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

---

Talk:Tariq Nasheed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding Ramdev Article

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

Removing information

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP places the burden on those seeking inclusion. The Google search result [1] lists sources that we both agree are unreliable. I don't know how anyone is going to make a convincing case that the result is reliable.

See WP:GNUM and WP:DOB.

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

Reg. Harsh Beniwal Page

Hi Ronz,

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

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

HRVY

Hi Ronz

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

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

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

Thank you for your Kind Response

Kind Regards

James Duggins

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

The Oreo Cat Wiki page

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

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

Removal of contribution to Toll Free Telephone numbers

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

best regard

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

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

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

Thanks

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

FuzzyCatPotato ANI

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

Liens établis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Milroy Goes

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

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

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

Michelle Joy Phelps

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

Regarding COI

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

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

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

Is Genesis History? Cast

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

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

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

Dennis Prager Wikipedia

Hi Ronz,

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

James

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

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

Edits to Dennis Prager

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

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

The problems I've been seeing are:

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

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

Michelle_Joy_Phelps: 'article has multiple issues'.

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

Look forward to your reply.

BR

Issues:

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

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

Futility Closet and List of Futility Closet Podcast episodes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External link MBTI

Hello,

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

The external link on MBTI wiki

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

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

Relation between photographic illustrations and the Wikipedia articles

Hi Ronz

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

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

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

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

Lorne Michaels

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

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

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

Dave Barry

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

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

Your edit on Lauder

Those were nice edits on Lauder you did the other day. There is much public information about the chairman's personal life available which is currently not covered in the Wikipedia article, though it is very well know due to its large press coverage. It should only be done properly by an experienced editor and maybe you could consider doing it properly before it is done improperly by someone else. This is a reasonable source and you'll see what I am referring to: [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManKnowsInfinity (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks. It was just some basic cleanup.

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

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

This is the well known Forbes article from 2010 which covers this material more thoroughly: [3]. It also appeared on huffington.post, and many newspapers though the Forbes is quite well written. If you don't feel the material is significant enough for the article, then I'll try to rethink its contents since it would be easy for other editors with less experience to express this type of material very poorly for the purposes of Wikipedia. Cheers. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

In addition to the Forbes article above, these would be the other two main reliable source articles for this topic: NYPost here; [4], and The Daily News here; [5]. Some added comments on William Lauder as part of the larger Lauder family at Town and Country magazine here: [6]. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia article creation

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

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

Anatoly Shariy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Batteroo

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

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

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

Famousbirthdays

Hello

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

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

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

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

Ann Louise Gittleman - Conflict

Hi Ron,

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

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

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

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

Seth Godin

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

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

It looks like you understand my concerns:

You're editing a BLP under a coi.

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

Your single, large edit is difficult to review.

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

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

I looked at your first small edit [7]. That's a rather blatant COI violation from my perspective, and I consider myself less conservative than many other editors that work on COIN disputes. Haven't you run into problems with such edits before? Have you been asked to work from change proposals before? I think you should at this point. --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Will Weinbach Player Page

Ronz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yukon and Nunavut company registers undone

Hey Ronz,

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

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

Sorry about that. I've restored the info minus the links [8]. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

BLP added for my contributions on page Pradeep Chowbey

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

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

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

Thanks Myfirsts

Thanks for responding.

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

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

Tigerspike Wikipedia Page

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Tigerspike Next,

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

Jena Rose wikipedia

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

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

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

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

Edit to "Know Nothing"

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dead link

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

Sorry about that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cameron Moulene

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

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

Ethnicelebs

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

hi

[9]in regards to this edit.... this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing was posted and came across[10] which is why it was added to 'see also' of article in question...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Suggested Article - Harmless Harvest

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

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

Dialogues External Links

Hi Ron,

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

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

Thanks for your time.

Thanks for following up with me. Briefly:

Please review WP:COI.

Interviews in general tend to be poor sources of information.

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

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

Cayenne

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

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

Your comments to Russellbesq

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

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

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

Worth getting involved again?

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

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

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

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

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

I dont like this

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

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

Dispute resolution

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

Hey, Ronz

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Following up

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

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

Jan David Winitz Page

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

Page content with added citations for review:

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

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

References

the famous people as a source

Hi,

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

Spammer

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

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

Uploading the pictures

Hi Ronz,

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

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

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

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

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

New Page Reviewing

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Cinema online

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

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

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

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

Yoga

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

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

Gino D'Acampo Date of Birth

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

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

Birthday source

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

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

You reverted my citing

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

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

hello Ronz

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

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

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

I can tell you of other stories.

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

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

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

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

thanks for listening.

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

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

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

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

Heja2017mexicomexican

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

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

Butkusmi

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

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

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

Foam Pits Source Deletion

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

Request.

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

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

Conflict of Interest - corydigital.com

Hi Ronz,

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

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

Look forward to hearing from you.

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

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

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Hipal. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 3,216 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Ronz,

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

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

Reason for revertion

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

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

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

TRIZ Page

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

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

Hi Gordon. Thank you very much for responding.

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

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

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

Removing dICO References

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

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

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

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

Hi Ronz, thank you for following up with me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rv my edits on atomic swap

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

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

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

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

Herobust page

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

Hi IamJstncrdble. Thanks for following up with me.

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

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

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

New Wikipedia Contributor

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

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

Herobust page again

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

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

Notability

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

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

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

K12

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

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

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

SOAP?

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

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

Mindfulness at work

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

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

Thanks for your consideration

Kind regards ~~mindfulnessatwork~~

Thanks for following up with me.

What you describe is a conflict of interest.

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

Mention of you on my talk page

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

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

SealFAQs and William Calmes Buck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adopt - a User Project - apologies

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

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

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

Undue "weight"

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

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

Nicole Eggert & Scott Baio refrences

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

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

Looking for some help

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

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

Awards

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

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

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

RE: Famousbirthdays.com as a source

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

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

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

Hi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft: Demetrice Nguyen

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

Thanks for following up with me.

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

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

Edits for pain control reversed

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

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

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

Thanks for following up on this.

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

sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jared Taylors case against Twitter

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

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

Thank you.

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

Your message on Dynamic Applications

Dear Ronz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you so much!

Martin Bernhardt Founder

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

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

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

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

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

Birthday reliability

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

RE: Ethnicelebs.com as a source

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

Thanks for responding.

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

The first one ([11]) needs you to be a member of the website, which I'm not, but it apparently has the records showing his paternal great-grandmother was born in Riesi, Province of Caltanissetta, Sicily. The other sources ([12], [13], [14], [15]) are to show other paternal ancestors, John Joseph Butare was born in Calabria, Italy, and Mary Baldassarre was born in Naples, Campania, Italy. Ancestry.com is a fine source. Theo (contribs) 01:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for your help

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

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

Do you prefer more or less editorial content on Wikipedia?

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

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

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

Katarina Rodriguez wiki

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

Notes on Bryan Dyson's article

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

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

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

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

Astro.com is generally not reliable.

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

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

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

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

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

Prabook is not a reliable source.

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

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

Dasha Taran wiki

Hi, thanks for sharing the info.

Bee Pollen

Dear Ronz,

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

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

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

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

Problem With Editors

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

Thanks for following up with me.

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

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

Conflict of interest? Failure software

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

So could a third-party create these links?

I'm curious what the rationale is here.

Thanks,

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

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

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

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

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

The COI Policy - virtual research institutes for independent scientists

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

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

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

citations

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

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

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

Usability Testing and Expert Review

Hi Ronz,

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

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

That addition was by an ip.

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

Starting out on Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't look like celebritynetworth.com has been mentioned at RSN for years now, but there have been many discussions [16], this being one of the most recent and includes discussion of alternatives. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays

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

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

Unreliable Source

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

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

An extended welcome

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

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

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

Draft:Sam Chui

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

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

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

Mark Z. Jacobson

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

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

Removal of Native Strength mentioning of documentaries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

mentions current programming is mentioned.

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

Please Respond

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

Have you reviewed the comments I left on your talk page? --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ronz

Dear Roz

I apologise for using unreliable sources every now and then. I am not a full time editor on this website, so I didn't know it was as big of a deal as it is. But with all that said, was it really necessary to delete the rest of the information I added to Jason Marsden's page that didn't require any references? I'm just asking.

Please, let me know if I can help with any other errors I have committed.

Traptor12 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

The answer is already on your talk page, User_talk:Traptor12#January_2013, but to be clearer, WP:BLP states, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"

Simply, if you are if you are unsure if a source might be reliable, use article talk pages or WP:RSN rather than adding a questionable source. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Changes to UCW

Hi Ronz - thanks for your message. I noticed that edits to a UCW article I posted, a school I have a conflict of interest with (updated on my user profile) seemed to be focused with negativity rather than covering other interesting and newer updates that have been covered in the media. To that end I posted information about a more recent piece of activity with a First Nations leader, properly citing this media coverage. I saw that you considered this not to be relevant and thought to reach out to you to better understand why. Thanks again.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MenoPorsche (talk • contribs) 14:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for following up with me.

If you were following WP:COI we wouldn't be having this discussion here. Please declare your COI on all article talk pages where you'd like to see changes, and use edit requests on those talk pages.

