Jump to content

User talk:Hipal/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Hipal

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 13:43, 20 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Hello Ronz, for the moment I give-up. Too time-consuming. This situation made me focus on generalizing the issue and I realize that there are in Wikipedia.org tens (hundreds, thousands?) of instances of articles not only about commercial companies and undertakings but also providing indications apt to inducing purchases. It is not even the case, I think, that I provide examples but I would if requested. Would you kindly comment on this? SincerelyGS (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Giovanni Sciarrino

Sorry I been delayed in following up on this.
Yes, there's lots of cases of Wikipedia being used for promotional purposes. Many more are removed every day.
I don't understand what value you think the link provides. I'm guessing the site doesn't work well with my browser set-up. All I see is a list of CDs, with information on each CD. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Help.

Dear Ronz, I am helping to create a page on wiki for "Master DeRose". I am a fan of his work and I also teach one kind of Yoga, called DeRose Method, which he is the codifier. Unfortunately Wikipedia wants to delete this page, saying that has a few issues not solved. I really don't know what to do, even because all content that I put is based in books written in Portuguese and Spanish by him and his disciples. Any help from you will be really well-come. Regards, Pacifici —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifici2010 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this.
"all content that I put is based in books written in Portuguese and Spanish by him and his disciples" That's the reason it will be deleted. The solution is to either meet our general notability criteria with multiple, independent, reliable sources that cover DeRose in a non-trivial way, or by meeting other WP:BIO criteria.
Another editor, fluent in Portuguese, has offered to help with this. Hopefully, we'll find appropriate sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

DeRose and Swasthya Yoga

I left a note on the discussion page where you left your request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Portuguese-fluent_editors_needed_for_DeRose_articles --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work ?

Hello Ronz

I saw your note regarding this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveandstay

This page was approved by C.Fred and by extension Alexius08 (see the page history) I added a lot of references and neutral comments while I was editing this article.

Your comment is "need a lot of work" could you detail more?

Thank you in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efauvel (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Responded on article talk and did some cleanup as an example. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ronz, I'm ready to give-up, as I said, because the more I look into how articles stand in Wikipedia the more I feel that the obstacles that are put to the External Link I propose are disproportionate and the case appears to me to be one of double standards. On the one hand you have (to stay close to our subject) hundreds of recording and label companies that promote their products (there are even long-standing warnings like "This article is written as an advertisement"). On the other hand you have the site that I propose as External Link which offers two basic things: long music excerpts (and very good ones) that document what Javanese gamelan sounds like, and reprints of the booklet commentaries which are in most cases very informative essays written by authorities in the field (including some names that are reported in Further Reading in the article). So, to answer your question, these are the added values of the link. And I like to mention that when it was first added it was placed in a 'Listening' section now vanished. And now, yes just now, the discussion page of the Gamelan article has a 'warning' (or how you call it) that says: "It is requested that audio files be included in this article to improve its quality". I don't understand when you say that you guess the site doesn't work well with your browser set-up, and all you see is a list of CDs with information on each CD. I can't imagine that you see something different than anybody else. Now, the list of CDs is the way to organize the content, and such lists appear in the Wiki articles of the many self-advertising record companies. The difference is that while the others just show the list, the link I propose offers detailed musical and historical information as well examples of the music itself. To put in focus the substance of what we are talking about, the collection of recordings illustrated by the site in question represents, I estimate, something like 80% of the releases of Javanese gamelan music in the last decade. Best regards.Giovanni SciarrinoGS (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:DR describes how to handle disputes. WP:THIRD, or WP:ELN would be good choices. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Food intolerance pages

Hi Ronz,

You have removed external links that fit the definition of what should be linked. I am not sure if it is because they sell relevant books, but these are the websites of the experts on the subject.

Sue Shepherd is an Advanced Accredited Practising Dietitian and Accredited Nutritionist who has participated in research into Food Intolerance. She is the Senior Lecturer for Monash University Department of Medicine and is a senior researcher within the Department of Gastroenterology at Box Hill Hospital in Melbourne. She is a clinical investigator in eight ethics-approved research studies. She is an invited speaker at national and international medical conferences. She has won many professional awards, including Dietitian Association of Australia’s Award for Achievement for Excellence in Contribution to the Profession. Sue has developed a dietary management approach which has revolutionised the management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (low FODMAP diet) – her pioneering research has contributed world-first information, and for which she was awarded the Gastroenterological Society of Australia’s Young Investigator of the Year Award in 2006. http://shepherdworks.com.au/services/gpspecialist-section contains references to her work.

