User talk:Hipal

Extended content
	- Nov 2006; Dec 2006; Jan 2007; Feb - 9 Apr 2007; Apr 2007; May 2007; Jun 2007; Jul - Aug 2007; Aug - Oct 2007; Oct - Dec 2007; Jan 2008 - Feb 2008; Feb 2008; Mar 2008 - Apr 2008; Apr 2008 - Jun 2008; Jun 2008; Jul 2008; Aug 2008; Sep 2008; Oct 2008; Nov-Dec 2008; Jan 2009; Feb 2009; Mar-Apr 2009; Apr-Jul 2009; Jul-Aug 2009; Sep 2009; Nov-Dec 2009; Dec 2009-Jan 2010; Feb-Mar 2010; Apr-May 2010; Jun-Jul 2010; Aug 2010; Sep 2010; Oct 2010; Nov-Dec 2010; Jan-Feb 2011; Mar-Dec 2011; 2012; Jan-Jun 2013;

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.

edits in the OpenCourseWare page

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

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

Neil Strauss

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

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

Occupational health psychology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing links to graduate programs

Hi Ronz:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Sources for Grammarly

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

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

RE: edit on Crowdfunding has been reverted

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

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

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

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

Graffiti on personal training section

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

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

Vastu shastra

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

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

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

Re: Translator needed to identify a person's titles

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

cookwareappliances.com

Hi Ronz,

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

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

Canvassing

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

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

Sledgehammer

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

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

Re: Translator needed to identify a person's titles

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

Thank

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

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

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

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

Ron - no idea who you are or how you happened to find your way to the talk page of User:Kentongreening, but I appreciate your comment in support of my suggestion to them that they engage in discussion and seek consensus before making such a significant edit to an article like bikini as changing the main image from one of a set (of which one was previously judged a "featured" pic!) to a personal photo they took of a relevant but inappropriate-for-the-lead new upload. It's really a pleasant surprise to find such unexpected and civil support! BTW: if you have any feedback on bikini it would certainly be welcome (especially on photo selection and layout). Cheers! Az x2 22:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks! Likewise, if there's ever something you need help with, lmk! Cheers. Az x2 03:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BD

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

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

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

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

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

Medical Tourism in Malaysia

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

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

A kitten for you!

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

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

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

org listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Bosnian Pyramids Labels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Ronz,

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

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

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

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

Hey Ronz,

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

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

Heads up on Pakistani-related socks

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

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

Raw milk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OHP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angel Investors

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

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

What do you think?

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

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

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

newsletter PDF links

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

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

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

Chicken and waffles maintenance tag

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

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

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

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

OHP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10% Rule of Preventive Maintenance - Rickysmithcmrp

Ron,

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

I hope this helps.

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

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

Rob Kardashian

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

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

Hancinema link in My Girl (2005 TV series)

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

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

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

fiza ali edit

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

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

Superfood

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

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

Ravi Shankar page

Dude!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

timesofbook.com

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

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

It is a blog.

It was spammed.

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

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

shivaconnect.com

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

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

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

4goodnessgrape and ForGoodnessGrape

Hi Ronz,

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

Please let me know what you think would work best.

Thanks! Lisa List

Hi Lisa. Thanks for following up with me.

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

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

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

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

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

Bowen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steven M. Greer

Ronz, there is now a second source for the alleged blocking / locking of doors and accosting of women at event.^[1] Second source report begins about halfway down the page, though it is asserted that the manhandling of the attendee happened during another speaker's (Wilcock's) segment. Whether it was still Greer's bodyguards in place is not clear. Something to keep an eye on if more reports emerge, because it is definitely qualifies as Controversy. Kdevans (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent removals from System Administrator

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Images of Persian Rugs Removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please WP:FOC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of reference from Attachment parenting

Attachment parenting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
192.88.168.1 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

-- MC

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

Edit of Bishop Cleemis

Check the link in the article and also Baselios Cleemis. The actual name is not Clemis its Cleemis and hence the correction.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeambat (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're referring to, nor why you're notifying me. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Message received. Didn't realize. It wont happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acremades (talk • contribs) 00:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References for articles

Hi Ronz, My intention was not to promote anything, but to include valuable reference material for the S. N. Goenka and U Ba Khin articles which are a bit bare. I guess the right thing to do is to add some sentences to the articles, based on these books, and then reference them? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millercdusa (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Use references to improve the article content. You might want to look for information currently in the articles that needs to be verified, as well as adding new information.

Please note that links to online stores are almost always inappropriate. Editors who add them find themselves blocked rather quickly.

I've placed a welcome message on your talk page full of information on how to get started with Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RL

Ronz, I need your help. I'm the executive director of Reverse Logistics Association, www.rla.org I want to understand how learn more on how Wikipedia works, is there a site I can go to? Can you help me? 510-364-7631, Gailen@rla.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.233.181 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. I'm not clear what you mean, "how Wikipedia works." Could you explain? Some context of what you want to do or see changed should help.

Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia, and WP:TMM provide general information that might help. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Conrad Levinson

I run in the same circles as Jay. It's on his family's facebook pages. And on Seth Godin's blog. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/10/thank-you-jay.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick24601 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something that passes WP:BLP as a reliable source, use it. Otherwise it will be removed. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abayomi Rotimi Mighty

Hello Ronz... the intention of editing the stuff was not advertising. It was solely for proper definition of history. I want to use this opportunity to ask for your audience to study about Abayomi Rotimi Mighty. You will be so shocked at how a great legend has been forgotten. I do hope you understand my reasons for the edit. I appreciate your efforts in doing what you feel is right. Please accept my regards dear Ronz. I do hope to continue this conversation with you for as long as possible. Regards once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CREATIVEARMA (talk • contribs) 22:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand why the edits are inappropriate? --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

short-biography.com

Peace Be Upon With You, I've got your message on my page. As far as i know the external i've added is surely reliable. Perhaps it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. And i've mistakenly added the link. Anyway, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samazgor (talk • contribs) 10:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Please make a sound case for the link, because I think it needs to be blacklisted from Wikipedia completely. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biofilter, Septic Tank

Hi Ronz, thanks for your concerns.

I do not view the addition of scientific, published research articles as references to claims to be advertising. These are not advertisements but results of research conducted in the onsite wastewater field by a reputable company that has worked in the industry for over 20 years. They were added to provide supporting evidence for existing claims in the articles, many of which were previously presented as bald fact without support.

Your reason for reversion is puzzling in light of the fact that some of the changes you reverted were the removal of content that clearly is advertorial in nature, notably this phrase:

"Biofiltration technologies dedicated to decentralized domestic wastewater treatment, such as the Ecoflo Biofilter from Premier Tech1, have been commercialized worldwide."

In addition, you reverted a change that I made removing an external (and by the way now dead) link to a promotional design manual that does not contribute to a reader's understanding of the topic.

As an actual expert in the wastewater field I feel that I can contribute to these articles in a valuable way. Many of the changes I had made to the article improved both the content and flow of the articles and were done piecemeal to provide clarity of my work. I have reverted your reversions and in the future would appreciate it if rather than wholesale reverting of the sum of my work you take the time to go through the changes individually on their own merits.

I however do not appreciate the fact that you searched for and removed related references that no one has seen as an issue for over 6 years (shipping container architecture). This was the one reference that, had you argued it, I would have conceded as being 'advertorial' in nature, and I have replaced it with a scientific article backing up the claim that alternative uses of shipping containers include wastewater treatment systems.

Thanks,

CocoaNutt (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)CocoaNutt[reply]

Thanks for responding. I'm glad that you understand that at least some of your editing was purely promotional in nature. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timesofbook spam

Hi Ronz, I noticed that you initially filed the spam report for timesofbook. Just wanted to let you know that there has been attempts to circumvent the blacklist by using URL shortener [1]. -SFK2 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like everything has been handled. He's indef blocked and all the spamming was removed rather quickly. --Ronz (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still going on [2]. Perhaps we need to add the URL shortener to the blacklist. -SFK2 (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added further information to your report. Good job. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your message, I am starting to follow the reference pattern in the articles I am editing I hope I am doing well, not all the articles I references had doi is it OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjalyout (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just put in what information you can find. It looks like you have the formatting worked out. Take some time to go over MEDRS. One of your references has already been removed because of MEDRS and it was in a featured article. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki on Dr. Steven Greer

Hi Ronz

I altered this page spesifically the one word in the sentence below (human to humanoid) : Genetic evidence showed later that it was a human child skeleton, only a few decades old, and the mother was most probably "an indigenous woman from the Chilean region of South America".[36][37]

This statement is false as it stands now October 2013. The genetic evedence matched 93% to human DNA and the other 7% is being decoded. As this is unknown an strand of DNA it will take 2-4 years to de-code with enough funding. The correct term at the moment is humanoid meaning two legs, two arms, two eyes walking up straight etc. The being found is 6 inches long and analysed as being 8 years old which has never been documented before. After examination of the body the scientist found that there were no signs of deformation or growth problems. The being also has 10 ribs as opposed to 12 of humans together with one bone in the leg as opposed to 2 bones in humans and also 1 bone in the arm as opposed to 2 bones in humans. The skull is also much bigger in proportion to the body.

Basically the research is ongoing but no-one as of yet has proven that this creature is human.

Many thanks for your time.

Best wishes

Yuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.142.70 (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me. Unfortunately, changing the title of an article to fit your original research and point of view is inappropriate. Bring it up on the talk page if you like, but you might want to review WP:OR and WP:NPOV first, and be prepared that you'll be unable to convince anyone. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional contributions for Duolingo

Ronz,

My contributions were all accurate. You can search for Duolingo and see for yourself. In many cases where companies such as the Khan Academy or Coursera are mentioned, Duolingo should be mentioned as well. That's all.

Best, Gina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.102.57.83 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll rethink this after getting another notice about your editing. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business Letter

Hey Ronz,

Just got your message. You had deleted a link I posted on this page. You thought it was spammy, probably because the name (businessletter.co). I recently changed it to mybusinessletter.com (so it didn't seem as spammy). But I didn't add it back.

Anyway, I kind of feel that an encyclopedia page should be about the subject, in this case "business letters." I think the page does an OK job with that. But it should also identify books and websites and other help for people who actually want to write a business letter.

So, I do think it needs a resources list…even if you feel uncomfortable having my site listed as one of those resources.

Thoughts?

Mhan7474 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me.

The relevant guideline is WP:EL. While I'm not certain what you mean by a "resources list" what the article (and related articles) needs are more and better references. External links are reserved for information that cannot be otherwise incorporated in the article. If you think your website fits WP:EL, then bring it up on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feldenkrais

Hi Ronz, these are not primary sources, they are professional assessments of the Feldenkrais Method. They make no claim for efficacy. Span (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to "primary sources" as in WP:PSTS. I don't see how anyone can argue that they are something else. Further, one of the links was simply WP:LINKSPAM.