Please review what I wrote in context of WP:NOT, use of Wikipedia for public relations campaign [17]. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

MenoPorsche, I have added you as a connected contributor to all the talk pages of the articles you have edited following your somewhat ambiguous COI declaration on your user page. However, if your employment includes editing Wikipedia articles on the GUS subsidiaries and on GUS itself, then you are a paid editor, not simply one with a "conflict of interest". If that is the case, you need to use the template {{Paid}} to make that explicit. In either case, given your seriously problematic past editing here, you should restrict yourself to making edit requests on the talk pages of the relevant articles and not edit the articles directly. Incidentally, I am in full agreement with Ronz's removal of the PR material you had added to UCW. Voceditenore (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Soapboxing and promotion

Hi, there. Thank you for sharing the soapboxing and promotion articles. I’m new to this and genuinely want to understand where I’m going wrong, so please bear with me if you could because I don’t want to be banned. I’m trying to flesh out the article about me with more detail and believed I was citing references with enough third party media sources. Was linking to other pages the problem? For example, if I produced a series for a network and both have Wikipedia pages, should I not link to them? If I create another draft in my Sandbox could I get your feedback specifically before I post? I really appreciate your help and want to get this right. Wilsoncleveland (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.

I'm concerned that you've rather blatantly violated the terms of your account being unblocked:

You were blocked in 2006 with the comment, all contribs have been adverts.

You successfully appealed the block in 2013 via an email request. I don't have access to your request, but it almost certainly communicated that you understood the policies related to promotion and that you would follow them carefully if your block was lifted.

My assumption then is that your continued use of Wikipedia for self-promotion violates the terms of your unblock request.

What am I missing? --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You're correct that I was blocked in 2006 for creating two articles for the same client that repurposed content and images from their website which was my only cited source. Obviously promotional and copyright violating. I didn't know any better at the time.

I don't recall what I communicated in my 2013 unblock request and would happily share it with you if I could locate it. I must have used the Unblock Ticket Request form because I can only find the response email: "Hello Wilsoncleveland! I have unblocked your account as I have deemed that the block is no longer necessary. King of Hearts English Wikipedia Administrator."

My understanding has been that I could contribute to articles I was connected to provided I wrote in a neutral tone and cited quality third party sources - which is exactly what I hadn't done in 2006 when I was blocked. I sincerely believed I was doing this the correct way. I've seen many in my peer group with links in their Filmography sections and I thought that's what you were supposed to do. At this point all I want to do is make a few minor factual and formatting edits then leave it alone. I just don't want to be banned. Wilsoncleveland (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

To address your concern, I'm not going to pursue having you banned at this point, unless something changes radically. I've not looked at your edits closely, and hope there's nothing worse than what I've seen the article about yourself.

Wikipedia's policies for editing with a conflict of interest have changed dramatically since your block was lifted, as has enforcement of policies related to conflicts of interest, biographical information, and promotional content.

A good step forward would be for you to disclose your conflict of interest on the talk pages of all the articles you've edited where it applies.

Also, please use edit requests for Wilson Cleveland, and consider using them for other articles and content where you have a similarly strong conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on unrealiable sources

Thanks for your recent comment about my post on Lauren Jackson. I was unaware of this section, and even after following the link I cannot work out how to check on whether an individual source is reliable in the future. I have been making great efforts to ensure that all my posts are appropriately referenced. I guess the common sense approach requires that if the source you use is an aggregation of facts, it must follow similar rules to wikipedia by linking to an original source. But I fear I may get caught again on this. Blue Moses (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not enough that sites link to original sources. When in doubt, check the source at WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Melanie Wright

I saw on my Facebook that Cole and Dylan Sprouse mother was listed as Melanie Wright, which comes up as a swimmer for Australia. However, her age is 31, while the boys age is 25, meaning, she must have given birth to them when she was 6? Is this correct? Can you please review both pages? I believe their mothers name is correct, however they linked the wrong person.NikkCartwright (talk)

I'll try to get to this within a week, hopefully much sooner. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not seeing any links between them. Maybe they were removed? --Ronz (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

About my page, march 2018

Hello, Ronz! Thank you for message me about my page. I created this page. I created it on the basis of an interview with this person from articles on the Internet. But I was finally able to contact this person. and she said that a lot of information unfortunately is not really true. I'm trying to fix this as soon as possible. Don't cancel my fix on this page. half of the text was deleted due to the fact that so much wrong information on this page. Nedika (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

So you admit to having a conflict of interest and editing to it? I'm afraid you're going to be blocked if you continue like this. I gave the article a quick pass and tagged it for improvement. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We didn't have a conflict of interests. I spoke with this person and she will give me the right information. she wants me to keep on writing about her. Can I edit information or now it forbidden to me to do this?Nedika (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are here trying to change the contents to meet her interests.

If you can provide independent and reliable sources, you should be able to avoid problems. Avoid anything that could appear to be adding poorly sourced information or removing properly sourced information. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for answer. At the moment, the text that has the source is in this article. Now I will not add anything. Maybe I will add something later when there will be fresh sources and in the further I able to avoid problems.Nedika (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi

I've been editing for 13 years or so, I know how it works and everything just fine and dandy. We all make mistakes though which I did on the Sally Bretton thing. Cheers for the uneeded help though. -Malice1982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malice1982 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You've less than 500 edits and you made the edit without an edit summary. Regardless of the span of time you've edited Wikipedia, I thought a friendly heads-up on important, relevant policy would be received better than a warning. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Titodutta's talk page.
Message added 17:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Titodutta (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have posted another reply. Kindly have a look. My response might be a little late, although I'll try check soon. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have added a response. --Titodutta (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• +1 message on my talk page. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Alicia Silverstone

I didn't even think I was involved in an edit war with you; never my intention, and to be honest, it's not even an interest to be involved in one. I thought it would be appropriate to mention her other film roles as a whole timeline. As for her stage credits, the woman has constantly starred in plays, so I thought it was also noteworthy. I'd love to add something else in the lead, as it only addresses specifically her film trajectory until her Batgirl role, and her 'Golden Globe nomination' sentence seems a little isolated. Hope we can agree on something and warm greetings to you, regardless of my miscommunication. 190.249.179.87 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The lede should summarize and introduce, identifying why she's notable. She's done a lot of work, but she doesn't seem to get much press or other coverage beyond initial publicity campaigns. Disputes over what should belong in the lede have been a huge problem with article for a long time. Quality references are scarce, especially anything written from a historical context. I'm happy to help you, but I'm mostly just keeping an eye on the article so we don't backslide with the latest publicity campaign or controversy. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy to leave it up you, Ronz. I saw he was edit-warring and making unexplained major changes, so I thought it prudent to pull back on them until they could be discussed, as is happening now. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

thank you

Hello Ronz!

Thank you very much for the message you sent me about ten days ago. I'm not online often, but I do enjoy editing here whenever I can. I noticed that a part of my last edit (on cryptocurrency airdrops) was deleted.

Could you please explain why this was done and advise how to avoid such things in the future?

Thanks!

Jugoplastika (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you are spamming an unreliable, promotional source. I'd recommend avoiding any editing related to blockchains and living persons, while you learn your way around Wikipedia better. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

About Removal of Extra Section in the 'Colourblindness' Page

Dear Ronz,

I have noticed that you have removed my first paragraph as 'it doesn't appear as a reliable source'. Could you expand on that (point to specific areas) so that I could improve on my citations or whatever that needs to be rectified. As you have noticed, I am new to editing Wikipedia and this was my very first edit so I would really appreciate if you could assist me on my mistakes.

And thank you for sending the information about wikipedia, it's very useful but there is a ton of reading material to get through so it will take me a while to get through it.

Yours sincerely,

MaciejScience — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaciejScience (talk • contribs) 07:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi MaciejScience. Thanks for following up with me.

Clivemaxfield.com appears to be a blog, so it is self-published. I don't see how the author has any expertise in the subject matter.

Ideal sources should clearly indicate scientific consensus on the subject, and generally follow Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences). --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit Reversal in Gokhele Method

Hi,

You recently reverted an edit made to the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gokhale_Method#Reception_and_analysis

Specifically, someone made a small edit regarding the scientific sources, where they reviewed the citations, and found that the research papers cited were being slightly misrepresented. Upon review of the sources, I believe the edit in question was accurate, as we can clearly see a pattern of less industrialized countries having lower rates of back pain.

Also, even if we couldn't see such a pattern, I still do not see where in the sources that the authors of the research state that lower back pain rates are not significantly different between industrialized and non-industrialized societies. So in conclusion, unless the authors of the research themselves state that there is no difference in lower back pain rates, it is not correct to extrapolate that assumption from one's interpretation.

Observer haq (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)observer_haq

Welcome to Wikipedia. I left you a detailed message on your talk page on why it's incredibly difficult for new editors to successfully involve themselves in topics about living persons, where you have a strong bias, and are under special editing restrictions. I recommend the following pages to give you more information as to why: User:Jytdog/How and User:WLU/Generic_sandbox --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: Famousbirthdays.com as a source (Michael Wincott)

Hi Ronz. Thank you so much for the heads up about that site. I used it as a reference because when I don't add reference sites to the two profiles I edit, I get notices about not supplying citations. Mr. Wincott has so few proper articles about his personal life, as he is very much against it. He does, however, appreciate being included on Wikipedia, so you help is appreciated. In this case, we needed to correct his birth year, which was edited incorrectly by someone else. Since he is an actor who works internationally, it is important the basics like birthdate and his previous work be accessible and correct.