Sue Dengate is a lay expert, who has a Food Scientist husband and kids with food intolerances. Their Food Intolerance Network successfully campaigned to get the 160b colour removed from McDonalds soft serve in Australia, as part of other ongoing campaigns.

The RPAH has an allergy unit which performed similar research to the Feingold Institute in the 1970's. Their 'Feingold' diet is more up to date in which foods to avoid.

Food Intolerance may not be considered a serious medical issue by some, but dieticians, allergists, and food intolerance networks are the main resources where information and interest by mainstream practitioners are limited. They sell books because people need them to have full health. Their websites have more free information than the Feingold Institute. Australian research is ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to food intolerance.

I will add the links back. Thank you,

Eloerc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloerc (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message.
I'm having difficulty finding what you're referring to. If it is this, then I disagree, though I can see some value in the allergyuk.org link. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
If it's this, then I stand by my comment that the links are off topic. Additionally, the first two are overly promotional. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Sorry I am new to this. Yes it is those two links you mentioned. My point is that they promote themselves to help people with their health issues. They are not selling snake oil. They provide enough information to trial the diets without the recipe books. They have pdf files which are free. Feingold doesn't, and you have kept the Feingold Institute links. allergyuk.org is a charity, but it does get a commission on 'Allergy UK' approved products, which you can buy at their site. The Food Intolerance Network is similar in that their campaigns are funded by sale of the books. I didn't mention Sue Dengate also completed a groundbreaking study about the behavioural effects of a common bread preservative was published in a medical journal in 2002. She is a psychology graduate and was nominated as Australian of the Year in 2005 and 2006 and was NSW finalist in 2010. This is because of the sheer multitude of families she has helped here. Can you please leave them in? How is it resolved if we can't agree? Thanks,

Eloerc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloerc (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:THIRD or WP:ELN are both ways to get others' opinions. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I found your message on my user talk page. Thanks for the information. I don't have a conflict of interest, in fact no diet has fixed up my symptoms *yet* (I have hope). I borrowed the books from the library except for one. I'm not sure I can prove this to you! Let me know if there is some sort of system with that. Thanks,

Eleorc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloerc (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking into this a bit. Thanks for keeping the discussion going. I don't have time to go into all the details.
WP:THIRD could be helpful getting another opinion quickly.
Links to articles directly related to the topic of the Wikipedia page might be appropriate replacements.
You should give a look at WP:MEDRS regarding your other edits. Presenting resent research findings can be complicated, as it must be given in the context of current medical consensus.
I may have time for some quick comments, but nothing beyond that for some time. WP:THIRD and WP:ELN should be able to get others' attention quickly who have more time that I. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Okay, thanks, I think I'm catching on. Your reasoning, particularly on scientific consensus, is why I did not find Wikipedia helpful when looking into food intolerance issues, and wanted to fix it up. It is usually my go-to for information/ research for a variety of interests. I will see what I can find that fits the guidelines better. (The problem is they're not allergies, some are idiopathic, and there are few practitioners that can test for those that aren't.) Thank you, Eloerc Eloerc (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Professors

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I'm not planning on "ignoring policy" if I arbitrate the situation over at The Professors. WP:BLP is very clear, and I'm going to cite specific parts of it when I make my decision. I encourage you to trust this process so we can put this issue to bed. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I appreciate what you're doing, and I didn't mean anything I wrote to reflect badly on you, or reflect on you in any manner at all. Should I reword my comment to be clearer?
No offense, but hadn't this type of binding arbitration been discussed as an alternative to mediation some years ago? Wasn't it rejected by the community as a poor substitute for regular consensus building? --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
No offense taken. The community did reject a proposal to formalize this type of arbitration, which was smart, because formalizing it would mean that a lot of folks wouldn't even attempt to build consensus; they'd just line up for arbitration whenever there was a dispute, which would cause a system-wide breakdown in Wikipedia's primary decision making model: consensus. However, in this particular case, I think policy is exceedingly clear, and while I could simply pitch in my two cents (and the dispute would likely go on), I'm angling to structure this so that the dispute ends and policy is rightly served. There is a perception among some parties to the dispute that I have some authority because I'm a WP:MEDCAB mediator, and they are willing to submit to a "ruling" as a result. If I can use their perception to end a dispute that may be in contravention of policy, the larger goals of Wikipedia are thereby served. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 22:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my changes to the Reiki page.