I see that others have started discussions with you about sources. I strongly advise reviewing the relevant policies and guidelines, then maybe ask for clarification on relevant talk pages or noticeboards. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled as to how the Feldenkrais Guild of the US or UK can be regarded as a primary source. Span (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should focus for a moment on the independence of the source instead? I hope we can agree that there's no independence whatsoever. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The material is also self-published.

I consider it primary because they are not removed from the events and directly involved. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

doubtful behavior of mine

Dear Ronz, thank you for your kind remarks, i am actually still new to Wikipedia editing. i an in the field of quantum mechanics and physics and also stock markets (Quant.). i will only seek increasing the knowledge of people by giving them freely available infos even when available from external sites that touches directly to the subject cited on the page. i understood your remark tho and do admit it looks like spammy or involving promotions of specific websites, but the links i added are directly related to the topics. in the future i will try to add content and images rather than just links - i was just too lazy to try to reformulate what s in the page :p i mean this needs lots of effort. from now on i ll try to avoid referencing to pages and rather add more contents to wikipedia. i thank wikipedia for the tremendous amount of infos i learned from it. and please keep watching my activities, i ll take you as my mentor for safely editing. Regards Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam lyon fr (talk • contribs) 08:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Yes, it takes a lot of effort and there's much to learn. I don't have the time to mentor you, and I don't do a great deal of article creation/expansion, so you might want to try WP:ADOPT. I can answer questions and point you to relevant policies/guidelines/etc. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

graph partitioning

I am sorry but I don't see why it should not be there. I am a professional researcher in the area of graph partitioning and all the things added are highly relevant to the topic and very valueable to a reader of this article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.schulz (talk • contribs) 10:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Take it up at WP:COIN before you're blocked. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the discussion of the article. I hope we can resolve the issue. If the references of the graph partitioning frameworks disturb you, we can remove them, sure. But this is the basis of the partitioning frameworks so why remove them? Are you saying that graph partitioning frameworks are not relevant to the topic? I did not only add our graph partitioning package but all of them (including their links). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.schulz (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying all the edits are promotional, done against a conflict of interest. Blatant self-promotion like this will get anyone blocked rather quickly. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Web chat

Hi Ronz,

Hope things are good at your end. you have removed my contribution on page named " Web Chat". Can you please tell me why? and how should I revert It ? Stevelampard444 (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevelampard444 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me.

Have you found the comments on your talk page yet? You've been spamming links to solutioninn.com, and I noticed that your username appears to be that of an employee solutioninn.com, which means that you likely have a conflict of interest.

It would be best if you didn't try to add anything more related to solutioninn.com to any article until you've decided how WP:COI applies to you, and you shouldn't be adding links to any article when they fail our external links guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I have no connection with solution Inn. I just used the name of one of thier employee. I just want to contribite for wikipedia, so selected Solution Inn because I have fair idea regarding operations of this company as I used to outsourced my work through Solution Inn. So kindly let me revert my link. See It is useful link. Such externel links can benefit readers.05:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevelampard444 (talk • contribs)

"I just used the name of one of thier employee." Your choice to use that name is evidence enough for me that you have a problematic bias.

Regardless, if you somehow feel that the link meets WP:EL, take it up at WP:ELN. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Charts

Hello Ronz,

The sections and illustrations that you removed were written and displayed in a neutral style. They were factual and all links and references to software websites were removed by me, with the exception of the Microsoft link that you seemed to think was okay.

The section on three-dimensional bubble charts you removed is a legitimate section for that page, as they are unique and different from two-dimensional bubble charts. Having illustrations of 2D and 3D bubble charts on a page about bubble charts adds greatly to the page and they are content neutral. Allowing no illustrations on a page about a type of chart, or only the rudimentary ones at the top of the page, is a disservice to the encyclopedia reader.

I believe that after editing the page the second time, that all of my contributions are carefully written from a neutral point of view, as per Wikipedia policies. The illustrations I provided link to the Wikicommons and not to a commercial website.

Perhaps, as Wikipedia suggests, you could talk first with the author before you delete their contributions to a page, and I respectfully request that you restore the page to its previous state or discuss why you think that that bubble chart illustrations and the discussion about 3D bubble charts are not content neutral. Remember, Wikipedia does not prohibit people with expertise or interest in a subject matter from writing about that subject, it simply asks them to be extremely careful when they do.

Kind regards,

George

George Huhn (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. It might be best to take this straight to WP:COIN. I contacted you first. You made some attempt to make your contributions far less promotional. However, they're still promotional in nature and show a repeated disregard from the policies brought up on your user page.

Can I assume you're not disputing the removal of your contributions from Project management? --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

As another editor pointed out, there are lots of other charts used in Project Management so bubble charts shouldn't be singled out.

Regarding the bubble chart contributions, you say that they are "still promotional in nature and show a repeated disregard from the policies brought up on your user page" but you have not provided any specifics. I have read the policies and provided you with the specific as to why they are now in compliance with the policies. As I have stated above, the content that I added is relevant, written in a neutral language and there are no self-promoting links. Saying that I "show a repeated disregard from the policies brought up on your user page" is un-constructively accusatory when I have clearly made the edits necessary to bring them into compliance with the policies.

In regards to the "Crime in the U.S." page, which you also said was self-promotional: The charts illustrating crime in the U.S. versus Education and Poverty were on-topic, relevant, used non-biased verifiable sources, and were written in a neutral tone. After my edits, there were no links to my blog or my website or any other promotional text, so I don't understand why you deleted them again.

So I am happy to understand specifically why you think that my contributions are still "still promotional in nature and show a repeated disregard from the policies..." or what more I could do to make them acceptably non-promotional, in your judgement. I edited them in good faith to comply with the policies. In the meantime, I think that you should restore the page to as it was before you deleted my last edits. It seems odd to me in a situation in which there are no self-promoting links or self-promotion and the content is undeniably relevant that an anonymous person who chooses to delete the content should automatically have the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not they are in compliance with Wikipedia policies.

Kind regards,

George

George Huhn (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George. Again, I recommend that this go to WP:COIN. In my opinion the editing we're discussing is a serious breech of Wikipedia policies that has you at risk for being blocked.

Editors that I've encountered under similar circumstances do one of two things to follow our policies: Either they work on articles completely unrelated to their coi, or they use their expertise to improve the sourcing and article content on articles where they have a coi while clearly avoiding the specific topics where they have a coi.

You appear to be looking for another option where you still benefit from self-promotion. Again, in my opinion, this will just lead to a block.

I think it would be best to get others involved in resolving this dispute. If not at WP:COIN, then some other venue as described in WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ronz,

Clearly Wikipedia prefers that these matters be discussed and settled in the "Talk" sections and not be elevated to WP:COIN unless there is an irreconcilable impasse. I would like to try to work it out here.

You offer opinions like "we're discussing is a serious breech of Wikipedia policies," but don't offer any specifics as to what those are. Wikipedia does not prohibit editors from writing in sections that they may have a COI; they do urge care and caution when doing so. In this situation, I believe that everything I included in my last edits on bubble charts and crime in the U.S. was neutral and there were no self-promoting links. By the way, "Crime in the U.S." is completely unrelated to my COI.

I am not a long-time Wikipedia editor and I am always willing to learn from my mistakes. However, accusing me of "a serious breech of Wikipedia policies" in my most recent edits without being at all specific is neither educational nor constructive. If you have something specific and constructive to point out about my current edits you think is self-promoting, then I wish you'd tell me so I could change it. Otherwise, it does not feel like you are engaging in this discussion in good faith.

I'd prefer that we resolve this here.

Kind regards,

George — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.151.237 (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to restore your original edits, you'd most likely be blocked, and most likely indefinitely blocked. That's what I mean.

I've given you two options that have worked well with others in your situation. I don't have the time to try to formulate a third, even if I thought it would be a productive exercise, which I don't.

Please take it up elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Innovation Page, blog link

Kapoorneeraj (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)hi, I added Your Well Wisher Program with the link http://yourwellwisherprogram.wordpress.com at Social Innovation page. This link should not be removed as this link is about social innovation. It is an attempt to solve commonly known problems with the strategy to bring clarity to well educated people. Can you check the about page and the other content on it. Designed Foot controlled hand wash that saves water and bring more hygiene on hand wash. This is not yet documented anywhere and invented by me. It will change the way we use water on hand wash. It is the first time that movie script based learning is introduced to articulate concept or innovation. There is no commercial aspect in the link. request you to revert it to be present there.Kapoorneeraj (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me.

It's a link to a blog entry, so is inappropriate per WP:ELNO #11.

You've also a conflict of interest with the subject. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your link deletion strategy

Hi Ronz. Thank you for tracing all the links I placed at different point of time to support and explain different subjects. I expect any wikipedia editor to understand the basic fact that one single person can not be associated with so many different links and there must be reason while someone is adding these links. You found a link against National Report and deleted all other related links in all different articles. But I want to ask you a simple question. Check the page Kolkata derby from where you removed the link of a website called http://www.CurrentScore.info which even Google returns at top when a East Bengal vs Mohun Bagan match is on. If you do not believe me search Google on November 24, 2013 at 4PM IST. Anyways, that is not my point. I found that though you removed the link of CurrentScore.info you did not touch the link just beside it, i.e. KolkataFootball.com. Why ? You think KolkataFootball.com is a reliable website whereas CurrentScore.info is NOT ? Can you please explain it in terms of Wikipedia reliable source ? This KolkataFootball.com has spreaded hundreads of links across Wikipedia. Will you take your time to find them out and remove them and act against the persons responsible for this ? Please reply or act. Thank you. --UpalC (talk) November 21, 2013 (IST)

Thanks for responding. However, you're ignoring the problems that have you at risk of being blocked and all the links being blacklisted from Wikipedia.

Shall all the KolkataFootball.com links be removed as well? Given that you didn't spam them all, I'm being more cautious. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response Ronz. I am NOT ignoring the problems, but questioning the way some wikipedia editors are deciding upon reliable source. You must maintain a standard for being a reliable source. If CNN BBC is the standard, then let it be so. Delete anything below that. And if KolkataFootball.com or SportsKeeda.com is the standard, then let CurrentScore.info stay as well. I am expecting impartial judgement for all sources. Thank you. --UpalC (talk) November 21, 2013 (IST)

As I understand it, you were the previous owner of the KolkataFootball.com domain, or something similar. Once you created CurrentScore.info and no longer had a relationship with KolkataFootball.com, you started replacing them.