As the publicist for him and his brother, Jeff, I realize I suffer from COI, but I've tried to keep the article content as objective as possible. In future, I may contact you to help me make edits, so there is less risk of deletions.

Thanks again, --Runjik23 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Laura www.runjikproductions.com

Thanks. I'll give you some details on how we can resolve this on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Rossi

Sorry, I had been reverting vandalism to the page and didn't look closely enough Unibond (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That was my guess. Thanks for explaining. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is Dan O’Keefe

Not logged in. Thanks for moving my comment on the Festivus talk page to the bottom - I couldn’t figure out how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1300:442A:9C50:83E5:B80E:CDA5 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

finding old username

Hi, I am trying to dig up my old username. I can find one phrase that is definitely mine "developed countries is DFNB1, also known as Connexin 26 deafness or GJB2-related deafness" in Hearing Loss that dates at least to "06:06, 9 January 2005‎ Ray Foster (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,357 bytes) (+5,755)‎ . . (Added info from deafness) (undo | thank)" when it was imported from deafness. But the original wiki article on deafness no longer exists. I am trying to find when this was first added and my username. Thank you. Gren0ui11e (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to get an admin to look it over because of the combinations of moves and deletions. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Reason why the edits were deleted?

Hi Ronz, Any reason why the addition on Ravi Shankar's article was deleted? Banumathy Narasimhan is his sister and she is a great contributor in the life of his brother. Vnarsimhan (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you see the information I left on your talk page?

I remove it because it was poorly sourced, highly promotional information about a non-notable person added to a biographical article where it was extremely out of place. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Seth Godin notoriety

I apologize if the additional info for [Godin's hall of fame honor was a bit long]. I tend to try to provide more information, adding context, than less. Showing others who were added to the marketing hall gives an indication of how big (or little) a deal it is. Thus, helping with prominence and notoriety. Just adding background here for my thought process. Always looking to do better. CharlieGrammar (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. As I indicated in my edit summary, the reference only mentions Godin as a recipient without any specifics at all. The award seems noteworthy. I didn't look for a better reference, and would be surprised if there weren't multiple press releases about it that had some details. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Paige Patterson

Hi Ronz, thanks for pushing me to include more direct connection between PP's firing and his stepping down from SBC posts. I think you'll find my new text much more to your liking and have no objections to it. If you do, please let me know. Thanks! --Wikibojopayne (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for working on improving it. Response on the article talk. --Ronz (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Good day Ronz

I accept that it can not be used as a source and will remember that in future. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Regards

User:Barry Ne 03:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicelebs.com as a source

Hi , I did provide another link that I found hope it's a reliable source. The video where she stated that the original French pronunciation of her surname is unfortunately copy righted I can't post the link . You may look it up on YouTube. Thanks for your consideration

https://famouskin.com/pedigree.php?name=52189+melissa+benoist&ahnum=16

-- Solidaires2 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Legislative violence in Thailand

Why did you delete the section about Thailand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.228.51.29 (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

See the article talk page and your own talk page. Your editing tends to be problematic in general, and Legislative violence needs a rewrite to follow Wikipedia's content policies. --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Can you please explain why you reverted the changes to the Weston Price page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wali omer (talk • contribs) 10:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Because it was inappropriate in at least two ways as I identified in my edit summary. Please don't add links like that if you're not going to check if it is appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Mercola

Don't understand what you are trying to say. I entered an additional bullet that Joseph Mercola opposes fluoridation and supports a pending lawsuit against the EPA with references to his page about fluoridation and to the Bloomberg Law with the timeline of the lawsuit. Can't be any more factual and well documented than that. Didn't elaborate in any way.

I also took out a link to a claim that claims that wireless is armful/causes cancer is pseudoscience referencing an opinion piece and included a link to a 2017 (and 2015) appeal to the UN by a consortium of electromagnetic scientists and a 2017 presentation by a scientific organization that included and quoted a WHO/IARC scientist that the evidence is definitive - cell phone and other wireless is causing cancer. Even the Dept of the Interior protested to NTIA in Feb 2014 that there is significant evidence of environmental damage in the vicinity of cell phone towers. This isn't the place to debate it, but calling it pseudoscience and using an opinion article to support that claim is misrepresentative of facts in evidence. Here's a nice 2016 summary of science: http://www.cqlpe.ca/pdf/Hensinger_Wilke_2016_umg_Engl.pdf

Seabreezes1 (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Please review WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Mercola's article is not the place to address disputes over fringe theories, nor a soapbox for such theories. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For you comments and support surrounding edits to Paige Patterson. Enjoy! Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mahira_Khan#Puffery regarding reason. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mahira_Khan#Puffery".The discussion is about the topic Mahira Khan. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Saqib (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Typical Gamer

Listen dude this happened way back but you deleted my source and it took a long time to find one. PLease fix my article on typical gamer as he is a noteable figure or may you please get a team on making a page for him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WidgetFan1234 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's extremely unlikely that I'll have the time to do so. --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

ACLU

The reason why your content changes to the ACLU Article is problematic is because, as Wikipedia’s own policies state, the lead is for major events in the ACLU’s history and policy. The ACLU had previously unquestionably defended Free-Speech rights, famously even that of a Klansman. So when they decide to stop that it is HUGE news. To not acknowledge that is clearly a POV-pushing technique. And only since you implyed it, no I don’t have any ties to the ACLU or any group opposing the ACLU, I just want the article to reflect reality. Seriously, why not include it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajackson12 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Why? NOTNEWS, OR, POV are why. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

AIV report

Now there are two 3 month range blocks of 32768 addresses each (/17). See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Spam Reverting Vandal. September might be busy... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Article

How would I get a article written, I need a Wikipedia article done, I manage over 200 million on social media, have hundreds of thousands of followers, over 100 million in total views, and I also own a company. I have other articles about me if you would like to see. I’m a actual public figure I just don’t know how to go about Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.179.178 (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Get yourself an account so it will be much easier for editors to help you.

Wikipedia:Autobiography gives plenty of guidance. --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Aquaria

Hello! I understand that FamousBirthdays was not a great source, but it has been confirmed many times that Feb 12, 1996 is Aquaria's birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 727deluxe (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for welcoming me and for the useful resources which, I hope, will help me make the best possible contributions. Serenesage (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Your last edit taking the statement out of Wikipedia's voice was reverted, so I've taken it to the RSN. I guess we'll see what happens. Perhaps I should stop responding so it doesn't turn into a complete repeat of the talk page? --tronvillain (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've not been paying too much attention, but saw your comments and the RSN discussion. Thank you for staying with this. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Natalie La Rose

Thanks for letting me know! I was working with an experienced editor earlier today and they didn't know about that either. The date can still stay since "Natalie" has said that it is her birthday herself through social media. Snowycats (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Glad to help. It would be better to have independent sources, but as long as there's no doubt or controversy over the birth date it shouldn't be too much of problem. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Matt Chamberlain page exits

Hello This is Matt Chamberlain.. I just tried to correct the mis-information on my wiki page and you changed it back saying I needed reliable sources.. how do I go about getting a reliable source on a page about me?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumcymbalssticks23 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Matt. Thanks for following up with me. It's an extremely frustrating situation to be in. I'll follow up on your talk page so others can help more easily. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for thee response.  I thoroughly confused about how to update my Wiki page and how to use the right protocol.. Are there people i can hire or contact to help me correct this mis-information/lack of info on my page?  Best  Matt Chamberlain  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumcymbalssticks23 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC) 

At best, there are people happy to take your money that are unable to promise anything. Please review WP:COI.

If there's poorly sourced information in the article that you'd like to see removed, use an edit request on the article talk page ({{request edit}}).

To correct information, you should use an edit request that includes supporting references. Non-independent sources like interviews, press releases, material that you've written, etc may be used in some circumstances and are often helpful to support better sources that lack detail. Without independent sources, no one will be able to make much headway in adding or changing material. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Candice Swanepoel

Hello, I'm Mosstacker. I noticed that you recently removed content from Candice Swanepoel without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mosstacker (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I've left you a welcome message on your talk with a bit of clarification about the article, the poor sources, and the inappropriate use of the template above. --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Paul Thacker

Hi Ronz, thanks for the welcome and advice. I do believe Mr. Thacker is editing his own Wikipedia page to remove my additions. Both IP addresses used to delete it are based in Spain where he lives. I know a lot of people live in Spain, but being an American journalist it is a bit coincidental. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welovegv (talk • contribs) 11:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've not looked to closely at the article or editing history, but all the WP:SPA accounts and vandalism is troubling.

It would help if we had a better source for his being fired, including details that narrow down the date to fit in the timeline. --Ronz (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The atomic swap page is turning out to be a battle ground

Hi Ronz,

You may recall me from earlier this year.

We came in contact regarding the "atomic swap" technology page.

Our community has pioneered this technology and worked diligently behind the scenes for years.