I explained in the edit section the simple reasons for the correction to that page. There are many mistakes there regarding the meaning of the word Reiki, and the Kanji that make it up. I am a Reiki practitioner and I am from Japan. Please replace my work, or do I have to do it again? The false information on that page should not remain there.

Thank you.


高橋太郎　（しんじんだつらく）

If you remove sourced information, you'll find your edits reverted rather quickly. Instead, as I pointed out on your talk page already, discuss your concerns on the article talk page, and provide sources that verify the changes you'd like to see. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI Thread on IP User

Just wanted to let you know that the IP thread you requested I start is located here if you wish to comment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the IP user was blocked for 2 weeks back Cirt for personal attacks and vandalism. Thanks for your assistance in getting my thread to the right spot. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Glad I could help! --Ronz (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping with User:Joeprofes.

Ward20 (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Further editing of NORAD Tracks Santa

You were absolutely right about that section reading like an advertisement. I have done some further editing to it. Of course, there is still the problem that all of the references are to primary sources, mostly promotional news releases. Perhaps the section shouldn't be retained at all. That would pretty much reduce the article to a stub but maybe that's for the best. Regards,Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I'm assuming we can find at least a few independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

web usability

Hi Ronz -- here i am working on a sunday and needing some quick tips for usability to kick my creativity into high gear. sadly, the wikipedia entry was anemic on this topic, and the most useful stuff i've seen is completely omitted.

since i don't have much time to edit content, the least i could do is add a link to Steve Krug's book, so that hopefully more users will see this little article stub and actually fill it out by enumerating some of Krug's principles.

since i lent out my copy of his book, and these two articles are tiny and unhelpful, i'm forced to surf around elsewhere, or make a run to Barnes and Noble and pick up a new copy (argh... $40).

it appears that you are big on civility, and i haven't made any big wikipedia contributions for a year now, but the usability article was so hopeless and anorexic that i had to add something.

i'm not sure the proper protocol for me to re-instate the link to Krug, and i don't want to be a jerk to you, but i do think it's a disservice to the article and to those who need to use it that it's not linked (by an internal link!!) to a related book (that definitely needs expansion -- and if i had the book and the time, i'd elaborate the principles myself).

many thanks for your consideration. -

Globalfix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalfix (talk • contribs) 19:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll tag both articles, hoping it will attract some attention toward improving them. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. Looking over them, I'm not sure either justifies its own article, but I have no problem leaving them as they are. Web usability is simply usability for the web. I don't think Krug's book meets WP:BK. My concerns have been keeping both from becoming soapboxes for people trying to sell products and services. --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to my responses in Talk:Bill Moyers

Please respond to my responses to you in the two separate proposed text sections in Bill Moyers Talk. Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I try not to waste my time repeating myself. Please see the discussions from Jan 2010, which appear to cover the current situation. The subsequent discussions apply as well, especially Talk:Bill_Moyers#WEIGHT_and_COATRACK_violation --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I looked at your earlier comments in Talk:Bill Moyers and I saw that you said several times that I was violating WP:BLP, but unless I missed something, you didn't say exactly what in BLP I was violating. I took the proposed text of both items to the WP:BLPN twice and both times no one found the material objectionable enough to comment on it.
I believe that in an article as large as Bill Moyers, with plenty of positive material, pointing out a small amount of unflattering material does not violate undue weight and is the norm for other BLPs. The MLK material is presented neutrally; the Schumann material has a point of view, but that point of view is directly supported by the source (that POV could be removed if it causes NPOV to be violated).
Do you have any suggestions for rewording to fix specific BLP problems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe the material belongs. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dell Schanze

