests otherwise. In either instance, the review criticised the research methodology whilst suggesting that Bowen has an important role to play. Why should this be omitted? If you really believe as you say, that the public have a right to relevant information then the broader approach of the SR should be addressed.

Another relevant reference in the article discusses the difficulty of CAM therapies conforming to and gives a reference to another article discussing this. It's an interesting topic.

What comes across from your edits is that you just want to trash Bowen for reasons known best to you. The Quackwatch link specifies NST a therapy which has used the Bowen name to promote itself, but which has raised some serious safety concerns and has been the subject of a trading standards enquiry. Again this reference needs to be clarified.

If I am mistaken then I look forward to a more detailed examination of the systematic review, which by the way did not criticise any specific research article in particular, but rated certain studies as higher than others Joolsbaker (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attempts to discuss the sources, I think we need to put that aside and deal with the bigger problems.

You're the one with the conflict of interest here. You are searching for others to battle and searching for opposing viewpoints to your own. This attitude is misplaced and disruptive.

We've gone over what you need to do - just look at your talk page. You're creating all the same problems you did earlier, as if all the comments on your talk page simply aren't there. You [appear to be on a crusade]. This will get you blocked. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am on a crusade to bring a balanced and truthful article on something I know an awful about and which is woefully and consistently misrepresented in Wikipedia. It appears that you and one other in particular are editing from the perspective of a sceptic. This is not a neutral position but one which starts from a negative. I am trying to discuss the content of the article. The systematic review was very balanced and drew several conclusions. You in the past have removed everything which shows the Bowen Technique in any other light than questionable at best. This is not helpful for the public and certainly not balanced or factual. Why will you not allow the SR to be reflected accurately. Why will you not put NST as the QT from Quackwatch? From both a scientific and journalistic construct this is immoral and flawed. I

I get that you think I'm edit warring, I get all the warnings, threats of blocks and so forth, but I am suggesting that the article needs more balance and you are refusing to consider this and instead want to talk about my attitude? This here is me doing what I have been asked to do, discuss the content and reach some consensus. Your turn. Joolsbaker (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Steven M. Greer

Ronz, there is now a second source for the alleged blocking / locking of doors and accosting of women at event. Second source report begins about halfway down the page, though it is asserted that the manhandling of the attendee happened during another speaker's (Wilcock's) segment. Whether it was still Greer's bodyguards in place is not clear. Something to keep an eye on if more reports emerge, because it is definitely qualifies as Controversy. Kdevans (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent removals from System Administrator

Hello,

Thanks for leaving me the note on my page. I understand that there may be the appearance of COI. I'm now a Board member of the organization in question (although there are other professions, such as architects, which have a link to their professional association). That being said, LOPSA does have its own entry, and it's referenced under the See Also section.

I fail to see why the Body of Knowledge of system administration isn't relevant to the article, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StandaloneSA (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

StandaloneSA (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm mixed about the Body of Knowledge link, and haven't seen discussions on such links elsewhere. Bring it up on the article talk page.

The professional association external link is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Images of Persian Rugs Removed

Hello - you removed a series of high-quality, relevant images of Persian rugs that I added to the Persian Rugs page, claiming the following: "promotion of collection - images are not representative of subtopic - looks like spamming of images rather than proper additions and replacements." I cannot fathom why you would claim such a thing. I have been working with rugs, carpets, kilims, tapestries, and textiles for a very long time. I made a relevant edit on a page that concerns an area about which I am particularly knowledgeable. I was motivated to make this edit because I believe that Persian rugs are a beautiful art form, and that, given the appropriate exposure to the best examples, most people would agree. Effectively, I made this edit for the good of Wikipedia, and for the good of the community that values Persian and other Oriental rugs as works of art.

I have to say, your removal of the images that I uploaded strikes me as being out of line and inappropriate. While all of the images that I uploaded were from the same source, this is because that source has a very impressive amount of high quality images of rugs - something relatively difficult to find, even on the Internet. I contacted this source, got the appropriate permissions, and uploaded the images to the page (which, for the record, I feel was - and now is - lacking in high-resolution graphical depictions of the subject matter, thus making it difficult for laypeople to fully appreciate what is being communicated by terms like "octofoil medallion," and the like). The removal of these page-appropriate images seems to me to indicate a desire on the part of this user to censor content that need not be censored. I would like this discussed and addressed.