Other communities are repeatedly staking territory on this page. It is quite outrageous. We have reached out to them, even, but everyone wants to claim "we did it first" for this technology, and they are all too happy to ignore the facts when it gets their name in the newspaper. The most common statement appearing on the page is a belief that the Litecoin/Decred 2017 implementation of an atomic swap was the first. This is 100% incorrect. The first atomic swaps were performed in 2013/2014. We did our first in 2014, but we admit we are probably not the first. Again, most likely Tier Nolan was the first -- the man who first penned the concept.

We are, however, the first to make the technology available to the public via a simply downloaded software application. This represents literally tens of thousands of hours of work by our community. We were performing thousands of atomic swaps throughout 2017, including months before the Litecoin/Decred community did their first non-public swap in the laboratories of their computer offices.

At this time, we have performed over 100K atomic swaps with the public, and are growing faster than any other atomic-swap decentralized exchange.

In being faithful to your council, as you appear to be a dedicated, knowledgeable, and ardent Wikipediaphile, I have avoided getting involved. As I am connected to the Komodo team, I have a conflict of interest and I don't want to tarnish the good spirit of Wikipedia.

Can you please revert the topic back to the shortened version that you and I worked out together -- it had no references to any project whatsoever, and was quite brief -- and then please lock the thread for further discussion?

I am doing my best to be respectful of the Wikipedia community. At the same time, I also am speaking on behalf of a community of thousands of people, and their work and contribution to this movement is constantly under attack.

Thank you, eagerly awaiting your reply.

Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. I've not looked at the article in some time now. I'll want to look over the subsequent history, but a revert is likely if it's all more of the same problems as before. --Ronz (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. What would it take to get the page locked for now? As the public is generally under the impression that a lot of money can be made from "being first" in this technology, I expect the issue will keep appearing. It will be some time before a peer-reviewed scientific article about any of this stuff is written. It's all bleeding-edge technology, and even the best academics that I've spoken with are still trying to figure out what blockchain is, let alone atomic swaps. Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Global University Systems articles

Hi Ronz. You've been a big help re the plethora of edit requests from Global University Systems's marketing employee at University Canada West and GISMA Business School. Could I ask you to put a few more of their for-profit college and corporate staff pages on your watch list, especially for the month of August when I'll be away with much more limited internet access? The main college ones are:

• London College of Creative Media (acquired by GUS this year)
• University of Applied Sciences Europe (acquired this year)
• Arden University (acquired 2016)
• IBAT College Dublin (acquired 2016)
• University of Law (acquired 2015)
• St Patrick's College, London (acquired 2013)
• London School of Business and Finance (GUS's original business, started in 2003)
• LSBF Group (various divisions hived off from London School of Business and Finance)

COI editors for GUS have also created articles on two of their corporate staff members

• Maurits van Rooijen, Chief Educational Officer at GUS
• Sagi Hartov, "Principal of creative arts" at GUS, whatever that means (I've recently cleaned this up. It was full of misleading and outright false claims. Very dubious notability)

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Soapbox

Hi Ronz:

Thanks for pointing out my entry to Silicon Beach for including Parachute Home as a soapbox. I am actually attempting to update the list to include multiple entries from here and here. I believe I have followed the exact same format as other entries in the table (and thereby not really promoting one over the others) Will all these be banned? If so, what will be a better way to update the table?

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plenmao (talk • contribs) 19:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising, including directories. Using highly promotional sources like those would probably not suffice. Editors are encouraged to write the article first, establishing clear notability. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand

I don’t understand how this is to me. I don’t intend to promote and since this is a YouTubers Page I’m trying YouTube sources because there the best I can provide for this page I think I’ll redirect this to its most common YouTube which is his AGP A.R.M. 18:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi ARMcgrath. I was in the process of writing a note on your talk page. Let me know if it's not clear, but basically, YouTube videos don't suffice. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz:Okay then I’ll either ask for the page to be deleted or redirected A.R.M. 18:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz:Okay then I’ll either ask for the page to be deleted or redirected A.R.M. 18:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicelebs.com as a source

Hi Ronz, I've reviewed the Terms of Service at Ethnicelebs.com, I do not disagree with your assessment. I'll update the articles I edited. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Serenesage (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not know that

I did not know that the source i provided was not up to code. I hope that the article will not be deleted, but fixed with better sources. If you can find a source with the information on it, feel free to add it to the article. thank you and have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarmusic2 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to help. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of promotional/unsourced Article on one Shenphen Rinpoche

I saw you have helped improve Alexander Berzin's article and wonder if you have time to help out with the one on Shenphen Rinpoche, which appears to consist of entirely unsourced self-promotion about (or by!) an eminently non-notable person? Speedy deletion? - MacPraughan (unable to log in at the moment)

Hi MacPraughan. Delete or stub. Stubbing might bring some attention to the article which hasn't received much attention from editors in some time now. --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks Ronz how can my article be seeing on google Ziggy 2milli (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is at risk of being deleted entirely. Find better sources to use. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

That's so nice to have some tips from the senior. I understand my mistakes at Jeane's article and would love to get more of your knowledge shared with me. Will take care of things in the future. Ultra Instinct Greninja (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

REMOVE TEMPLATE

Please Ronz I want you to help in removing the the template of page issues in the article YNW Melly Ziggy 2milli (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me on this. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page, [[Talk:YNW_Melly]. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Seth Godin, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

You've been mentioned at ANI

I'm sure you can guess what for. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Very strange. I've responded. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit Princess Maria Amor

Not acceptable. This is the reason that Wikipedia has too few women contributors. Please put this back. 86.0.20.87 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Before we get started on working together, it would be extremely helpful if you created an Wikipedia account for yourself. See Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration for details on why and how to do so. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz: You might want to check out User talk:Maureen Brindle and my response. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for the welcome message, definitely learned some things from it! Beasting123 (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with sources needed and speedy deletion tag

Hello, I've noticed you've been recently editing and revising an article I published on Jonny Ferrari. It seems that you've deleted references that aren't necessary or reliable, and also some information. I had specified that Jonny Ferrari worked in online casino, and that is verifiable through the references. I readded this detail in the hopes that it would rectify the reason for speedy deletion tag that has been attached by another user onto this article. Can you help me to clarify what is needed to have the speedy deletion tag removed and perhaps have more details added to this article based on the existing references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstar P1 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I ran some quick searches, but didn't find anything. I'll be happy to review anything others find. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Four years ago ....

Hi Ronz. Remember this guy? Your comment in this edit summary goes to the heart of the matter. Before that, I unfortunately tagged the wrong delete template, which was summarily removed. You know how it goes - if I had then tagged again with the correct one, the other editor would have felt obliged to find some reason to oppose it again. Anyway, besides maintenance by bots, the article has been basically dead for years, which go to shows that it has zero notability. How do you feel about proposing it for deletion?

And while I have your attention, do you have an opinion on this? Thanks, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Without going over it in detail, it seems like there's enough at Keith Loris to keep an article.

I'm not seeing any obvious problems with Medical astrology. What concerns do you have with it? --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, thanks for your input.

On Loris:

• "Loris is currently president and CEO of his fourth startup, Sales Renewal"
  • What are the four startups? Were they a sucsess? Why is there no information on them?
• The lengthy paragraph on Softlock basically describes how the book was sold (and it was not exactly a success — sales [demand] were a success [Simon & Schuster], the technology not) and how the business model works, this is about Softlock, not about Loris as a person — a few lines on it being a first (if it was — you tagged it as dubious) would be enough.

On Medical astrology, I had quite a few articles open and I as closed them one by one — after the message I left you — when it came to Medical astrology I took one more look, consulted the sources and removed a large section.

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I see you already made the point about Softlock being a failure (and Loris replaced). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The Princess

Have you no sense of romance? My biggest disappointment in my years of editing Wikipedia has been my inability to rescue the Princess (or her article anyway). Digging in to her sources and network of web pages was like discovering there is no Santa Claus. She has obviously put a lot of effort into making herself appear notable. Who are we to kill her dreams of notoriety? When I am appointed King (or have purchased the honor) my first official act will be to re-instate the Princess.

Seriously though, I did my best. Thanks for all the effort you put in to this. I am sorry if it hasn't been as amusing to you as it was to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help. I've worked on similar biographies, and they rarely go this easily. After her websites were removed from archive.org, I was expecting a complaint from her. --Ronz (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Patrick Bet-David for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick Bet-David 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/Patrick Bet-David until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Kate Grigorieva

about kate's age 30 is true you can check her instagram then you edit it to 29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90nasrin (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop changing my text

The net worth information is up to date and is the most accurate! The net worth is calculated by Wprost magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wprost (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think of Close connection

I look after Debarun Pal's online presence, As with years he never insisted me to write biased stuff. Exactly which part of the statement made you think that, pls educate me that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theemperorstudios (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You have a clear conflict of interest. Please declare it and use edit requests rather than editing the articles directly. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Edmunddantes and Nancy Wong photos

"Conflict of interest policy Information icon Hello, Edmunddantes. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest"

Can you be more specific? I am not employed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.3 (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please review WP:COI. You're using Wikipedia to promote your photography, and you apparently have never taken the time to learn about relevant content policies like WP:IMAGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, Edmunddantes. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information.

Thank you for your interest in my snapshots: I do not have any external relationship with anyone.--Edmunddantes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.178.0.58 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a language problem here that would be helpful to address?