Under Dell Schanze WPSDA, the WPSDA.org website is owned and operated by Dell Schanze Any domain lookup provides this. Please stop removing WPSDA information on the Dell Schanze site as it is accurate, and IS NOT self-published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You've not addressed my BLP concerns, nor any other reasoning for why I've removed it. I suggest you discuss it on the talk page. I'll continue to remove it per BLP in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
And so will I. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Article contributions

Hello there, many thanks for your comments on the Cambridge University Press page; they were most useful. The references on the Publishing structure section have been amended, and that section will be pasted as a new proposal on the discussion page for comments. The other section that you mentioned in your comments will not be posted at all at this stage; I will re-write that section completely, and put better third party references in and I will then post that as another proposal on the discussion page at a later date for comments. We will move the Canto section to the discussion page as well, as that section is unreferenced. I do hope that helps to answer your query, but please do let me know on my TalkPage if there's anything else. Thanks again Cmdcam01 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dell Schanze

A government sponsored link of booking details in NO WAY violates the BLP. Continued removal of it will be deemed vandalism, and will be reported accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

When you're back, I'm happy to go over BLP with you. The article needs lots of work still. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


ARBITRATION

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 April 2010

Now you're just wasting others' time. This won't go well for you.
You should read the article you linked above, especially Wikipedia:Arbitration guide#Before requesting arbitration. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for backing down. Good move. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

1Vigor

Hi Ronz

I noted you have apparently placed a block and have designated the 1Vigor as spam on Wiki. 1Vigor is devoted to Health, Natural Lifestyle and Peak Performance and has experts across fields beginning to publish on its site. Much research is done before articles are published.

Please remove the spam designation 1Vigor. I understand now that I cannot promote 1Vigor as an owner. But others, who find the articles written now and in the future valuable, should be able to cite the 1Vigor page on Wiki.

The point I tried to make on the Depression page, which you blocked, is worth making eg. There are natural steps people can take to alleviate depression. The taking of pills for depression has become so common place in our culture that it is considered, particularly amongst our young, as the ordinary and 'natural' thing to. More and more studies are beginning to show that the side effect of these pills are significant and that the pills are of little benefit in treating depression, except to the severely depressed.

Kindest regards, Ralph

Thanks for the note. I'm not sure what this is about. I'll comment further after I look into it. --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing has been blocked, blacklisted, nor filtered at this point that I'm aware. (If you want to learn what these terms mean on Wikipedia, see WP:BLOCK, WP:BLACKLIST, and WP:FILTER).
In the cases of your editing, those edits were removed for the reasons given in the edit summaries and on your talk page.
There's no spam designation, only identification that the link was added inappropriately.
Looking over 1Vigor.com, I don't think that it would meet our reliable sources criteria, especially on the topics it covers. An appeal to nature isn't allowed in most circumstances in articles like Depression (mood). Instead, WP:MEDRS applies.
I'd also question whether it would fit our external links guidelines.
There are multiple articles dealing with different aspects of depression. Major depressive disorder has a large summary of treatment and management techniques, and Treatment for depression goes into further detail. --Ronz (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I've been advised - and it was probably implicit in your objections - to revise the site in question so as to make it more 'neutral' and focused on being a resource. There should be little doubt on the usefulness of including listening examples in an article on Gamelan. So, please take a look at the front page of an in-process site - www.gamelan.name - and let me know if this approach meets also your criteria for having the site as an external link. The site would lead through simple selection to individual cd tracks which could be listened to (in full or in part according to duration) accompanied by text from the relevant liner notes. There would necessarily be a reference to the cdsGS (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC) which the material is taken from. Thank you. Giovanni

This is an encyclopedia, not a host for external links. See my previous responses to you. --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why don't you eliminate all external links now present in the article - and elsewhere? Thanks.GS (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a sense of humor, see WP:GRIEF. --Ronz (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ronz -

http://www.cporising.com

CPO Rising is a new media site dedicated to CPOs - it is written by the analyst that wrote the report referenced here for Aberdeen Group. The analyst is a major thought leader in procurement and globally recognized. The content is thought provoking and geared specifically for chief procurement officers. People going to cporising.com will learn all about chief procurement officers.

Please do not undo my action, again.

Having a link to this site is no more marketing than ISM's link.