~~Since you have a coi with this,~~ I'll take it to RSN for you. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I was confusing your kolkatafootballs.com with kolkatafootball.com. Yours should be removed.

Looks like there are problems with kolkatafootball.com as well. Let me look closer. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct. It is not a reliable source. It should be removed too.

I bet there are new spammers as well... Yep.

Thank you Ronz for understanding my point. Let me tell you that, apart from adding content to Wikipedia, I put in links in 2 situations - i. When existing links are there of same standard. ii. When proper counter explanation is not found in any of the reliable sources, which happened for National Report. But, I DO NOT SPAM. Links are always related to the subject. --UpalC (talk) November 21, 2013 (IST)

Thanks for sticking with me.

I'm going to clean up these football links and look further. It will take time and I don't see any need to hurry.

Please look closely at WP:COI. You've been given a final warning. If you add any other link in a manner similar to what you've done in the past, you'll likely be blocked, and you'll be lucky if it is not an indefinite block.

If you want to learn in general more about what are and are not considered reliable sources, ask questions at WT:IRS.

For specific edits that I've made, go ahead and ask me. jolchobi.com is not a reliable source, and you have a coi with it. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have removed links of www.the-aiff.com, which I contradict. AIFF is the governing body of Indian football and their official website is www.the-aiff.com. I think this website should be regarded as reliable source. Thank you. --UpalC (talk) November 21, 2013 (IST)

Sources and external links are two separate and different things. I removed the external link per WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am done with my explanation of football related links and now moving over to another edit I made and you removed. Please go to the first paragraph of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_hack where the examples of 'groups', 'fold it' and 'google' are given. Do not you think that the phrase 'tweet in', symbolised by http://2et.in, or the word 'ReTweeting', symbolised by http://re.2et.in, deserve a place here ? I am not saying a link is required. I am saying a mention is worthwhile. Looking for your opinion. Thank you. --UpalC (talk) November 23, 2013 (IST)

The article is a mess and needs to be stripped of any examples not backed by independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you allowing grou.ps, fold.it etc. to stay ? I added 2et.in because it was the only domain hack I found using a .in domain. If you think all these are worthless, then why remove only one ? Please remove all of them. Wikipedia is maintained in a democratic format. If an US site makes its place so should an Indian site. If you take responsibility of removing one, remove them all. Or else please let the Indian domain extension stay as well. Thank You. --UpalC (talk) November 23, 2013 (IST)

I'm sorry, but your assumptions about what I am and am not doing are simply inappropriate, much less telling me what my responsibilities are.

I cleaned up your mess. That doesn't mean I have to clean up all the other messes in all the other articles that your or anyone else edited. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

football links

Inquiry about VOSS Solutions article

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

Hello Ronz,

I am a representative of VOSS Solutions, (admittedly complete newbie in Wiki), who is wondering what to do (if anything) to comply with standards, request edits, etc etc in order to qualify for the removal of the 'Looks like an advertisement tag' currently posted onto VOSS Solutions' article. Looking at the article's revision history, it seems that some positive actions have been made by another editor since it was flagged as promotional? VOSS seeks only neutral representation and doesn't want to have any sneaky/suspicious posts out there (on any platforms, especially Wikipedia).

Thanks for your time!

71.233.210.201 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC) CSweeney[reply]

Sorry I overlooked your note.

Given how the article was started, a complete rewrite from sources both reliable and independent would be ideal.

An easy start would be to remove everything supported only with press releases or similar press.

VOSS Solutions is one of a number of articles that are a part of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Editor_Johnmoor. Since the editor has basically withdrawn from editing, I was going to take the list to WP:NPOVN to get ideas on how to proceed. I think instead I'll start with this article so you can have the attention you want on it right away. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started here. I'll start a few discussions on the talk page as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated - would appreciate anyone's help on this. VOSS is generally concerned about Wiki presence just due to the fact that they've seen equitable peers/competitors recognized/having articles on Wiki, etc. If I can provide any informations, sources, etc etc please let me know. Trying to learn the processes here. Thanks again for your time and explanation! 71.233.210.201 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)CSweeney[reply]

The easiest thing you can do is suggest changes on the article's talk page.

The highest priority concern is to clearly establish that the company meets WP:CORP with appropriate sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User experience design

Agreed, links to the author's pages would be nice. The ISBN citation template doesn't provide a usable implementation of this metadata when entered. However, if the authors themselves are crucial to the article, they and their contributions to the field should be called out by name within the article text itself, not just in "Further reading".

However, this section should probably be further revamped, not by adding in links to the authors' Wikipedia pages, but by actually moving some of these readings to the "User interface design" page, as they speak less to UX design (a broader field) and more to UI design (a narrower field within UX design).

WikkanWitch (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with how the templates work, but now that I look, the examples have links. Why don't the ones used in the article? --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GFI SOFTWARE

http://www.teamviewer.com/en/company/company.aspx I canot understand why a page original of the company thas is being cited canot be used like a reference!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauricio ximenez (talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me. I understand the confusion. You added it as a reference, but made no other changes to the ariticle, or did anything else to indicate what it was a reference for. I'll give you details on your talk page on how to resolve this. --Ronz (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Massive open online course

I have been editing several entries recently, so it would be helpful if you gave me specifics on what you deleted so I know to avoid promotional-sounding language in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetfount (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the articles are being used for promotional purposes. It's not about language at all, though the language could be better I'm sure. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Cox

I'd like an explanation or maybe I'll just return the favor. BTW your edit reason on the Wendell Cox article is not correct as the subject of the article is not disputed, it was the spamming that was being done on other articles. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain Wendell Cox edit summary

WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK ?

Can you please explain to me exactly why you deleted material that was added by myself and other editors to the Wendell Cox (correction edit 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC))in this reversal of my edit to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendell_Cox&diff=prev&oldid=583420038?[reply]

From the way that I remember it, I only added the link to the Demographia site which is mentioned in the main article several times, AND the Cox article happens to be a redirect for Demographia. I did not build that list of links but I did see it and what other editors had posted there looked OK to me. Please explain in detail how exactly my edit and the other editor's material that you removed pertains to WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK, because I could not find a suitable reason listed there(s).24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL found on the page that you sent me to. I think that says that is where those links belong?24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on article talk. --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Ronz. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Section Blanking Reason NPOV.The discussion is about the topic Cholangiocarcinoma. Thank you.24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever look at WP:DR and WP:BATTLE? --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes-and you have accused me of not responding to your NPOV charges multiple times in edit summarys reversing my edits on several topics and on my talk page in not so nice a way yet I have asked you to please specify so I thought that the NPOV noticeboard could help me figure-out what your point is.Because as I have replied to you I really do not understand where I am expressing a non NPOV. And if that is the case, (unintentionally on my part), I have no problem with my edits being reversed or changed on those grounds.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, then you've read WP:FOC. Please follow it. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a WP:SC that points out using shortcuts to try to annoy editors? I think you may want to see that. And what is the one that speaks to not responding to the original question? What is it called when an editor jumps all over the place with new complaints without resolving the original problem? You might want to have a look at that. Now if you want to talk about WP:NPOV, I'd still like to know what you meant. Sorry to get personal with you but there are some things about your editing that I find to be odd, and due to your actions I am suspicious about activity here.24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that being asked to work with others and follow our policies and guidelines annoys you. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not annoy me and i am trying to follow the policies and guidelines as it applies to NPOV specifically but I have yet to have anyone explain how my reverted edits in the article were not doing that.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior clearly demonstrates otherwise. Perhaps you're simply not aware. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative Real-time Editor Edit

Hi Ronz - I believe you were a little overzealous in removing "Firepad" from the list of Collaborative Real-time Editors. Firepad is actually the software that powers Koding (one of the editors you didn't remove), Nitrous.IO, LiveMinutes, and a whole bunch of fairly well-known websites. It has over 1000 stars on github. It's also the top hit on Google for "collaborative text editor". I'm going to re-add it to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startupandrew (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply keeping the article free of inappropriate external links and entries added without any indication that they deserve to be listed.

I suggest writing the article first about Firepad. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veena Malik

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

This is Tenthmonth, If you looked on French Wikipedia, her birthday are mentioned and it is also on International Film Database. May be you should do some research yourself before deleting other people's work and criticize them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.129.211 (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that research should be done before adding unsourced material to a WP:BLP where the content in question has been discussed at length on the article talk page and on noticeboards. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

user Bhutto gee

Bhutto gee (talk · contribs)

Looks like Emir Jamshedparineetichopra (talk · contribs) is back, doing the same disruptive editing on same articles and adding same unreliable sources in WP:BLP articles, another one from the sock farm (User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_20#Possible_sock.2Fmeatpuppet_Zubin_Irani, User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_19#Block_of_Jasmine_Aladin).

I already notified at ANI but since you and Ponyo (talk · contribs) are more familiar with it, so I thought I should tell you about it.--Jockzain (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and good catch! --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Massive open online course - again

Massive open online course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I received your message accusing me of submitting promotional material in my edits. Frankly, I find your message to be bullying. I am not a techie, and am doing my best to navigate the editing site, which is quite non-intuitive. I cannot identify exactly which contributions of mine you are complaining about, but I do see that someone removed a cite to a NYT article. If that is one of your edits, please re-read it and the cited article. It is not promotional, but a summary and quote from one of the most respected New York Times writers today in the field of education. If may edits seem promotional to you, please be assured that this is unintentional and accept my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetfount (talk • contribs) 19:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm concerned with your edits as a whole. While their being promotional may be unintentional, they are still problems.

This was what I left you the message about and was included in the message.

This portion was an addition to the WP:LEDE of the article, that was not supported by anything else in the article but rather just highlighted a bit of hype, "The Year of the MOOC", and three providers. This information simply doesn't belong in the lede of the article.

The rest of the edit highlights recent research giving undue attention to the researchers. It's worth reintroducing with proper reference information. It's an initial report on a large study, where the further reports should be incorporated when they become available, if they aren't already. --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Crowdfunding Page

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

Hi Ronz. I'm not sure why mention of Crowdnetic was removed from the description of our site HelpersUnite being sold to EarlyShares. As you can see from the referenced press release (http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/equity-based-crowdfunding-platform-earlyshares-acquires-helpersunite/19053/140), I am filling from whom the site was acquired. There was no promotional information included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by East212 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a press release, so by definition it is promotional. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shakib Khan

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

What type of reliable source are you talking about? Sources that I gave are from the best national-level newspapers of of Bangladesh & Youtube. Kindly let me know as the informations that I wrote are fully correct.