You are Nancy Wong. You are adding your own photos to articles. That's a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

"his(sic) is very likely a professional photographer. I certainly believe so. I'd like to assume that she is offering images from her work for use in Wikipedia, unless I'm overlooking something that obviously links her to photography services. "

Dear Mr. Ronz: I am an amateur who shoots one roll of film every five years for my own pleasure. I am very flattered that you believe I am a professional photographer. I offer no photography services and I do not accept photo assignments nor do I do work for hire. I am happy you think my work is good. I hope it is a valuable resource for Wikipedia as some of the people I have taken snapshots of on a public street location are now dead: i.e. no more new photos can be taken of these people: Joe Rosenthal, Jim Jones. Thank you again for your interest in my decades-old snapshots! --Edmunddantes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.26 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You need to respond at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Edmunddantes. I will copy your response there. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Edmunddantes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Possible copyright problems; likely concerns about outing; possible sock/meatpuppetry; misleading responses; possibly creating a legacy

TheFamousPeople.com as a source

Hi Ronz, thanks for the heads-up. I can't remember why I used that source — possibly it contained the same information as the more convincing other source, in a way that was easier to link directly to. With the other source it doesn't seem possible to directly link to the right page — and just now I can't get at the relevant bit of the other source at all, not even in the archived copy. But it does at least name the right book, even if that online copy has become inaccessible.

Anyway, no argument over removing the dodgy reference. --Shuggaroth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Glad to help. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Jena Rose Links

Hello Ronz, I've removed as many of the low quality links as I could on the Jena Rose page, as well as anything too personal, unprofessional, or unverified. Is it sufficient to take down the tags now? Thanks! 'loneagain (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it and letting me know. I'll take a look and respond on the article talk page. If I don't respond soon, don't hesitate to give me another reminder. --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Just making a quick reminder on this. Thanks!'loneagain (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Apology

Accepted with as much grace as it was offered. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlehto (talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Further Reading "The Greyhound & the Hare

Would you please leave this reference standing. It is the ultimate source. It has nothing to do with spam! It is even more of an accurate, authentic history of the breed and it's sport, than the preceding title that I recently added, "Greyhound Nation", thank you.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Your comments here and elsewhere on the the book are written like promotions, which is the continuing problem. Please discuss, follow WP:DR, and work to get consensus. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. A historical perspective may have a positive or negative leaning in terms of the information but sources are not where we monitor NPOV. Sources often take positions in tone. I can't see how a historical perspective can be spam.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC))

I've clarified my comment above regarding the promotion.

There are COI problems, which I've brought up on his talk page.

Over at the article talk page, I've asked if it is a reliable source.

This is a spam issue as I see it: WP:REFSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see COI and I don't see proof for that on his talk page. What am I missing? Could you clarify? Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC))

(Discussion removed - I thought I was clear, and I still don't think that there's any doubt about the coi --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC) )

I've added this diff to User_talk:Richard_Hawkins#Your_conflict_of_interest, to make it clear that he has admitted to having a coi. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That diff, of an edit from July 2006 establishes he has a coi. If you don't understand this or don't agree, then let's stick to discussing it, rather than you throwing accusations of me threatening anyone. Otherwise, it looks like you're harassing me in an attempt to deflect attention from the coi-violations he has made. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Blake Fielder-Civil birthday

Hi,

I didn't know that TheFamousPeople.com is forbidden on English Wikipedia, but I am afraid that Amy Winehouse bio still contains false information about at least the year of birth of her husband (as well as quite probably month and place). Please read: talk:Amy_Winehouse#Blake_Fielder-Civil_birthday. Polimerek (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion! --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Atomic swap

I've noticed that you've edited the above article and thought you might be interested in this. I've been going thru cryptocurrency articles and removing unreliable sources, as well as general copy editing, removing adverts, etc. I haven't been nominating anything for deletion, but others in some cases have nominated the articles I've cleaned up.

Atomic swaps is perhaps the worst crypto mess for unreliable sources. I ended up removing all the sources as unreliable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. If the cryptocurrency and blockchain articles that I've looked at are any indication, paid editing and other conflicts of interest are the norm, such as Reriksenus (talk · contribs). --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of "Famouspeople.com" as a souce

Hi Ronz, sorry I didn't know that. You may revert the section cited if you so please. Yobbin (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ronz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confusing very different things?

Jytdog's comments pertain to Wikipedia's stance on crypto, in terms of a lack of good sources for articles. You're commenting about businessinsider and digiday being 'promotional junk'. It seems you're confusing two very different things. This has nothing to do with crypto/blockchain at all. It's not even really promotional - it's just news of starting a new project, that has been covered in the media. Feel free to delete, but can you provide a coherent reason? Is your issue with the legitimacy of the sources or the news not being newsworthy enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btcgeek (talk • contribs) 17:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's very pertinent. The blockchain/crypto is a larger and blatant problem. Warmed-over press releases have little independence, and fall squarely into WP:NOTNEWS. Add that it's in a WP:BLP, which is covered by a different set of sanctions, but sanctions once again. Best to stay clear of them while learning your way around Wikipedia, and then tread carefully if you decide you still want to edit in areas covered by sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Disagree with your assessment of "warmed-over press releases" for the sources that are independent based on independence, but if it is contentious, I'll stay away. --Btcgeek (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Both publishers gladly print promotional material, and in this case that's exactly what they did. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Noted, cheers --Btcgeek (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

For my reference, which part of WP:NOTNEWS would you consider an update that a notable living person has started a new media company? I see 4 points listed, but unsure which of these are being violated by such an update. --Btcgeek (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

routine news reporting of announcements --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Got it, cheers! Btcgeek (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Reversions

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for letting me know that some of my edits have been reverted.

Just a note to say that the guy who started the Pro-Truth Pledge (which I support) did ask me if I could make some edits, including a page about him, so I did. I don’t feel too strongly about these edits, but I do wonder if the Wikipedia community may be a bit too strict about enforcing this sort of thing. Is it really harmful to the spirit of the project to include facts like “so-and-so took this pledge” and pages about people who are not particularly well known? Sure, it’s to the advantage of the organization’s promoters that this information be available, but if the fact that someone wants some factual information made available is enough to make it “promotional” then it seems to me a lot more content would have to be deleted. I would think that type of enforcement effort would be better spent on things that are clearly malicious or controversial.

Anyway, no big deal, but of course it does tend to discourage me as an occasional contributor to have content deleted. I’ve had edits reverted in the past for being not significant enough for inclusion, and I still wonder why having less content rather than more is seen as a necessary policy. Disk space is cheap, right? ;)

Thanks for listening.

Branchc (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not strict enough in enforcing this type of thing, but it's getting better. People want to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. It's by far the largest problem that Wikipedia has. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

About removed edits

Hi Ronz. Apparently you've removed some of my edits. I'm just starting to learn some of the basic policies of wikipedia and I didn't think that editions about living persons could have so many limitations. Editing an article is an easy process, learning wikipedia's policies or replying to other contributors or editors is a much more complicated process for me. I'm not even sure if this will arrive to you, but I'll try it. Sorry if I've broken some of wikipedia's policies. Nevertheless, I've noticed that not only some of my posts have been erased, but all the previous controversial issues of some of the articles. Probably someone else had made my mistakes. I'll spend some time reading them before editing something in the future. Thanks for your time Juanelo1931--Juanelo1931 (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Yes, these policies are difficult to navigate and learn. I've been trying to get some help with the articles, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Reviews_needed_of_some_articles_related_to_Rodrigo_Duterte, but there's no response so far. I'd rather not be involved: it's especially difficult to work on biographies where politics are involved, plus fluency in Filipino is required and expertise in Philippine culture and history are needed. Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines may be of help. I'll keep an eye on the articles. Feel free to contact me.--Ronz (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Answer

I read your message, but I can't agree with the "unreliable sources" argument in this case, when there are sites like Forbes or Billboard magazine supporting the info. I think you're being disruptive with your reverts, especially with the last one to the edit I did in the 'Activism' section, which was minimal, and again, supported by reliable sources. I'm not gonna get into arguments with other users, especially when there is not motive to argue about in the first place. Have a nice night, Ronz!. NiceBC (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Sorry you feel that way. Responding further on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for the feedback, I'll check that out. NiceBC (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Shamari Fears & Lollo12345678 etc

I think your Level 3 Warning to Lollo12345678/user talkpage was unnecessarily harsh. Maybe their references weren't the best in your opinion but they did have plenty of them. Also, your edit summaries seem somewhat pejorative to me - I've been keeping an eye on the Erika Jayne article and this editor does mainly edit there but their contributions are always sourced, they are not vandalizing, and their content seems quite reasonable (as opposed to much of the vandalism that seems to habitually get done on all the Real Housewives castmembers' articles). "Less than 1000 edits and seems to be ignoring notices" - I don't see any previous Level 1 or Level 2 or Level 3 Warnings on their talk page, just some fairly bland Disambiguation Notices and since when did an editor with a low edit count mean something bad? At some point we all had less than 1000 edits... and they could just be a superfan. Shearonink (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but we disagree. I'm afraid you're not looking closely at what the editor has been doing in light of BLP, NOT, POV, and RS. While this may be some other type of advocacy other than a UPE, the editing and behavior need to change. The past warnings have been ignored as far as I can tell. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