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acquisiti (talk • contribs) 07:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yoga

I guess I don't see why you thought my Yoga edit was not neutral. I read the statement by the Vatican, and the complex view offered there is not accurately captured by the quote which states that eastern meditative practices could "degenerate into a cult of the body." From my reading of that article I concluded that the Vatican's position is this: practices of meditation or prayer that originate outside of Catholicism are acceptable if they are consistent with Catholic methods of prayer, and, according to the text, some eastern methods are consistent (e.g. emptying oneself in order to be filled with god, renouncing selfish desires, using bodily posture and breathing in meditation), while others are not (i.e. trying to experience god without making oneself morally pure first). According to the Vatican, it is in this latter sense that eastern methods of meditation might "degenerate into a cult of the body." That is to say, one might mistake bodily sensations of calmness, warmth, or peacefulness for a genuine mystic state. This quote alone, thus does not capture the considered view of the catholic church on this issue.

I also took out the word "holy" in front of Vatican since that seemed to be a value-judgment on someone's part. Is it part of the official name? Not sure on that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.59.61 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.
A balanced summary would be appropriate. My concern was rewriting it to change the meaning and make the remaining comments no longer applicable. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Specifically, you left "In spite of the Vatican statement, many Roman Catholics bring elements of Yoga, Buddhism, and Hinduism into their spiritual practices." but this no longer made sense without the portion of the statement against Yoga, which you removed. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Spam

Thanks for the message. He's a well known sock master who does this all the time. I have notified MastCell who will no doubt be blocking him shortly! It's this character. If you could help revert his spam I'd be obliged as it's rather tedious work.Fainites barleyscribs 21:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I started after he started reverting. The database lag I'm getting is making cleanup a bit difficult. --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah the lag is driving me mad! I've just thumped my poor little mouse. He's here as well. Fainites barleyscribs 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ronz.Fainites barleyscribs 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome

Yes, well, I wanted to get past that. It's become a circular argument. I'm happy the religion bit is gone from the page as I thought it was more unflattering to Moyers.Malke2010 15:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Cloud Computing

Impressive, it only took six minutes for someone to change it back. It was just an experiment, I hope I haven't pissed anyone off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.168.17.210 (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Resveratrol Lozenges

Dear Ronz, please don't let your suspicion of other people's intention guide your conclusion. Let the content speak for itself. If you have to suspect others' intention, don't just suspect the one who has written it. The intention of the one who strongly opposes it should be questioned too.

I'll answer your questions in detail later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushroll (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The SOAP, NPOV, OR, V, and 3RR problems are all valid. I'll remove the coi tag since the evidence is weak at this point. --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Ronz, you do have the right to edit everything. But please don't abuse your right. Most of your accusations are groundless. I'll edit the article later.--Pushroll (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


OR message on Feingold diet page

re: page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feingold_diet

Ronz, you replaced the OR tag with the note: restored OR tag - problem should be addressed by applying WP:MEDRS

Can you please explain this in ordinary English? The tag says that there may be original research in that section; that was referring to a bar chart comparing studies which I had made myself. It is removed, and there is no more "original research" anywhere in the article. So what is a WP:MEDRS? and how do I do it? Shulae (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The sections of OR most applicable are WP:PSTS and WP:SYN. I'd hope the application of WP:MEDRS in this context would be obvious, but perhaps not. The "Research findings" section of Feingold diet is a research review. It is organized chronologically, and includes one review (unless I'm overlooking others). It should be organized around what reviews we have, and no conclusions should be made based only on primary reviews. It's not clear how much of the research has been selected, when it's not specifically about the diet itself. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply on your removal of external link to classical guitarist info. Dear Ronz, I find it to be a quite harsh interpretation of guidelines to remove a site that is exclusively about and for the classical guitar and its performers. It´s a non profit site, and I don´t see how you can respectfully remove this site while you maintain the link to "Classical Guitar Review"... Don´t misunderstand me, please don´t remove the link to the "homepage" of Simon Powis even though I find it hard to believe that a link to "Classical guitar review" doesn´t violate the same guitdelines??