Kindly note that my intention is to make a complete change & fully review this page and give it a permanent shape like Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Aamir Khan's page and make it a "permanent page" which cannot be edited. Which can be viewed only & users can only request for a change. Please help me out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsterio (talk • contribs) 17:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was that some of it had no sources at all, and that some was simply gossip.

It's not easy learning Wikipedia while focusing on a biographical articles because of the quality requirements from WP:BLP. Start reading and learning. Gossip and anything similar is almost always inappropriate in such articles. --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ronz! What happened this time? I have visited other pages like Shahrukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Salman Khan and Saif Ali Khan. What is the wrong with the standard of information I have provided this time? Sir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsterio (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of information is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. It's tabloid journalism. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I write a fresh, complete & full biography of this living person with proper links (with no taboloid link) and send to you by e-mail? with no advertisements or promotions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsterio (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to get others involved by using the article's talk page to propose and discuss changes. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Block me!!!!! Yes Yes Yes "Wikipedia is not a gossip and entertainment magazine" but I feel like that is only for Bangladeshi actors when it is Hollywood/Bollywood actors like Shahrukh Khan/Aamir Khan/Salman Khan everything is alright. Poor Wikipedia just get lost. I understood your double-standard, always giving excuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsterio (talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of standard work on human capital with implications for the public sector

Can you explain the basis for your removal of the Voinovich classic on the subject from the list of external links? It is one of the few standards in the field that is available online, that has changed the dialogue about human resources for government practices, irregardless of political party, and still has recognized implications for the public sector. And while you are at it, do you know how to fix the link so it doesn't come up with the error message? The PDF seems to load directly from the government website. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy without the cover sheet, though it could be a different version given the lack of page numbers.

As I noted, a clear and concise summary that clearly shows its importance would be acceptable as an external link or as a reference. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. I'm sure the version is the same, as it is a government document. I'm always annoyed when I google for this document and find no one has even bothered to put it on the WP article. The second part of your comment I don't understand, maybe you could point to the policy you are referring to, or some example that illustrates what you are talking about. Or better yet, just fix the thing yourself, now that you have the link. FWIW, I have started a talk page discussion, but this is not really a topic area I care to edit. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing list of college programs in EA page

Hello Ronz, I'm curious about why you decided to remove the list of University programs that provide training in Enterprise Architecture from the article on Enterprise Architecture? I believe that the information is valuable. Is there a way to present information about the very few universities offering training in this field, in a way that is in keeping with Wikipedia rules? There had been a section on University programs there earlier with out of date information and I removed it since the list of programs was sufficient. Now I'm regretting my edits.

Suggestions? --- Nick Malik 21:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion nor a repository of links. Sorry that I didn't notice and delete the linkfarm when it was first added. --Ronz (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-add the section discussing the emergence of EA-focused college courses and degrees, with citations to independent sources. That material is useful for readers of the page, in my opinion, because it shows that the field is emerging into wide acceptance and provides information about the content of the college material. Nickmalik (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporating the linkfarm into prose is not a solution. Please take this to the article talk page, and identify independent sources. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see comments in talk page for Enterprise Architecture Nickmalik (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ananta Jalil

Ronz, why did you remove public image and brand endorsement of Ananta? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsterio (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I actually removed was inappropriate, as you well know. Please leave these articles alone if you cannot follow our policies. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craney's 2014 book

Dear Ronz,

I received a message about an edit that I made to the Bonus Army entry, after reading a recent book about the subject. It was my understanding that inclusion of literature and historical novels dealing with the subject is permissible. Was there something in the addition that was contrary to Wikipedia guidelines?

Thanks,18:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.185.172 (talk)

Yes, as pointed out on your talk page. All the edits from this ip promote Craney's new book, which violates multiple policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits on Razorfish

Greetings Ronz,

The recent edits I made that talks about entry of Razorfish in India as RazorfishNeev via Publicis groupe acquisition has been removed from the article. I included the references as well that talks about the acquisition...Request to please help me understand the specific reasons so I can fix it....Appreciate your inputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goagar (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As I pointed out in my edit summary, the information was sourced with two press releases and linkspam to the corporate website. I also notice you have a history of promoting the organization with the same problems at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Neev_Technologies. Did you not understand the concerns there? --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

Yes, I completely understood the concerns there of not having significant coverage from neutral sources. Hence the intent here was just to add some content in Wikipedia article referring the acquisition with neutral sources and was not intended to be promotional in any ways.

If you could advise on the specific steps, I could try to make the necessary improvements in the content and also remove the linkspam to corp. website.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goagar (talk • contribs) 13:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources that are independent, secondary or tertiary, and reliable. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sure...thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goagar (talk • contribs) 04:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Ronz, Would you mind checking below Amazon video and advise if this may be qualify as reliable source for reference

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7QlmnrTK3Q&feature=player_embedded Amazon

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goagar (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not independent, nor is it secondary/tertiary. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz,

I am little confused...In the previous article I was advised that this may be accepted as reliable source as it's directly uploaded by Amazon.

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goagar (talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IS and WP:PSTS. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ronz for inputs!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goagar (talk • contribs) 05:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malik & Bhatt

what mistake i did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamna Aijaz (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases the information was not supported by sources per WP:V and WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meera

Hey I want you to explain to me why it's against wikipedia rules to add controversy section to the articles. There are number of articles on wikipedia that has controversy section. You also removed her date of birth. Well I think that is what appears on her wedding certificate according tribune Pakistan. She is also married to Cap.Naveed but you even removed that from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.233.54 (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it by your self-reverts that you found WP:BLP maybe? --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and apologies

Hello Ronz,

Thanks for letting me know.

Abhishek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekspeare (talk • contribs) 18:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Official links

Why are you deleting the official links from think tank articles in External links? Did you not realize they're official? Please revert your edits. Thanks. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting them per the policies/guidelines that I indicated: WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. Please take some time to be more familiar with them, especially WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the applicable Guidelines:

More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation. In other situations, it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information. Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information. Links that provide consistent information are strongly preferred to social networking and communication services where the content changes rapidly and may not comply with this guideline at any given moment in time. Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing.

The FreedomWorks article is a conglomeration of three separate organizations. Therefore, it has three official links, in which I included the FEC identification. It's important to clarify that the charity isn't the Super PAC isn't the political advocacy group. These are not social media links, or an index of deeplinks on the site. Also, Dmoz is used to avoid an extensive list of relevant links, and should be included:

Links to be considered
Shortcut: WP:ELMAYBE The recommendation to consider professional reviews as external links was repealed (see this archived discussion). The reviews should instead be used as sources in a "Reception" section. Very large pages, such as pages containing rich media files, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages or ones that include file formats which will require plug-ins should be annotated as such.

A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. Many options are available; the Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the dmoz template.

If you have some personal issue with Ballotpedia, I'm not interested in arguing about it with you. You don't want to list them, fine. However, the other listings shouldn't be controversial. (The same explanation goes for the other articles.) 71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If you have some personal issue" Please take a look at WP:DR and WP:BATTLE.

You'll note that I restored the DMOZ link [5]. Sorry that my attempts to do the same for FreedomWorks didn't work and I didn't notice. It's in now [6].

I'm unable to get DMOZ to work atm, but I assume that the links there include those you're concerned about, so the duplication is redundant. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear on this, you are refusing to list those official links, despite the Guidelines? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please follow WP:FOC and WP:BATTLE? --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Performance_indicator

Thanks for your contact. Please give us 24 hours to amend. There are few experts in this field and Spitzer, Parmenter, Barr should be referred to in the post. Wiki, needs to linked to the leading thinkers in this space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjbasil (talk • contribs) 02:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best to find some related articles to follow. As a new editor working on an incredibly poor article you're likely in for a great deal of frustration otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

piper Cheyenne flight simulator

hello,

no I have the piper Cheyenne better integrated in the article. I thin so it es better.

very thanks

Enrico Köhlmann arline captain and flight examiner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.55.220 (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed as WP:SPAM and the IP warned again about spamming and COI since he indicated at User talk:Ahunt that he represents this company. - Ahunt (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Randy_Gage

I noticed your comments on there about User:Johnmoor, I also read the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Editor_Johnmoor. I was interesting in knowing why only a comment was left when it sounded like an advert. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 14:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what you're asking. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soda Stream

I've not actually been paying much attention. I haven't actually seen the blog in question. I was just responding to something sepsis said. I'm just trying to give everyone the chance to try to work together to improve the article before action needs to be taken. What peaked my interest was an argument over the previous name of the Controversy section and the addition of neutral language on the basis of wp:claim when there was no need to infuse neutral language that I could personally see. I'd prefer that everyone be given the chance to chill out abit and try to work together before the admins come in and there's a lock or a ban. If they however don't want that oppurtunity that is certainly their choice.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AE Notice

Please take note of the arbitration request for enforcement I have raised on you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ronz under climate change discretionary sanctions. Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have more important things to do than discuss sources. Unfortunately, we're here to build an encyclopedia, which means our most important discussions are going to be about sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ballotpedia

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ballotpedia. I have no interest in taking part in any private side discussions. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playing games like this doesn't help you. Seems like you're refusing to answer whether or not you are still adding the links. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh

I didn't notice the other one, sorry! I didn't completely understand how the template worked so I did my best from each website's profile. Sorry! Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It simply shouldn't have been in the non-standard location in the first place. You simply added it where it should be. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion or article talk page?

Hi, You said "A" at an article talk page. At the article talk page, I had been sticking with my understanding of "A". I admit I might have misunderstood what you meant by "A". At my talk page you have suggested as much. However, I have already asked you to take it up at the article talk page for the benefit of everyone involved in the discussion. I write in the past tense because right now I am not watching the article talk page. For all I know you have already posted comments at the article talk page in which you clarify what you meant by "A", or if you prefer, in which you challenge what I said at the article talk page about my undertanding of what you meant by "A".

In any case, this is not a matter of personal talk pages. Post your clarification and.or challenge at the article talk page if you have not done so. Alternatively, let's go to WP:THIRD. What say you? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost me. "A"? Could you please provide context as to what you're referring to?

I went to your talk page to try to address your behavior. Rather than discuss it on your talk page, you want to discuss it on the article talk page. I'm against this given WP:FOC, and our policies/guidelines on dealing with editor behavior. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nevermind. File whatever complaint you wish if you feel the need NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you don't want to take responsibility for your behavior, or at least the accuracy of your comments. If you don't care about accuracy, why do you comment? --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NutritionFacts.org / Dr. McDougall

NutritionFacts is a non-profit, and is not "spam" I read up, but maybe missed something. Please cite why pure educational videos are prohibited?

The Dr. McDougall newsletter is usable. He's a Dr in the field, the article is well referenced and fits right in. The hosting web site isn't selling anything.32cllou (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"NutritionFacts is a non-profit" That has nothing to do with the matter. Have you looked at WP:EL?