What are these "past warnings" that you are referring to? Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Everything that Lollo12345678 has removed from their talk page. I've tried a new approach. What do you think? --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I looked over Sarah Foret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and found the same type of problems. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for removing the Level 3 Warning - your new approach/notice does have a more conciliatory tone. (Regarding removing posts from one's own user talk - editors can remove content from their own talkpage just like they can archive or not whenever they want.) I personally don't see a pattern of truly-terrible editing, I see perhaps a superfan of various pop-performers who isn't as experienced as some of us. I remember how overwhelming Wikipedia was when I first stumbled onto its pages (and heh how overwhelming it can still be to me!) so - even though my editing and behavior around here can be full of assumptions - I just always try to first assume good faith before I assume anything else... Shearonink (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you take sanctionable problems so lightly, and you're assumptions about me seem to fail what you're asking of me. --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

If you think that this editor's actions are sanctionable then go for it. I'm sorry you misunderstand me and that I seem to have also misunderstood you. I can tell you're an editor who cares deeply about the project. Shearonink (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Section Blanking on articles

Hello, I've read a post in reddit that the Wikipedia pages of the Dutertes had been vandalized. I checked the revision history and I found your changes. If you don't have the time to edit or fix the content, please put a notice in the Talk page of the article which content were BLP violations first before deleting them. Or if you do decide to delete them immediately, please leave a message of why you find them to be BLP violations or tag them as possible BLP violations in the article. It's rude/inconsiderate to blank a section and claim the content as BLP violations, without providing sufficient explanation to the other users who have contributed. I'm saying this because after reviewing the removed content, I found that most of the content you have removed were actually sourced from published articles of reputable news companies, contributed by several users. You can use the locked article on Rodrigo Duterte as a reference on how BLP is handled by reputable wikipedia editors to understand which parts are acceptable or unacceptable. Thanks. Sctcooper (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. WP:BLP requires such removal. I've started discussions in two locations. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

What you've removed though are content paraphrased from published, verifiable sources which are already in circulation. They are not "contentious" because they had already happened and were established, even the personalities themselves have admitted these events happened in live television and interviews. They are facts, not fake news. They had been placed in the Issues/Controversies section because they divided public opinion. I've personally taken the time to examine some of those content out of sympathy to the redditor who complained (he/she may have thought that this was also done by the president's army of trolls and paid hacks). Well, from what I can see, what you have done is irresponsible editing and highly abusive of the BLP immediate removal rule, indiscriminately removing entire sections in Wikipedia articles you don't agree with. You don't seem to be actually making any good contributions to the Wikipedia community, you just delete content you don't like and "pull rank" when people try to discuss your actions with you. You have not even pointed out which pertinent BLP guidelines those contributions have violated. Sctcooper (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sctcooper - I'm going to step in and clarify any confusion for you and explain Wikipedia's policies so that you fully understand them. Ronz removed the content you added to Sara Duterte and Paolo Duterte because they add contentious and controversial information onto articles that are biographies of living people (or "BLP" articles for short) and don't all appear to cite reliable sources. On articles that are BLPs, all content added must cite reliable sources that are secondary and independent from the article subjects - especially if such content is contentious, negative, or controversial in nature to the person. Any content that does not meet this requirement (which is outlined here) must be removed immediately and on-sight upon being discovered, no exceptions. Even content where it's questionable if it meets Wikipedia's requirements regarding BLP citations and references should be removed (per this policy) pending a discussion, and editors are allowed to err on the side of caution and remove content where the BLP requirements may not be met. Ronz did the right thing by removing this content, and your edits restoring them without a discussion and input from the community on the articles' talk pages is disruptive and can lead to being blocked. Content you add to Wikipedia articles (especially those that are biographies of a living people) aren't verified and the sources provided aren't reliable just because you say that they are; arguing your point, going into long details about how you examined everything, and behaving uncivilly toward Ronz and bullying this user with personal attacks doesn't change that - so please tone it down and stop with the lashing-out toward Ronz... Content is considered to have a high degree of verifiability and are considered acceptable because it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you have questions or need help, please feel free to ask one of us or refer to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, reliable sources guideline, verifiability policy, or this how-to guide for citing references in-line with content... but please don't behave like this toward Ronz - he's following proper policy. If further disruption continues on these articles without discussion, you can be blocked from editing in order to put a stop to it. I hope my response was clear and set the appropriate expectations. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah Although I appreciate your concern, I'm not pleased with the fact that you support his behavior that's detrimental to the community as a whole. This is besides the fact that I had made no contribution to the articles other than providing a label which classifies a section to have non neutral point-of-view, which follows the same standard of BLP as that of Rodrigo Duterte. Again, you misconstrue the things involved here because you weren't part of the discussion. The issue I have with Ronz is his blatant disregard for the contribution of other users when he removed the entire section, not just the content he considered malicious. This irks me because he removes them along with existing content, but he doesn't even clean up the mess he made afterwards. God knows if other contributors would take the time to restore and rewrite the article. Some people in reddit even accused Ronz's changes as part of the Duterte's administration's campaign to silence dissent and subvert facts by hiding the truth. Also, I don't recall that Wikipedia ever has this policy of deleting an entire section just because a part of it isn't up to standards. Ronz is free to remove all content he finds to be violating BLP, but he should be able to answer specifically on what grounds(sources,NPOV,quality) when he was called out on it. So far, what he did is lazy and only referred me to the BLP pages as if it proves him correct, but instead it only leaves me wondering which part. If you actually looked at the diff history of the Sara Duterte article, some of the content which he deleted, were actually the very content that had been revised through the flagging of Diannaa(who's an actual administrator) for copyright violation because they were copy-pasted from published news sources. He removed more than half of the content of the article, which were prior to the BLP blunder made by the most recent contributor. So I hope you understand why I called what Ronz did as irresponsible editing and why I have a rather negative opinion of him. I don't mind if you raise this issue to the administrators for arbitration because it's better to discuss this with people who truly care about the Wikipedia community and don't have their own personal agendas. Sctcooper (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sctcooper - I appreciate your response and your honest input, but I don't consider the removal of questionable content or content that may potentially be in violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy (one of Wikipedia's most serious and important policies) as irresponsible; in fact I see it as quite the opposite. Removing content that may be potentially libelous and about a living person is a responsible thing to do - which is why it's explicitly . If you have questions or would like an in-depth explanation regarding specific content that was removed, you're of course within your right to ask Ronz about it and it would be generally expected and courteous for him to respond and explain. These specific issues belong on the articles' individual talk pages as part of the discussion that is being asked to hold. I recommend that you start these discussions with your questions (be civil and work with Ronz in a positive and receptive manner; no personal attacks or name-calling), ping Ronz in the discussion so he's notified of them, and let him know here that you started them and give him the locations of each one so that he can respond. assume good faith; give the guy a chance and be helpful and he'll do the same for you. You'll be surprised as to how quickly things are resolved if both of you do this, and life can move on from there. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sctcooper - I see that you've since started a discussion on a talk page here; thank you for doing this. Please be patient while others review and add input to the discussion, and let someone know if you have any questions. A place where you can ask for general assistance is Wikipedia's help desk. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Ronz

I’m afraid I have a slight problem. Austin012599 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

@Ronz: Hello, all links can be list in the external links if they are useful to the user. Please do not remove such links unless they clearly break the Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks! HeartGlow30797 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Claims of links being "useful" are irrelevant.

The general consensus in such cases is that links are removed until editors have consensus that they don't break guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Archiving

When I see a talk page like yours, I usually add a note with H:ARC included. But I see you already have archiving set up. As your page now has 193 sections, and is almost 240kB in size, can I suggest you bring your archiving up to date? Thanks - wolf 17:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: It's all done manually, and I don't want auto-archiving based upon size. (I actually did some archiving just a week ago and delayed doing more because of I wanted to keep a few comments on tools and projects to look at later.) Are there other options for archiving tools, such as archiving a date range, or a number of sections? --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I manually "archive" myself, but yes, there are bots you can use to do it automatically. If you look at H:ARC -> Options -> Automated archival, they currently have some bots listed there you can use. - wolf 19:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hows the archiving coming? - wolf 03:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the bots a bit. They require more time than I want to put in short-term, so I'll be doing another manual one before I try a bot. --Ronz (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Re:ELBURDEN

I put the hidden note in the section to keep people from wheel warring while this is under discussion. Once this settles the comment will be removed. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 01:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Just thought you'd like to know since an anon has reported you to ANI. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 01:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting Ronz know about the ANI thread Sakura Cartelet. Here is a more direct link Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting a disruptive editor. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 01:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings and Salutations

To Ronz:

Hello!

Congratulations!

You have been included in my first, and possibly only, Very Early Christmas List!

As an earnest fellow believer in Santa Claus, and possibly in Our Redeemer Liveth as well, you may wonder how you got on this list.

I have no idea!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Unless I tracked down the connection in our user talk archives, in which case you know who you are!

Or not.

All the best for you and yours this Christmas 2018 and New Year 2019!