Sincerely, Arne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svindland (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added additional information to your talk page about the situation. --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You answer that I should familiarize myself with certain guidelines... I have, and I still don´t see how I violate these guidelines. I have not written an article or a biography, and when it comes to objectivity and validating the sources I truly don´t understand how you can find the portal anything but objective, and how you can question the validation of sources when links go directly to the sources. But you´re right at one point; I am the person behind the website and therefore should not have added the link myself according to the holy book of guidelines... maybe you can add it for me?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svindland (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued discussion. Sorry I didn't customize the coi notice to be more specific to the situation.
If you want to make a case for adding the link to an article, you should do so on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for the reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svindland (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you Ronz for the welcome and the pages to help guide me on further editing. --Svindland (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, and perfectly fine that you got rid of my comment[1]. I guess my cold Norwegian blod is getting a bit too hot tempered;)--Svindland (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like you're doing a great job working on the article. Sorry I don't have the time to help out more. --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that you do a good job in cleaning out inappropriate external links... Even though I don´t agree in many ocasions I see that e.g.Classical guitar would be quite a mess without your cleanups.--79.154.230.200 (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Yoga Position (har har?)

The previous version of page said:

In 1989, the Vatican declared that Eastern meditation practices such as Zen and yoga can "degenerate into a cult of the body".[87] In spite of the Vatican statement, many Roman Catholics bring elements of Yoga, Buddhism, and Hinduism into their spiritual practices.[88]

This is a false and misleading summary. First, the cited statement from 1989 is a Letter to Bishops, not a Declaration, which is an important distinction in terms of the function and scope of a document released from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Secondly, the single quote cited from the letter does not accurately convey the tone and message of the instruction. This quote by itself tends to imply that the Church does not allow the practice of Yoga which is then further compounded by the next statement which says that Catholics use it "in spite of" the document. A more careful reading of the document says that exploration of Eastern practices is allowed as long as important notions of Christian prayer are kept in mind. Eastern traditions are not to be dismissed simply because they're not Christian. The new summary which includes more extensive quotes from the original citations points this out:

In 1989, the Vatican stated in a letter to Bishops that, "[u]nderstood in an inadequate and incorrect way, the symbolism" of the body in Eastern meditation practices such as Zen and yoga can "degenerate into a cult of the body". However, "one can see if and how [Christian Prayer] might be enriched by meditation methods which have been developed in other religions and cultures" if one bears in mind that Christian prayer is "a personal, intimate and profound dialogue between man and God" and one avoids "concentrating on oneself... in a spiritual privatism...." [87] "As the text of the letter became more widely available..., some Catholic experts on Eastern meditation concluded that it was far more measured than the early press notices had indicated. Eastern approaches to prayer, the document said, should not 'be rejected out of hand simply because they are not Christian.'"[88]

Therefore, the notion that Catholics who do incorporate elements of Eastern traditions into their spirituality are somehow acting "in spite of" this instruction is patently false.

Please give more detailed information about how or why you feel this is unclear. Einheber (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Einheber

Thanks for notifying me. I've already replied, but I'll explain further on what's so confusing. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. My text may appear to be personal analysis because the subsection is meant to reflect analysis of Yoga by a different religion. The analysis presented is that from the cited material and not my own. I believe this is consistent with the tone of the previous section on Islam's understanding of Yoga and fatwas issued by certain bodies forbidding its practice and citations describing how it is or isn't consistent with Islam. The tone of my edit is also consistent with the text directly following it, which contains a fundamentalist Christian analysis. Einheber (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Einheber
Let's keep the discussion on the article talk page so others can more easily participate. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Third Party Sources

What is your definition of third party sources? I read the reliability section and the USPTO would seem to be one of these. Can you explain to me why the USPTO is not a reliable source -- would seem it is. Thanks. AmaTsisqa (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The tag you removed linked to WP:V and WP:RS. Both discuss the issue. WP:PSTS is also applicable. --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pellicer