"Dr. McDougall newsletter is usable." Sorry, no. Have you looked at WP:RS? --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read both wp:el and wp:rs. I agree content should be included in the body of the text.

But in Tea, for example, it would be hard to get permission to feature that brain waves picture, but using the video we legally provide the pictures from that research. The content of the video is well supported by the references. The references are wiki acceptable.

Please direct me to the section of wp:el or rs that I'm missing.

I'm going to see if the content of that McDougall newsletter has been published in a book. I have never read a better summary (clear, well supported/referenced) of lifestyle techniques to moderate mood.32cllou (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at the ELN discussion you started on this dispute. Basically, you've been spamming the links and you're aware of the consensus against using such links. --Ronz (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware the Ornish video was deleted.

You would help me if you pointed me to the section of wp:eln that is being violated (by the other three external links).32cllou (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what happens at ELN. I'll explain there if needed. --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to depend on the ability to put the effective video content in the body of the text. I don't think I can, which is why I'm asking formally.

You find "nealhendrickson.com is not a reliable source [7]"

nealhendrickson.com is simply a newsletter carrier, and there is no link on the Web page linking the reader to nealhendrickson (they are not using the article page to try to sell the newsletter service). The article was written by a medical DR who has had success treating depressed patients. The article is very well referenced. Why does wiki exclude a professionally written "A Natural Cure for Depression" (which is also fully supported by reviews of the research)?32cllou (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand what you're asking: In general, it is self-published, promotional, and without any reputation for fact-checking. In context, it doesn't come near meeting WP:MEDRS, which applies.

You have an interest in science and medicine articles, you have been editing for a year now (congratulations!), and are approaching 1000 edits. It's not easy editing science and medical articles because of the need to differentiate the scientific consensus from the current research from the popular science from the pseudoscience from the anti-science. To help, we have MEDRS and WP:SCIRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree it's promotional. It's a free. Written by a medical DR. Very well referenced. I see much (much) worse (failing the fact-checking test) out in wiki medrs wise. But, I'll not use it.

I suffer from personal opinion, mostly because if I have an opinion, I'm almost always correct.

Being very skeptical, I pretty much rely on reviews. I understand flaws in research (47 of 53 couldn't be reproduced!).

NutritionFacts gave me the tools to cut my cholesterol from ~260 to it's current 140. No more erectile dysfunction. HDL went from ~30 to ~50. Blood pressure from high to 110/70. My eyesight improved significantly (needed to get weaker glasses). Anecdotal, but mostly due to whole plants foods, meditation, and exercise (and never sit for more than 20 minutes).

The research clearly says eat mostly a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes. For mental health too.

MERDS is subject to interpretation (as with ELN). I'll read wp:scirs. If it's better than before; that's been my guide. Lots of people would have benefited from "A Natural Cure for Depression".

May be an improvement, but I understand and abide strict rules. Thanks for your time.32cllou (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to contact McDougall and see if he can't get that properly published.32cllou (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's promotional. McDougall is promoting himself and the host of products he sells on his website.

Being a medical doctor means nothing from Wikipedia's viewpoint. He's not someone involved in the current research, publishing in peer-reviewed and respected journals.

"NutritionFacts gave me the tools" That's great. That's why you're interested in the subject. However, it shouldn't be used as rationale for article content.

My doctor also recommends, backed with very strong medical evidence, proper sleep hygiene and a healthy social life. --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cinsensus

Please read False consensus as there exists no consensus about where Template:CongLinks must be placed, but a very straight-forward Guideline on what belongs in WP:FURTHER. I strongly suggest you read it, along with the associated article and Talk page under consideration, rather than continuing your stalking and harassment of those of us working to improve Wikipedia articles. Your own goal is quite unclear. Did you not read the "discussion" and "consensus" among your friends as to what did not belong in External links? I have no intention of being jerked around from "Not here!" To "Not here!" Is that clear enough? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is quite clear. The CongLinks template goes in "External links" and nowhere else. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Loris

Hi Ronz. I am coming to you as someone I trust as I don't often get involved with deletions and I know that things keep changing. Please check that I have followed the correct procedure here. Much appreciated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz. I see that the deletion notice has already been taken down. I thought that once cannot take down such notices without first allowing for a discussion on it? Please advise. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't clearly meet speedy deletion criteria. I responded on the talk, suggesting making a case for deletion before taking it to AfD. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ronz. Much appreciated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald

Ronz, thanks for catching these. Since the article skeletons added are not themselves promotional , I can't really delete them by speedy, even given the obvious intent of the editor. What I did instead was give the ed. my usual advice about what goes in a journal article, and what they would need to do to get the articles kept. (I will myself check in WoS & Scopus in a hour or so to see if they are covered). For some science publishers, there's a presumption that most of the journals are likely to be notable--though they still need to be checked--but that's not true for this particular publisher.

I see your are removing the outrageous linkspam also. Do you think you got all of it, or do I need to check also?

The only reason I am not immediately blocking the editor is that I want to give him a chance to fix the journal articles to show any possible notability: I'd rather he did the work than I do it myself. I gave a formal level 4 notice, & If he adds one more journal, or one more link, I will block him. If by any chance you see any more such journals or links added by someone new, let me know. As we all know, such things are not unlikely. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, the stubs aren't inherently promotional, so not fitting speedy deletion criteria.

After looking at a few of the journal articles he added, I'm concerned that Emerald might be caught up in some of the problems that are plaguing the industry.

I got all his edits. Emerald is cited quite a bit, and I can't imagine that all their journals are as bad as suggested by the articles that I skimmed through. I wouldn't be surprised if there's spam from other editors, but I'm assuming that most were added in good faith from the few I examined. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice at AN/I - Dmcq's concerns about discussions straying

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruption of talk page by DHeyward. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the AE and withdrawn ANI reports you've written recently, and the general interaction you've been having with others regarding the article, I don't think it was a good idea to start yet another. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fab lab links

Hi, Ronz I added them because the links on the fab lab page are dated, the list hasn't been updated since 2012, the network is now managed by the Fab Foundation and you can locate and add your fab lab on fablabs.io. English is not my mother tongue and I don't feel like I should add things that might be not grammatically correct, and I really hate coding things so I only add minor changes, when I think they can help. I know is my fault for not explaining, and I will not redo the changes, I am not that interested on it. If you think they should be added I left them to you. Yordhana (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)yordhana[reply]

How are the links better than the three links there currently: Fab Lab tools, Fab@Home Home Page, and Fablab tutorials? --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz. I am sorry I don't remember saying they are better (the first one is really important; the two inferiors I don't know, they seem projects to makers and it is fine by me, there are many pages with similar info to download). But if I look for information on fablabs and I want to know if I have one nearby the ones that I proposed are useful and official. Have you visited the links? The 5 ones (the 3 that there are and the 2 I proposed). The ones that are dated are the ones on references not external links. And may be it should be better redoing the text, but I don't feel confident enough. The section to change list of labs for the [Fab Lab Network]. There is an annual Fab convention (this year is fab 10, this is official) and they are using discounts for fablabs to register on the site, therefore fablabs are updating information this year, 2014 not 2012 as [mit's page]. And it would be nice to change the history and add something like this "The Fab Foundation was formed February 9, 2009 to facilitate and support the growth of the international fab lab network". This is managed by [the people working in MIT], Neil included. If you know about digital fabrication Neil is like Jobs on computer's community. If you are a maker or want to know more about digital fabrication and want to know if you have a fablab nearby they are the best options, they are updated. There is also a [Wiki of fablabs] I don't know how updated is this one. There are fablabs that are dead now and it is a growing community. I am new on digital fabrication therefore I have been looking for information and I found the ones I proposed useful. I am a PHD student my expertise is visual disability and mass media. I left engineering because I hate coding. I though this would help people to find fablabs nearby and they are official (two of the three that there are I don't feel they are official, but maybe are useful to fablab community, I don't know enough about digital fabrication to make the call). Digital fabrication is a new hobby of mine. My business or my life don't depend on this therefore I don't want to expend more time. I don't mean to be disrespectful and I understand and respect your concern. Thank you for your hard work. Excuse me, my primary language is not english :) --Yordhana — Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I will look into this closer and try to get others to help. I haven't looked closely at the references... --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz, I am sorry I was a little upset because I thought you didn't checked and only deleted it. So my emotions took the best of me. I understand my behaviour could seem suspicious, and I was a little frustrated because I am unskilled but my intentions were good. I think this entry needs updating. If I can help, count me in. I know a little but what I don't I can ask friends at the fablab I go. Moreover I am a good info-seeker (studies fault) :) Yordhana (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Yordhana[reply]

List of scientists... revert

I have been in the discussion for notability in the lead. I don't see much in that section where you participated. Dmcq proposed it. it didn't have consensus. It was reverted. Now you have put it back in. Please read the discussion "Notability in the lead." Notability isn't conferred by vague topic identities, it's through secondary sources about the list itself. Please revert to the pre-bold status as there is no consensus to add it so it can be discussed some more. --DHeyward (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we have a difference of opinion.

"I don't see much" Please WP:FOC.

"it didn't have consensus" Howso?

"Notability isn't conferred by vague topic identities, it's through secondary sources about the list itself." I can't say that I understand what you are trying to say with that.

I see no problem with leaving it in. As I pointed out, it is a NPOV violation to remove notability-related information from articles. I believe it applies to lists such as this one. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find that he had consensus? Considering the reverts and the lack of consensus was brought to ANI, I'm not sure where you believe consensus was achieved? My comment that you FOC's was in reply to your request that I participate (as if I hadn't). I particpated quite a bit and is why I know there is no consensus to add it. The material that was added wasn't about the notability of that article/list. It was about other lists with other criteria evaluated by different people. Had he put in material that WP's list was notable, that would be a different story. Our list is not a summary of another list and that's the only time other primary source material would be allowed as some criteria. They have apples, we have oranges. They are not the same. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Where did you find that he had consensus? ...there is no consensus to add it." What? How about we drop the claims of consensus and focus on content and policies?

So you are saying that our list has nothing in common with other lists? I can see a point there...

As I pointed out, I think the primary sources need to be de-emphasized. That's the other lists, correct?