– Athaenara jingles all the way 02:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

World Culture Festival

I see that you had reverted one of my old edits here[18]. I used the word "critical" in my edit summary because I added the main reason why this event was held and why is this page of notoriety and importance: "Over 37,000 artistes from around the world performed at this festival on a 7 acre stage. I understand that you misunderstood the usage of "critical" which meant important. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC) NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your point at all. --Ronz (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I am pointing out that I used "critical" in my revision comment in the sense that the edit was the most important statement about the event. Possibly the reason why the article should exist in the first place. You reverted my edit assuming a different meaning of the word "critical". NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Then my edit summary seems a correct response. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

John Candy Page

Hello. I was curious as to why you thought ethnicelebs was an unreliable source when I used it on the John Candy page. Thanks. 2601:143:4200:700:30AC:60E3:9B2E:A0A1 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

See the listing in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I did, and neither of the websites I used were on the list of websites that shouldn't be used. 2601:143:4200:700:2429:1027:D253:9110 (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com. --Ronz (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Request a Review

Hey Ronz, I'd normally take this to Jytdog, so reaching out to you to review this page to edit/delete. On the crypto front, it lacks reliable sources. Btcgeek (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again, but the page has been nominated for deletion, and since you've already edited and reviewed it, appreciate your thoughts there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btcgeek (talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem. At this point, I'm concerned by the rather blatant COI editing that's been going on in all the related articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If there's anything I can help with or review, please let me know. I don't have a COI in any of the projects, and can either remove/delete the advertising part or try to find quality sources to back up the (usually tall) claims. --Btcgeek (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi there - i am trying to understand your comment about my conflict of interest ,

This is simply not true and i don’t understand the sourcing of your information whereby you discredited my change of this characters age? All my sources quoted were more reputable than what was there ,

Yes i am a fan , but not paid Brshar (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You used an unreliable source, and haven't answered my question about the images. Please answer the question. --Ronz (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Response regarding images:

Hi @ronz , thank you for pointing that out , you are right , I’m Sorry that i did incorrectly claim ownership of those photos , it was when i first started here on Wikipedia and I didn’t know what i was doing , the correct sources are:

Danielle Campbelle image: https://www.instagram.com/p/Ba5TT5oF2Qf/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1b39k8eg5m15k

Niki Taylor image: http://niki-taylor-fan.tumblr.com

Regarding Nidhi Sunil page, i don’t know what more I can do to fact check the information, as well as famous birthdays Having it listed on that day and about 3 more websites i found and had credited, her official website has the same date: https://nidhisunil.carbonmade.com/about

I am still still trying to learn how to prevent my contributions being seen as disgenuine in future , Does the person who changed her age without any sources not get questioned too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brshar (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Ronz, I've found an alternate source on AllMusic, does this count as a more reliable source? Thanks Boofhead185 (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. It's slightly better, enough to be used to verify his birth date as long as it's not disputed, but shouldn't be used for anything that might be questioned. It should not be used to identify his family members by name. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check my complaint

I understand you removed some content to a page I created, the reason you noted was not why it is like that, I don't have any external relationship with any article or person I have created, so I'm a bit confused as to come across it now since 2 years of my editing experience, I improve on pages I created consistently and wish you help me revert your edit so I can improve on it. THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amosflash (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Re your revert edit to Lola Glaudini

FYI see User:83.240.186.98. The sock master is tenacious and will try time and again with different socks to add text over a long period. However the style and content of user's edits are easy to spot once one is aware that these sockpuppets exist. -- PBS (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Two months ago I went directly to AIV, where my request was ignored. I should have documented it on the ip's talk page as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Ronz. Have a good one. --Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Re:Vital article designations

Hi Ronz, Level 4 is supposed to contain around 10,000 articles while at the moment Level 5 has a target number of 50,000 articles. This means that the lower than level number, the most vital or significant the article is. For example, medicine is a Level 2 VA (one of only 100 article to be Level 2) while science is only one of ten Level 1 articles. The first four levels all have an established discussion and voting process. For Level 5, because it is still growing, there was consensus to make initially it a free-for-all where anyone can boldly add articles to the list without any discussion in order to speed up the process. Once a section in L5 is close to full, discussion begins and a formal process or criteria for adding/removing articles is put into place.

The consensus to remove the alternative medicine articles was in the list of 10,000 (L4) whereas I added them in L5 (the list of 50,000). I have often used the older 10K list (which was around 12,000 at its biggest) as a starting point in adding articles to the much larger 50K. You are welcome to discuss particular additions to a section even it isn't full on L5 too if you don't think they belong. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I figured it out. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Dan Peña (BLP Issues)

Ronz, came across the Dan Peña entry that seems to have issues with proper sourcing, advertising material, and COI. I also noticed that Jytdog cleaned up the article, but a lot of information has since been added without good references. The article also seems to have a history of COI per the talk page. Many references are to shady websites promising to make you millions, blog posts, and first-party website content. Wanted to bring to your attention. Btcgeek (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Much of the info was readded after a rewrite after similar problems had been found by SPAs. What a mess. --Ronz (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Any policy on specific investments from angel investors, adding to BLP?

I searched for this, but couldn't find a specific WP policy on this, so reaching out to you. I am interested to know how to handle specific investments made by famous living people who are part/full time angel investors. It seems like the number of companies are usually too many, and I feel like if the article mentions just one or two, that seems biased. I ask specifically because I saw one specific investment being added to the profiles of Gary Vaynerchuk and Scooter Braun. It is sourced correctly, and the information seems accurate. However, I do not know if this belongs in the articles as a separate section, since both of them seem to have made many such investments over the years, and I don't see why this specific company should be privileged. Can you provide your insight? ----Btcgeek (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Good questions! Thanks for bringing it up.

Gary Vaynerchuk regularly has problems with promotional material. I'm sure Scooter Braun is similar, though I've not looked closely.

Regarding the recent additions that I removed from the two articles, the reference used is unreliable and promotional. The editor that added it likely has a COI, though it's iffy.

So to your specific question: WP:POV and WP:NOT are the policies. Without an independent, reliable source, such material doesn't belong because of the huge POV/SOAP problems that you're seeing. Even with a much better source, there are problems if the reference does not give some overview of the entire portfolio (so no one cherry-picking specific investments to highlight over others), and gives some reason why it is a noteworthy part of the person's biography. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back with the specifics! I noticed the low-quality reference, and then did some research into the veracity of the claim, which turned out to be true. So the question for me was whether to find a better quality source or remove this information completely. I guess you answered it!

I was bothered by the cherry-picking of that one investment, which didn't seem important enough or noteworthy to me, among the many others that exist but not mentioned (rightly in my opinion). In general though, does a list of investments from a person belong in their biography at all (I think not)? I noticed that Scooter Braun article has a quick list of companies he's invested in that are big enough for a mention (last line of his personal life section), and the reference is a CNBC article. Does this seem like a good way to mention only the most important investments via a credible reference? --Btcgeek (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I've never looked at Scooter Braun... --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Skimming: It's not clear mention of 100 Thieves Esports belongs. The CNBC ref is a puff-piece interview that does not have the independence needed to determine if it is noteworthy or encyclopedic. Further, the list in the article doesn't appear to be verified in the reference. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the 100 Thieves Esports! Seems just one out of scores/hundreds potentially, and not important enough for biography. Also, potential COI going through the history of when and how it was added. I removed it from the article. --Btcgeek (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You're also absolutely right that the CNBC article doesn't verify the content regarding list of investments (e.g. the article doesn't mention Lyft at all). What's a better resolution here - remove the investment parts completely, or find better sources for each claim?

It's a BLP, so removing unsourced and poorly source material is the best start. If the article is as similar to Vaynerchuk's as I think it may be, there's probably a lot of work to be done. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input. I've removed the investment parts referenced with the CNBC article in the personal life section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btcgeek (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Question

Years ago I made some edits to a page and you were kind enough to say they were appropriate on my Talk page. I made a few edits to the barbecue page yesterday that were correct and appropriate but they were reversed today. How do I engage the person who reversed them in discussion? Is there a single person who is in charge of that page? He/she knows me by my wikipedia name Quedude, but I am a pretty famous BBQ chef. My last book was a NY Times Best Seller, it was called one of the 100 best cookbooks ever written by Southern Living magazine, and it is used as a textbook in culinary schools. In otherwords, I have some expertise, and my edits should not be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quedude (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Quedude. Forgive me that I'm a bit busy and don't have time to look closely... What I'm seeing is this edit. If there's something else, let me know.

It looks like you didn't directly verify the changes by indicating a reference, and your edit summary makes it difficult if you were working from your own expertise or perhaps your own book. Changes that are not clearly verified by a reference, or if the reference appears unreliable, are likely to be removed.

I'm not clear if those were the reasons for the revert, but maybe @Roxy the dog: could clarify.

You may want to work from edit requests, especially if you don't have the time to work through a tutorial or the like to get better acquainted with editing Wikipedia. Some basic skills that would help you in this situation are being able to identify a specific change to an article (like I did in the link above), review changes in an article history, and identifying which editors made which changes. --Ronz (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm a more famous BBQ chef than this guy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't find that answer very helpful. I'm going to assume from that reply that the level of expertise and the conflict of interest are of concern. A good approach forward would be using edit requests with reliable sources that verifies the changes. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Tag removal request for the page - Lori Greiner

I request you to please remove the ADVERT maintenance tag at the top of Lori Greiner page as I have edited the copy and have removed the promotional content that made the copy read like an advertisement. The page now has only factual content following WP:CCPOL guidelines. Thank you.