Your casual, almost dismissive message on my Talk page (which looks like it is something that you more or less just copy and paste) was insulting. I am an art historian who uploaded some art to a page about art for the benefit of this entire community. From what I gather, you are not an administrator. Reading your talk page, it looks like you are something of self-appointed Wikipedia police officer, using your arbitrary discussion to censor people. While I understand (and believe in) the practice of keeping Wikipedia objective, informative, and useful, I do not believe your way of going about this is helpful to the community, I do not believe that it is academically or scholarly informed, and I do not think your proclivity toward censorship has any place somewhere where the free exchange of ideas and information is the very foundation. I shall kindly await your response before uploading the images again.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Catanzariti (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 

Sorry you feel this way. Looks like you need time to vent your anger. Afterwards we can discuss the relevant policies/guidelines and how they apply to the specific changes you're proposing. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

While an objective party might look at your response to my issue and see it as a patronizing non-answer, I don't care to belabor that point. Rather, I would just like to state for the record that I am not "angry," and neither do I have to "vent." I was just articulating my issue with what you did: you removed images that I uploaded because you "felt" that they could potentially be seen as an advertisement. I explained how and why this was not the case, and also took the time to express my frustration with your need to censor relevant content.

This matter was addressed on my Talk Page by Haploidavey, who edited his own comment twenty-seven minutes after writing it, when he realized that, in fact, I am abiding completely by the rules:

... If you were willing to unconditionally release the images to Wikipedia for free use under license, with no form of linkage to the commercial site, they might be usable in articles - though I see now that they're already released; so it's down to how they're used, and how they're credited in the text. I'm sure this can all be worked out, given time and careful attention to matters of policy. Haploidavey (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your removal of my images, which I am sure was done for the right reason in your own opinion, was not justified. These images are appropriate, applicable, and make the page stronger. I would kindly ask that, if you do take the time to respond to this, you don't write off my opinions, my reading of the terms, and my approach to this site and try to cast me as combative and angry. I am neither. I am moderately intellectually offended, but that is not the nuts and bolts of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catanzariti (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

As I said, "Afterwards we can discuss the relevant policies/guidelines and how they apply to the specific changes you're proposing." --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well. Let's say for the sake of the discussion that I have adequately "vented my anger" and that we have now moved on to the "afterwards" to which you referred. Let's discuss the relevant policies/guidelines and how they apply to the specific changes I am proposing. I shall again quote Haploidavey, as his post on my talk page is the most up to date and clear information I have received about your edit (you have provided me with no such information):

... If you were willing to unconditionally release the images to Wikipedia for free use under license, with no form of linkage to the commercial site, they might be usable in articles - though I see now that they're already released; so it's down to how they're used, and how they're credited in the text. I'm sure this can all be worked out, given time and careful attention to matters of policy. Haploidavey (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So, since I have done as Haploidavey said (and, in fact, had already done it before he said I should do it), it would appear to me that we need to just work out "how the images are used and how they're credited in the text." Perhaps you took issue with the subheadings under which I placed the images? Perhaps you took issue with giving the Gallery from which I got the images credit in the image description? I am speculating because you never said. You just vaguely said that Wikipedia not a soapbox. Granted, agreed 100%. How do you feel I can best use these images to enhance the overall quality of the Persian rugs page without tacitly and subversively advertising for this particular Gallery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catanzariti (talk • contribs) 13:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the image captions were inappropriate. All the crediting information is available with the image itself. Image captions should be brief, descriptive, and strongly relevant. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well. Should I interpret this to mean that if I upload the images again but do not credit the source in the caption that I will be in accordance with your reading of the policies? As this is literally the first and only constructive thing that you've said throughout this entire process, I am inclined to believe that it must be the most important issue at hand. For future reference, this entire process would haven been inestimably pleasanter had you just said that this was the issue from the very beginning, rather than playing snide games and hiding behind a false sense of authority. I'd have said, "Ok, no problem," and uploaded the images without crediting the source in the caption." And that'd have been that.

Normally I do not proffer unsolicited advise, but you did so for me, and I am inclined to return the favor: Do not presume that just because you have more immediately demonstrable experience with something than someone else that you are somehow above even communicating like a human being with that other person. If you're going to be a Wikipedian, do it right.

See how obnoxious, off-putting, and non-constructive that is? No need for it, no need whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catanzariti (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Do look over WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLE, and WP:FOC when you have a chance.

You brought up the image captions, I stated that they were inappropriate. That's the productive conversation so far. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of reference

Replying to: Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As you already aware, I did not remove any references in Attachment parenting. You deliberately wrote in false accusations for your edits in your the edit summary. I removed an external link which violates MOS and explained this in the edit summary specifically. You put that link back as a ref to attempt to make it appear as though I had removed a ref. Strictly speaking this ref is inappropriate as it is a primary source but I won't delve into that for now.

I have no quarrel with you so please stop whatever this is.

-- MC

It never dawned on you that it was a reference and that I thought it was one when I wrote "seems useful til better ref is found"? Best not to revert edits if you're not going to take the time to get some perspective. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit of Bishop Cleemis

Check the link in the article and also . The actual name is not Clemis its Cleemis and hence the correction.)