I see you have tens of thousands of edit and a lot of experience, I do not understand you editing pattern to the Pellicar article, are you involved personally in the topic? I see you have edits to the related topics Seduction_community and sauch like, do me a favor and save me the time of going through your edits to find out and let me know, If not then please explain what your intentions are at the BLP? Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.
It looks like more of the promotional editing that's been problematic in Seduction community-related articles. As in the other cases, the sources are poor, mostly just pr pieces. --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you answer my question please. I do not understand you editing pattern to the Pellicar article, are you involved personally in the topic? Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've answered your question, ignoring the inappropriate aspects re WP:PRIVACY.
I'm happy to explain further on my editing. Basically, seeing the similarities with the seduction community articles, I'm holding the biography to a tight interpretation of BLP to reign the soapboxing. Other articles have had criticism and competition problems, which I've not noticed with Pellicer so far. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and explained my most recent round of editing on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I got your message regarding my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talas,_Turkey&diff=next&oldid=138687614. If you feel the image is inappropriate, by all means, delete it. I obtained permission to upload under Creative Commons -with standard template- by many users, who became friends, from that site and many of their images are in Commons by now, but could not go all over all that I had uploaded under a simple permission to use. So please feel free to delete it if you think it is inapropriate. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I saw that you had been uploading some, linking to others, and that editors had speedily deleted some Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_June_3. Chapultepec (talk · contribs) has made similar edits. I'm not sure what to make of it, or if I want to bother looking into it further. Looks like good faith editing from what I've looked into. [2] --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Why are you removing links. The link i have place in to it is for mehndi. I am doing spamming. plz thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.234.240 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You've admitted you have a conflict of interest [3], and you appear to be Hetalpatel33 (talk · contribs). If you think either link is appropriate, discuss it on the article talk page, or perhaps at WP:ELN --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey i have not place any commercial links they why are you removing the links that i am adding. You keep other non related commercial links on the page. Are you taking money from those guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.234.240 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:AGF. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Lee

Hello,

I am afraid I don't know what you're talking about. My comments were not libelous in the least.

WWhat I said was that no-one (friends, family etc.) has ever stepped up to verify Sandra's claims about her childhood set forth in her book or on her TV program. By including that disclaimer sentence I was sepcifically trying to make Wikipedia **more** factual, not less. Since no-one has backed her up her expository story seems very fanciful and I was trying to make readers aware it needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.

The burden of proof is on someone else to find evidence disputing what I said, and thus backing her up. I have certainly never (in well over five years of familiarity with her and obsession with all things culinary) seen or heard anything that would contradict what I said.

Again, my statement was with the aim of making the site *more* factual, not less. It was not meant to be disparaging.

Please consider reinstating my disclaimer. Wikipedia readers run the risk of being misled otherwise.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushi5 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi again! :)

PS Interesting that you mention sources. Where are the sources that back up the accounts of her childhood laid out in the article?. I see none other than from herself and her employer (hardly objective individuals). Therefore, isn't it true that that those statements about her childhood should also either be cited or removed?

I'm just being even-handed. We can't have our cake and eat it too. If my disclaimer is removed, the comments about her upbringing also need to be taken out if there is no evidence - which was why I put the whole disclaimer in there in the first place.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushi5 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have legitimate concerns about the article, please discuss them on the article talk page. Paranoid-sounding disclaimers do not belong in the article, nor anywhere else. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Lagos

Dear Sir / ma, I came across this page after correcting some things on 'Lagos'. If I had seen your message before then, I probably, would have opened up a discussion here before acting. Actually, I wish to state that I was disappointed that most of my comments were deleted, despite the fact that they were linked to verifiable references which means that they were not my private personal opinions. I would have been more comfortable if the additions which you deemed necessary were included, alongside my contributions.

I will be happy to communicate with you further. I am presently a research fellow in an European University and my area of study is lagos. This is why I am particularly concerned about this page, nothing to do with personal feelings. Most participants at conferences wherwe I have presented papers have commented on my strong criticism of the successive governments of Lagos as well as those of Nigeria. I am interested in correct data for Lagos and factual information which is critically important in solving the myriads of malaise afflicting the mega-city.

Thank you. Kunle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunleifesanya (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits

Hi Ronz,

I am not the owner of the page to which I have been linking (retro-motors) but articles that I have found informative on cars that I have been interested in I have linked to.

I believed that the rollbacks were done by an automated process and therefore cancelled them.

Please do not black list the domain retro-motors.com as I would not like my good intentions however misguided to cause an issue to the website in question as this would not be a fair reflection on this site.

Please be assured that I will make no further contributions to wikipedia regarding any external links.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.174.86 (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The site has already been blacklisted because of all the spamming. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipal/Archive_30&oldid=1140527313"