103.57.71.178 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it. Let me take a look. I'll respond on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

ReverbNation Info Removal

Hello Ronz,

You have recently reverted every single change I have made to the ReverbNation page twice, citing that I was promoting the business, when in reality, I was updating some very out-of-date information and approaching the information from as neutral as possible. Can you explain what exactly you had a problem with in my last revisions (specific sources, what exactly you found to be promotional, etc.).

Thanks

I made small edit, with a clear edit summary, which you reverted without comment. Now you want me to provide further detail about why I reverted your edits? Can you see how that might not be a good approach to resolving this?

My suggestion: Instead of making on massive change, and undoing my other changes without comment, I suggest you work in very small pieces so it's easy to see what new references you are adding, how you are using them, etc. Please include an explanatory edit summary with each. Work on what you feel may be least controversial first, so we can get them out of the way. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Patent information question on BLPs

Hi Ronz, I have another question for you. What's the best way to objectively include information on patents in a BLP, noting that design and utility patents are very different (in the US at least), and that the same patent can be filed in multiple countries. I ask specifically because the page on Lori Greiner says she has 120 US and foreign patents. This in my opinion is misleading for two reasons - one, if you file the same patent in the US and abroad, it's 'double counting' the same thing, and two, there is generally a huge distinction between design and utility patents. I verified from the USPTO office that most of these are design patents, but none of the noteworthy sources mention this (they seem to repeat the claims made on her website that it's 120 patents without much independent fact-checking) and I am hesitant to use first-party data source here. Have you come across this issue in the past? This may not be a big deal at all, and perhaps the 120 claim is perfectly fine, but I just wanted to make sure. --Btcgeek (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally, I don't think patents deserve mention without reliable, independent sources that clearly demonstrate encyclopedic value.

Some mention of patents seems due for Lori Greiner, assuming we can wade through all the COI-editing and strip away all the promotion.

I think you're correct about the difficulties with properly sourcing the number of patents. (Could she have just a small number of patents, filed in many countries?) Even if we qualified the information by identifying the reference rather than using Wikipedia's voice, I'd worry about the information being misleading and promotional. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll look for a good reference and how to display this properly. The way it is now seems overly promotional to me in a way an encyclopedia article should not be. --Btcgeek (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Al Ries ‎

• Al Ries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Al Ries (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Reminder of an ongoing discussion to clean up article --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

help with correct revisions and preventing further changes

hi Ronz

firstly thank you for teaching me the correct image sourcing previously , I have been trying to figure out more about wikipedia before contributing again , however I wanted to check if you could look into this it seems that this person is repeatedly making negative changes to Nidhi Sunil's page (making her older, taking away accomplishments etc) it doesn't seem to make sense unless it would be someone who might know her and dislike her personally?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.30.239.50

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidhi_Sunil&action=history

her date of birth is not up for question is it?

I just don't want to make any more changes yet as I don't quite know the system well enough and would appreciate your help

Thanks for bringing it up. That sounds troubling. I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Requesting help with people deleting images I have uploaded without explaining why, then threatening to block me

Hey Ronz. You were so kind to me when you left an extended welcome on my talk page. I'm having a spot of bother at the moment and I'm wondering if you could give me any advice. A year ago I uploaded an image I made myself so I could use it on my talk page. A couple of days ago I uploaded a fair use image (that got deleted, I'm not worried about that), but this other image from a year ago was deleted too. The people who deleted did no explaining. I initially assumed they thought I plagiarized it, So I uploaded the original variant of this image without lettering I used from a fair-use website to be on the safe side, but they deleted that again, believing it to be the one they initially deleted, leaving again no explanation. I'm really confused, as I've left a message and I've had no response. They've given me "final warnings" but I don't see anything I've done wrong. Could you give me a piece of advice? --Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you're going through this. I'll take a look and leave a response on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing out important content on the Anthony J. Hilder page

Please go to the below to discuss this. You're editing out important info that should not be edited out..

• Talk here: See Editing out important content

Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RS noticeboard

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_258#Sludge

Hi Ronz. At your suggestion, I tried posting about Sludge on the RS noticeboard here: [19]. I've never done that before; I haven't gotten much reply--did I do it right? Thanks! Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add to it if necessary. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how people normally utilize feedback from the RS noticeboard, but so far it looks like the two people besides us who weighed in on the reliability of Sludge are pretty negative on it as a source for anything, and I tend to agree, but you've stated a contrary opinion. What role does the RS board normally play in determining the reliability of a source? Also, it seems to me--correct me if I'm wrong--that you're sort of reticent to work with me anymore on proposed improvements to the PragerU page. I'm fine with moving slow. But if you decide you don't want to be involved anymore, can you please let me know? I can't tell at this point whether you're going to reply to the last post I made on the talk page. Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone that responded would agree with your assessment. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you agree with the assessments of the two who commented? Or, if not, with what do you disagree? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anything came up that I hadn't already pointed out: We should use it with care, avoid using opinions from it, and properly identify it's use rather than use Wikipedia's voice... --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's a quote that came up. Do you agree with it? At the very least any information sourced from Sludge should be attributed to Sludge in text, and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Even then, given the other issues, I'm not so sure it's a great source for facts. I would be inclined to agree with you that it should probably be treated more like a blog. The article currently contains facts from Sludge without an in-text attribution. I'm not trying to argue, by the way; I just want to understand what you think about the result of the RS discussion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that statement doesn't summarize the feedback. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it is not a summary. It is just the opinion of one of the two people who gave feedback. Do you agree with that bit of feedback, which is not meant as a summary of what the other person said? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with it in the ways that it differs from what I've said. Again, this is battleground mentality. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you'd prefer I not talk to you on this page. Let me know if that's not true, and until then, I'll stay off. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Other than the initial RSN heads up, the discussion belongs on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Ronz, I am new user on wikipedia. I will try to be more enthousistic on the innovation subject and try to be more factual. I have studies this well documented subject and thank you for your recommandations about conflict of interest. Please do not hesitate to notificate if a text is better another way. Thank you for your collaboration. Best --Fbeguin99 (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes you are wright I did not asked at the Conference to use the picture. I will take it off and first ask to use it. About my working situation I filled in my profile on my user page.Thank you for your good advises on wikipedia. It is nice to have someone like you to guide me through this new way of communicating and participating to science and knowledge.Best Fbeguin99 (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have understood that you wanted to know if I have conflicts of interest. I have red the page that you indicated me and can assure you that I have no conflicts of interest. I wanted to participate to wikipedia and for my first steps I took the profile of someone brillant that has recieved an international award at an international conference where I assisted also. I have filled in also my user profile to be more transparent. Yesterday I contacted Dr Di Franco & Dr Walsh and they gave me the authorization to publish the picture. I hope you will be secured. Thank you for you interest and your patience. I am just learning this new tool. --Fbeguin99 (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

TheRichest.com as a source

I received your message, but I honestly do not remember using TheRichest.com as source material for a previous article. If I did, I probably forgot which article(s) I would have used it in. I usually forget most of my article editing after I have done it. If you could refresh my memory on the articles that used TheRichest.com, that would be helpful. Thank you. - Jake "JJR" Rivera

External Links

Hi there, with External Links, I added her Tumblr as an external link because I found that there was a template for it, when using it, it didn't work so I added it manually. Was this wrong? I thought that pages were supposed to have all of their social media accounts..? And I'd like to also add that I only just read your talk on my page, thank you for the advice and I will try my best to follow and understand the rules. Thank you!

Sawhitney36 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sawhitney36. Thanks for checking with me.

One social media external link is allowed when the individual doesn't have an official website, per WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Louis Cole

Hi, I'm confused with my undone edit to Louis Cole's page. I changed the 'FunforLouis' to a capital F on For because it's the way it's spelt in his channel name, sorry if this was wrong. But I'm also confused because of the Food For Louis information, it's true and the source is a video uploaded by him on the channel that states that he is now eating Vegan/Plant Based food. I agree with taking off the other information, but these two things have credible sources and are true, so I'm a little confused as to why you undid the edits. Was it in the wrong format?

Sawhitney36 (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've no idea what the conventions are for its capitalization, but at least it should be consistent across the article.

My concerns were about the food. Without an independent source, it is promotion. --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me! So I have read the Examples section on the Independent Source page you linked which gave me the most understanding. So, I think what you mean is that I have to reference at least one article that doesn't have any personal bias or gain? Would this be a reference I can make (alongside the video or on it's own)? Sawhitney36 (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Glad to help.

Teneightymagazine.com is an in-world source, focused on the UK YouTube community. It's poor in general, and highly promotional.

The specific article is an interview with some commentary, so it may not qualify as an independent source at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay thank you very much! Sawhitney36 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Find A Grave

As I said, I will never contribute to Wikipedia again. I'm sick of busybody killjoys and self-appointed Politically correct police like you. I guarantee that if I had been anything but a white male, you wouldn't have said anything. RACIST!!!!

TO the Wikipedia Powers that be

I'm sick of your politically-correct censorship of what I have posted and the categories (accurate but not not acceptable to liberals) and self-appointed busybodies like RONZ. Close my account, I won't be using it anymore.