As I've also pointed out, we've decided to restrict our list to scientists. So have they. And we've lots of sources on why this type of restriction is so very important. So I don't think we're comparing apples to oranges. They're all oranges, just different lists. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biodynamic agriculture

Good afternoon Ronz. I'm fairly new to wiki, but I've been tasked to update the biodynamic wiki based on changes made by Jim Fullmer made and sent my class. May I inquire to which aspects were not neutral? This is a big project I'm trying to tackle by myself and I only wish to update it with information and their sources but it will take some time to get it all completed. Best, NeverendingAlchemist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverendingAlchemist (talk • contribs) 21:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Ronz, I'm fairly new to editing on Wiki. May I inquire to what parts were not as neutral as they should be? I've been tasked to make some edits based on a document that was sent to me via Jim Fullmer. It's going to take me a long time to get everything in order with the correct citations. Any advice would be so very much appreciated. Thank you for your time, NeverendingAlchemist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverendingAlchemist (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again Ronz, but I was just wondering if you could point out in the selection I added that wasn't neutral so I made read the neutral page and see what was wrong. This would greatly help my understanding of what is and isn't acceptable. Thanks again for your time, NeverendingAlchemist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverendingAlchemist (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the removal of "mysticism" and "astrology", a neutral description being replaced by one sourced by a non-independent source, and undue weight given to another source (which appears to have a very strong point of view).

The article falls under WP:FRINGE and WP:ARBPS, which means among other things that we need to pay careful attention to any claims that contradict scientific consensus.

The past discussions about the article give some insight into what is and what is not neutral: Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture/Archive1 Talk:Biodynamic agriculture/Archive2 --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COI as well. --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.ME page

Dear Ronz, you have removed my changes on .ME page. Resource sites are backed by .ME of course! blog, the resource on .ME. Check it with the industry experts. It was used on the page before to back the data. If you read the text, I corrected to match the timeline and to back up the data, e.g., sales etc. I have been editing .ME for ages along with other .ME registry staff. Let me welcome you to discuss things with people who make .ME happen. Thank you! Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 00:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sounds like you have a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on my Talk page: no. Let's keep further conversation there in one place. Thank you. Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 01:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Which is what we've both been doing. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Refaeli et al

Thank you for the above. On other matter, why did you remove the external links on Bar's page? Those are links to her official resources. Under.Me is her brand for instance... Okay, Wikipedia does not like Facebook profile links, although they are plenty on other articles... Please explain. Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 02:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

May I suggest putting those links back? I do not want a war on this ;) awaiting your arguments. Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 02:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Explained on your talk page:[8] [9].

It is also one of the links where you have spammed not just it, but others related to it. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please paraphrase this sentence? I struggle to understand this grammatically unparsable construction. I was not spamming, and neither were other people whose links you have removed. Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 03:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I've noticed that your go article after article I have previously edited and remove external links, even those not added by me. I find this sort of a war. Please be constructive. There is no need to "revenge" on me. Think about data relevance. As I stated before, whenever referencing, I am adding trusted and verified resources. Then why are you removing other links? E.g., official pages, etc? Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 02:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"I find this sort of a war." See WP:BATTLE.

As I indicated, the links should be removed. I'm cleaning up some others at the same time. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing information without reasoning. Q: Why did you remove the link to official Bar's page Under.Me? It is not a battle. It looks like more bad retaliation ;) if it can only make you happy. Please explain concrete link removals. Try not to avoid the answers. Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 02:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Why did you remove the link to the official page of Jörn-Uwe Fahrenkrog-Petersen? Please stop. Take a break. Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 02:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Under.Me was remove per WP:ELNO #1, 4, 5, 13, 19. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same with the band's website that has no information on the person. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are Official links and hence should stay. Please read the corresponding rules on the same page. Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 02:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You have removed many official pages, e.g., Bar's, Uwe's, but not Profile. Official pages are so okay to stay in External links. Please revert the corresponding changes you have just made. Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 03:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You were fully right to remove dsignmusic.com link. +1! Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 03:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The corporate sites (Under.Me and andersfahrenkrog.com) might be considered exceptions given that there really are no official sites about the individual people that I can find, so a link to an official site to a corporation might be acceptable. Take it to WP:ELN to get others' opinions. --Ronz (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that kapchuk.com is an official site. A link directly to the profile is preferred when it provides information directly applicable to the article. --Ronz (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under.Me is even more official. Have you checked it before removing? Also -1 on removing femen.tv - please put it back. It is a unique video collection that defines the movement. You have removed too many links without looking at the matter. Stop destroying. Start creating. Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 03:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"Stop destroying. Start creating." If you're unable to control your behavior, I'm going to ask you to stop commenting here. --Ronz (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you minding my control. It is very kind of you. Please also answer the answered questions posted above. Thank you. Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 03:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please note that any further outbursts, accusations, etc will end this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did further research for official websites for Refaeli and Fahrenkrog-Petersen. Turns out Refaeli has a facebook page, so I added it as the best official website. I restored the group's site for Fahrenkrog-Petersen, noting it is for the group and not him, as I was not able to find anything remotely close to an official site. I won't contest it's removal by someone else. --Ronz (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official FB: https://www.facebook.com/UweFahrenkrogPetersen You should also restore http://www.nena.de/ the other relevant and verified links http://www.anders-fahrenkrog.com/ and http://www.anders-fahrenkrog-shop.com/ Bar's profile has all the links you need, but you have removed it. Please restore. Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 03:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for identifying his Facebook page. I'm replacing the group link with it. --Ronz (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea where you want nena.de restored.

The group links stay out per the above, now that it's clear ELOFFICIAL doesn't apply to them. --Ronz (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. The group link is also an Official site that should stay. FB has been quite for a while as Uwe is just enjoying life not doing much new these days. Nena is the former group. You should then link to Nena (band) and maybe to Nena Die Band (album). And there have nena.de. Right? Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 04:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Rarely does more than one official site apply, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.

I changed the link from Nena to Nena (band). His article needs a great deal of work - too much detail, almost no sources. --Ronz (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good sources never hurt. This is my credo. This is why I prefer to keep them rather than delete. What about femen.tv? Why did you remove it? Wikipedyst ^{Talk to Wikipedyst} 04:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

WP:ELMINOFFICIAL again. --Ronz (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation to point out manufactured denial?

Assertion that individuals are truly part of a vast conspiracy is a major BLP violation. Please self-revert on the talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Straw man, a misrepresentation of what I wrote. Please drop it. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whirlwind Recordings page

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

Hi Ronz,

I noticed your edits to the Whirlwind Recordings page. Could you please detail the jazz experience that you're using to decide which artists in their discography are notable? Could you also take a moment to read the entry's Talk page? I hope it might shed some light on the page and my contribution. Thanks! Jasondcrane (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand, but you're a new editor in a bit of a bind.

I strongly suggest you take some time to learn your way around Wikipedia. We certainly could use your expertise here, but as a paid editor you've put yourself in a position where you need to learn Wikipedia quickly. You might want to look over this essay and The Missing Manual. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please include detail? You use words like "advertisement" and "hype" with no proof whatsoever, and no description of what you object to, and no reference to your own experience with the subject or to the way this subject is treated elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's not enough for you to personally object. Please document and provide evidence. Jasondcrane (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, which you need to be familiar with given your conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New editor

Thanks. I didn't remove anything at Isabel Gomez-Bassols's biography. The editor has attacked me at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_19#Semir_Osmanagi.C4.87. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed. I'm hoping the direction will deescalate the situation... --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hallsofreiki.com as a source and Naravi

Your message: Hello, I'm Ronz. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Also note that I don't believe that hallsofreiki.com would be considered as a reliable source in Wikipedia.

My Reply: Thank you for quoting wikipedia's glory. My contributions shall always be verifiable. In the reiki section, hallsofreiki.com was referred because, its reliability was confirmed by additional researches done by the Reiki practitioners. If you just say 'I don't believe', that does not suffice to place an argument.

(I am extremely sorry so say that: I think you were busy in teaching others, than learning by yourself).

Can you be more specific to point out (regarding reiki), where my edits seemed less neutral to you? As you reverted back, the controversies regarding its history will catch fire again. Neutral means, not related to any party. Can you make clear with any administrative rights , or any research capabilities associated with you, or any special impacts related to the true origin of Reiki as a physical material proof.? So that I will be sure, to what extent I should invest my time in this.

You have also removed the updated (missing) information regarding Naravi. Can you visit Naravi and make a analytic research? the information related to naravi is also visible in satellite imagery and maps. I replaced the edits back. If you cant verify its sources, its just because, these places and their heritage is not properly documented in the database. Their archaeological and historical evidences are available in the museums and history books.

Please be informed that in India, there are several locations which have volumes of information which cant be held by wiki pages. Regards Johnson Dcunha (Net800)

I suggest reviewing WP:NPOV carefully. There's even a tutorial and FAQ to help.

If you think hallsofreiki.com might be usable, start a discussion at WP:RSN.

As for the Naravi edits, they're completely without sources and promotional. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sweetoriole

Why do you come to my personal user page and undo redits I made? Maybe I should start harass your page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetoriole (talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't identify yourself, so I explained the situation to the ip that you used here.

Since you've continued to spam the websites, I'll write up a report and notify you. --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#deprivationtank.com --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me why it's wrong to add deprivationtank.com for "further reading" as it does provide useful information regarding the subject "isolation tank".

As far as other websites - I fixed dead links by recovering information from archive.org.

How any of these things are bad for wikipedia.org readers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.135.134.147 (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#deprivationtank.com. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University Canada west

Please, explain why my university canada west updates have been deleted? I'm print screening my changes and have followed the Wikipedia instructions in editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goburst (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the information you added about the founder as being grossly undue and promotional. The source you provided is a pr firm. I realize that UCW is trying to clean up their image, but Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion and public relations. --Ronz (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting review of draft article about Enterprise Architecture notable - Brian Cameron

Hello Ronz,

I've noticed your interest in articles dealing with Enterprise Architecture over the years and have come to rely on your excellent skills in editing for Wikipedia. I'm proposing an article on Dr. Brian Cameron, Executive Director of the Center for Enterprise Architecture at Penn State. Draft:Brian_H._Cameron As I have a conflict of interest, I'm asking other editors for their opinion and contribution to the article (see talk page for details).

If you have a few moments to spare, could you look over the draft page above and provide feedback on whether it meets Wikipedia standards for notability, neutral point of view, and good style? Nickmalik (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to look it over for you. --Ronz (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Slow-motion edit war at Young Earth creationism. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better to WP:FOC and WP:KEEPCOOL. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Shankar References

Dear Ronz,

I just want to say that I am not a spam as you mentioned it. I just have corrected the link of this academic article by adding all the references.

Could you please undo your changes. Thanks in advance.

Kumara108 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I didn't mean for my edits to be interpreted that you did something wrong in any way.

If you check the article history as I did, you'll see both the "references" that I removed were added without any changes to the content or other indication that they were sources. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial photosynthesis

Hello, i saw you had a dispute with a user here about artificial photosynthesis. Today the user is part of a ANI request, because of his framing and addition of snippets about AP to various articles. Maybe you have an opinion? Thanks. Prokaryotes (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he has continued to cause the same problems all this time, then something needs to be done. I'll look into it. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NimbusWeb (talk · contribs) - likely coi and sockpuppetry. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic rays

Hi, i saw you commented on related topics, so maybe you have an opinion in this regard as well? prokaryotes (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely I'll have time to get up to speed on the subject matter fast enough to help. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to photomedicine revision

Ronz,

Thank you for your note regarding the removal of my link to the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Inc. (ASLMS). Although I still feel that the link would be pertinent to the article, after reading the links you provided, I understand why you deemed it inappropriate for the encyclopedia.

I appreciate you calling my attention to the issue. Kweas558 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me. Sorry you weren't notified earlier. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simulation library Aivika

Hi Ronz,

Thanks a lot for removing a link to my simulation library Aivika written in Haskell from the list of discrete event simulation with conclusion "not notable". By number of characterstics my library is not similar to other ones, somewhere even unique, pretending to be a multi-paradigm simulation library. Such commercial software existed before but I did not see yet such an approach that would be essentially based on the functional programming, which suited very well in my case for formalizing many simulation tasks covering very many simulation paradigms from System Dynamics, from event-oriented DES, from activity-oriented DES to process-oriented DES (both the low level as in SimPy and high level using the streams).

Moreover, my library simulates faster than SimPy your retained, but my library also allows integrating ODE and modeling other paradigms of DES that SimPy does not even support.

I would be very appreciated if you could call another simulation library with such number of characterstics, not only open-source as my library Aivika.

Best regards, David Sorokin — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Sorokin (talk • contribs) 08:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. Has anyone written about your library in sources that might be considered reliable? --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz,

I’m only aware of a very short mention of my library in master’s thesis Improving Performance of Simulation Softwarvery Using Haskell’s Concurrency & Parallelism [1] By Nikoloas Bezirgiannis (one of the French users of my library provided me with a link to it). Nikoloas also uses the Haskell programming language like me.

I can only add that there is an official repository [2] of mainly open source libraries for the Haskell Platform. I uploaded the first version of my library [3] a few years ago (please look at version 0.1) and almost every Haskeller interested in the simulation could test my library many times. If there were principal errors in my method then I would know about them a long time ago.

Together with the editors of the Russian journal The Practice of the Functional Programming [4] I worked on an article about my library, but it seems the common enthusiasm of the authors and editors could not pass the test of the time. As far as I understand, the chief editor Eugene Kirpichov works in Google now. By the way, he gave me very good and helpful advices about the library.

Meantime, I have to accept that I have no solid references. Actually, I am going to write an article for one of the Haskell conferences (for whom there is no need to explain what Monad, Arrow, Continuation, Stream and other scary words mean). Also I recently added an announce [5] on the specialised web site, where the modelers working in the System Dynamics field are represented mainly (that people organizes a conference about System Dynamics).

The approach I invented is not similar to other ones existed for other programming languages, although I just applied approved in the practice ideas of the Functional Programming (FP) to the simulation field. There are somewhere similar Haskell libraries but I did not see yet such a Haskell library (at least, an open source one) that would have so wide cover of different simulation paradigms as in my library. Actually, I did not invented anything new in principle. I just applied the known FP ideas to the simulation field, while other methods (especially based on OOP) were popular for many decades and still remain very popular till present. In some sense I just compiled the known ideas.

But here is a real problem that Haskell is very different from the mainstream languages such as C++, Java or C#. So, not every modeler is able even to read the Haskell's API. The functional programming is just a very different standpoint on how the computer programs can be written.

So, I think that my library can be interested at least as some alternative approach that have also a right to exist. Why not to represent it in Wikipedia, especially if the library is free and open source? I have no gain any money from it. Moreover, it is based on so simple ideas (from the point of view of the functional programmer) that it just must work per se, at least its core, and my tests demonstrate namely this (I use the models from the free and open documentation of other simulation software tools such as SimPy and from the books).

Thanks, David

[1] http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/284708

[2] http://hackage.haskell.org

[3] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/aivika

[4] http://fprog.ru

[5] http://systemdynamics.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8#p2209

P.S. Excuse me, it seems I cannot understand how the markup works here :)

David Sorokin (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, tends to exclude information that is not documented by independent parties. About all you can do is find a few extremely relevant articles and bring up the subject on the article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation - List of scientists...

I politely urged you to self-revert your BLP violation. You did not. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Deny_science --S Philbrick (Talk) 23:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's no BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ended the discussion on the talk page, I wanted to note we had an edit-conflict when you did:

As you point out "denialist" is a label. Denialism is not. Being part of a denialism effort, and simply stating that they don't agree with the science (rather than participating in the science) is denialism. In this manner, they deny the science.

I've not looked, but I recall seeing other editors mention on the talk page (maybe some years ago) that there are one or two(?) scientists we list who have actually published something against the accepted climate change theories/models/etc in respectable journals. Given that there's almost no such articles published anymore at all, I think it's safe to assume that none are currently active in the science. There is strong scientific consensus, and as far as I know, no one we list is actively involved in the science. Even if there is, it is an exception. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it's safe to assume..." <-- it isn't. Several people on the list are active in science and are actively persuing their views in journals. I count at least 8 without having to rely on a journal database to verify [ie. i've read a new paper by them within a year or two on the topic]. And even more importantly: It is not a wikipedia editors choice to make, that is why we have such a strong WP:BLP policy. --Kim D. Petersen 15:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry. Working with the best info I had, including the fact that despite the massive financing behind climate change denial, actual science publication has dropped to the insignificant.

Most importantly, it doesn't change a thing. There's no BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Job Scheduling software

Why do you remove entries ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevSoft (talk • contribs) 04:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not notable. See WP:N and WP:WTAF. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is notable defined ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevSoft (talk • contribs) 21:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability.

I left you a message earlier on your talk page. Please change your username or get a different account. Otherwise you're at risk of being blocked, especially now that you did this. --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did this and you still removed it. Why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQM03 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you think you did? --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I logged on with a different account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQM03 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You solved the problem with your username. Thanks!

You continued to promote your product - that could get you blocked. --Ronz (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FreeMedForms not being notable.

Hello!

Fact: FreeMedForms is the only free software EMR managing drug-drug interactions. In the world. Ever. Isn't that notable? :)

Please have a look at the end of this page: http://freemedforms.com/en/start FreeMedForms was presented in 5 national or international Free Software events. It is included in DebianMed, Debian and Ubuntu repositories. It is translated in 10 languages.

List of external reviews (I'm sorry if everything is not in english, but the fact is all human knowledge is not produced in english):

If we apply your standards, we should remove at least 50% of softwares listed on this page.

I'll try to write FreeMedForms page in my user space. You're invited to review it.

Please don't censor me before I can even express myself.

Are you in the medical field yourself? I am a replacement general practice doctor in France and I've worked in dozens of practices, on dozens of different medical softwares. I'm writing my thesis about the use of medical software to avoid adverse events caused by oral anticoagulants.

If you think I can't create or edit a page on those subjects, have a look at this: https://www.zotero.org/groups/freemedforms/items Those are only a few of the 200 articles I've read on the subject of EMR in the last 3 years. I can send you my entire bibliography if you wish.

Thank you for your help.

Jérôme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medecinelibre (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me.

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

By notable, I mean that there is no existing article for it, so it may not meet WP:N.

WP:CREATE should be helpful in getting the article started.

After looking over all the links you listed, I don't think they demonstrate notability as required by WP:N. Has the software been reviewed by anyone that might be considered a reliable source? Perhaps it's just to early for such reviews? --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OER inquiry

Hi Hipal, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EL link removal

I was working on some OTRS requests, and one person inquired about a link that was removed.

It is our policy to let the person know who made the removal and how to contact you.

The edit is here.

I did explain that the removal was because of a violation of the EL policy, and provided a link to the policy. I do not know whether they will follow up with you, but wanted to give you a heads up.--S Philbrick (Talk) 01:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Routine cleanup on my part, over a year ago, followed by closer examination of the remaining links that ended up in the removal of much more.

Looks like a couple spammers have been causing problems since my edit and were blocked.

Thanks for the heads up! --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

seriously, a double even. I appreciate you looking out and your genuine intentions. SAS81 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starchild skull

Which line of WP:ELNO are you referring to here? I'd have thought it would pass under "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." The entire article is pretty much about that one website's viewpoint, and why it is wrong. --McGeddon (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. #1 as well. Given that it a site run by a group founded by Pye, it misleads specifically for their own benefit. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that it's permissible under "except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting". #1 doesn't seem to apply because a hypothetical featured article would not contain every crackpot, peer-ignored detail of Pye's theories. We link timecube.com from the Time Cube article so that the reader can dive in for themselves - the Starchild Skull article doesn't seem significantly different. --McGeddon (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my confusion there.

The article is about the skull, not the website as in the case of Time Cube. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-level marketing

Multi-level marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You have removed my editing I edited the post as a number of points others had put were totally false They kept referring to MLM or network marketing being connected to pyramid schemes. This has never been the case, Infact those schemes have been illegal since the 1970's Infact companies are now looking at legal action against anyone stating their company being involved with illegal pyramid schemes No specific company was slandered or insulted. Just the legally correct facts The original post did stat false facts I even added the details of the authority that monitors this industry, so if anyone is unsure, they can seek further advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanBean3 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove your edits.

However, I agree with their removal because you removed sourced material without explanation, and fundamentally changed the perspective of the article without providing sources that demonstrate such a change is warranted. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the social media wikipedia page, deletion of media ideology

New media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Social media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Ronz,

Can you give me more detail and suggestion so that I can still have that content in wikipedia? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qq243815579 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me on this.

My concerns are that the material needs much more context to be understandable, and that the reliance on the single source makes me wonder if these ideas are actually accepted enough for us to even present them.

If we could focus on a single article, we could take the discussion there where it would be easier to get others' ideas. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Multi-level marketing may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

of direct selling rather than ''being'' direct selling.<ref name="Edwards, Paul 2010 pg 38-39">(Edwards, Paul; Sarah Edwards, Peter Economy (2010) ''Home-Based Business For Dummies, 3rd Edition''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

beginning of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hey, I added some information to this page because I believed that it was relevant to the definition. However, I saw that you deleted it. I was just wondering why?Vishwajraval (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered here. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voip-info.org spam links

10+ spam links of Voip-info.org have been removed by me. I would request you to blacklist this domain on Wikipedia.

Itsalleasy (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That one looks especially bad. Write a report and indicate who has been doing the spamming. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the issues on Silex page

Hello

I saw your corrections on Silex website builder, and I thank you :)

Silex is community projet and I am the lead developer. We help local non profit organizations with it here in Paris. And we try to give more possibility to non developers.

How would you suggest I fix the "self-published comparison with competitors"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.194.253.203 (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me about this.

The article needs a complete rewrite from sources that are secondary/tertiary and independent.

Let me look over what's been going on with the article more carefully... --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk this to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLPTALK

I obviously didn't make myself clear enough for you. You are using an exemption for content that has be removed immediately to imply that such exempted content is always acceptable. It is not. You're now touting this misconception over three editors' talk pages and you need to stop. When multiple editors tell you that you're misinterpreting policy, it's not an invitation for you to argue the point in multiple locations; it's a sign that you need to start listening.

The purpose of the exception for "making content choices" is to prevent an over-vigorous application of the requirement to thoroughly source negative content about living persons. It is not a free pass to write such negative content on talk pages with weak or non-existent sources.

It is worthless to assert Clearly, if it is an inappropriate use of the talk page, then it is "not related to making content choices" because that simply moves to question to how 'inappropriate' is defined, and that becomes a subjective judgement. We have the BLP policy and it does not mention 'inappropriate' other than in discussing the maintenance of articles - i.e. in mainspace. Nowhere does our policy suggest that we have to prove content is inappropriate in order to remove it from elsewhere. You should remember that BLPTALK is the policy that applies to non-article space (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons #Non-article space):

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted.

There is certainly no exception for contentious material anywhere in article space - and that includes article talk pages.

We also have to be aware that Foundation policy on BLPs makes certain demands of us and we cannot ignore them, particularly the need for verifiability. It would not be a tenable position for WMF to allow "what looks like a libelous statement" to remain while a discussion ensues about whether it is libellous or not. Surely you can agree that such material is better removed as a precautionary measure? That does not prevent us from examining the sources that are claimed to support the statement, and it does not close down the discussion, but it does avert the possibility of WMF becoming liable and the consequent reputational harm to our projects. --RexxS (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were clear. I simply don't take the positions you repeatedly claim that I do

"Let's be perfectly clear: Yes, caution needs to be taken even when the discussion is related to making content choices." I guess I need to be clearer still? At the same time, I'm not going to waste our time pretending I take a position that I don't.

"It is worthless to assert 'Clearly, if it is an inappropriate use of the talk page, then it is "not related to making content choices"' because that simply moves to question to how 'inappropriate' is defined, and that becomes a subjective judgement." I see your point. I was looking for common ground. My point was that we have clear consensus on appropriate and inappropriate use of talk pages (in WP:TALK and related policies/guidelines). Granted, it doesn't clarify BLPTALK much, but it is related and relevant.

Likewise, I identified libelous statements as another area where I believe we have common ground. Clearly libelous statements in otherwise appropriate discussions about improving article content on a talk page should be removed.

What I assumed didn't need mentioning was another area of agreement and general consensus: Well-sourced statements based upon high-quality sources that don't violate our other content policies are not BLP violations.

I hope this clears up the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz - Thank you for the advise!

Hi Ronz - Thank you for noting that I do not have enough references to qualify an article. I'm brand new and appreciate the advise! Wildcress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcress (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I added a bit more on your talk page. Good luck, and let me know if I can be of further help. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sprained ankle

Hello, I'm Belchford. I wanted to let you know that I agree with your assessment of the bupa.co.uk link. However, I think that the link to advice by the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) is relevant, impartial and by a professional body. I do not see a difference to the link that is already in that external link section. Therefore, I request that the link is reinstated or request that you explain what substantial difference between the existing and my suggested link exists. Thank you. --Belchford (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a how-to, and the link seems redundant with current references in the article. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus - DMOZ links again

Please discuss rather than wiki-filibustering, or you may find yourself blocked from all political articles. Threatening me with a block because you refuse to stay on topic and follow the Guidelines is not going to work. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked once for this. Your accusations are simply without merit, but do take your concerns to WP:ELN if you feel you have a case. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one else has a problem with the long-established WP:ELMAYBE consensus regarding DMOZ. If you and Binksternet believe your personal opinions and agenda should override this, I suggest YOU take it up. This isn't my problem, this is yours. 71.23.178.214 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's see about getting you blocked again. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why you removed my references to greybmusings.wordpress.com

Hey Ronz,

Give me a single reason behind removing my references when they were from credible source. All were from a website that use to research patents of companies to bring technology news for their fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitin93flanker (talk • contribs) 05:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:REFSPAM, and not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hii Ronz, It's clear. I think you consider me as a spammer. However, I am not. :) I can understand. You are on a noble mission of preventing spams from Wikipedia. If you have time please read articles on that blog and the references of the patent applications that are given. If you believe it is good to share on Wikipedia then please let me know. I mean I don't want to add any such things now as I will be regarded as a spammer then.

Thanks Ronz.

Regards, Nitin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitin93flanker (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to miss the point. It's not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special Request

Hi Ronz,

I would like to ask a big favor... I am about to write an article about my website http://www.isnare.com but it turns out very difficult for me because being the owner I would just be writing a promotional article instead.

I would like to ask a favor for you to at least start the few lines about the website's article and I will just supply the rest and you as the peer reviewer.

Thanks, Glenn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gprialde (talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theory Of Constraints External Links

Today I added back two important external links to the page of Theory of Constraints. A page that I have a great professional interest in and am very unhappy with the quality of the input there. Philip Maris put the external link to the Organization known as TOCICO - Theory of Constraints International Certification Organization - in Sept 2013. This was also removed.

What is the basis for the continual removal of these sources of information? Is knowledge bounded only within Wikipedia? Can valid information not exist outside of Wikipedia? Do you have subject matter expertise in this particular area?

A number of people from this community of specialists would like to edit this page, but when we have done so in the past it has been removed and other material added. Several parts of this page do not exist in any of the extant literature. It is as though someone is hunting for negativities and find this very troubling.

49.225.70.214 (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. See WP:EL for details on external links.

WP:TUTOR might help you get started editing. You can't go far wrong if you add material from sources that are both reliable and independent. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid Scheme article.

Dear Ronz, First of all thank you for your time. I'm here writing because of the changes required on the article about pyramid schemes.

I really enjoy the article and it is well written in general. The only thing I was trying to change (and I apologize for my inexperience) is that from the article come out that Multilevel marketing appears like a pyramid scheme. That's not true because multilevel marketing is a legal business practice used by many companies around the world to market products and services in the free enterprise system, the same system that allows us to write on Wikipedia. And I believe is not good for the Wikipedia community to misrepresent and confuse the two of them. Pyramid schemes are Illegal and prosecuted by the law. Multilevel marketing is legal. So is incorrect to say "multilevel marketing plans are also been classified as pyramid schemes" based only on opinions of authors instead of what the law says.

If multilevel marketing was been classified as a pyramid scheme don't you think the law would have prohibited it?

And the other part I considered with no fundament is this "According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, many MLM schemes "simply use the product to hide their pyramid structure.".[31] the link number 31 lead to a 'page not found', so there are no more proof of what and if the U.S. Federal Trade and Commission said.

I really appreciate your time to read my request of help and I wish you a wonderful day.

Michele Fadda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.pieve (talk • contribs) 02:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people and organizations break the law. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz That doesn't mean that you have to cover the whole industry with negative prejudice. Example: Some police officers made mistakes in the past, it happened many times, but nobody ever talked bad about the police itself Ronz. You must recognize that. All I am asking is not to talk bad about multilevel marketing industry itself. It is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.pieve (talk • contribs) 01:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're trying to change the content and point-of-view based upon your personal beliefs and original research. That violates some of our most important content policies, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CLEAR framework for deletion

I noticed that you contributed to the page CLEAR Framework for Enterprise Architecture in the past. I have submitted the page for deletion through the WP:AFD process. Please feel free to join the discussion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CLEAR_Framework_for_Enterprise_Architecture Nickmalik (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Open Kanban

Ronz, the information on Kanban is inaccurate right now, and is already an advertising for Lean Kanban University. Open Kanban is open source, the same as Wikipedia. LKU Kanban or The Kanban Method is not, and is not the only Kanban available now either.

Can we agree on what is the offending part of describing Open Kanban? It is not an ad, it is a valid Kanban alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeLeanVoice (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got any sources other than their own? Without such sources, there is no justification for any mention of either. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, okay I am new to Wikipedia. I just saw the Kanban entries were very incomplete, and wanted to put the additional content that would help people know what Kanban varieties are available today. What would be a good independent sources? Would GitHub, or blogs be appropriate for a third party perspective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeLeanVoice (talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me. Responding on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I understand what sources are needed, thanks for explaining, I will update the entry with third party sources about Open Kanban; including those from Github or independent blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeLeanVoice (talk • contribs) 00:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veena Malik films

Do you know if Veena Malik has acted in the films like Mr. Money, Rabhasa, The City That Never Sleeps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Improvingthepen (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I just try to maintain her article. --Ronz (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personality test article

Hi Ronz, just letting you know that I listed the 'external links' issue on the personality test article, on the relevant Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard for other editors to help resolve.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to look into it further when I have more time. --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Key Performance Parameters

The creator of this article doesn't seem to realise that these aren't unique to the UD DoD. I'm not sure what to do about it. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)a[reply]

Thanks for bringing it up, I'll look into it when I get a chance.

There's some discussion somewhere? --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the brief user talk page comments. I see the dilemma, but no solution other than researching the phrase well enough to clarify how it is used and if any use is actually deserving of an article. Sorry I can't be more help at this time. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

disruption?

Hey Ronz, I want to see if we can work this out. You've claimed a number of times now that my participation has been disruptive. I certainly don't agree, but if it has, it has been unintentional. I would like you to specifically show, with a diff, what my 'disruptive' behaviors are. If it's based on a misunderstanding, then I am going to ask you to retract the statement. If it's based on something factual and you can explain it to me, I will adjust the behavior.SAS81 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me about this.

I'm at a loss what can be done. You've been given plenty of advice along the way, but your behavior hasn't changed.

From my observations: you're not learning the policies and guidelines that are at the core of most of the disputes, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV; you're not restricting your participation on the article talk page to requests that only involve what policies/guidelines you do understand; you're putting your conflict of interest over our policies and guidelines.

I've seen a great deal of editors working with a conflict of interest. From that perspective, I think your comments on the article talk page fit neatly into WP:CPUSH with a conflict of interest.

Given Wikipedia's lack of consensus on how to deal with such problems, I'm more concerned at this point with deescalating editors' frustrations with you. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked on the article talk page as well, I left you some suggestions on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Beachbody Page

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

Hello Ronz, I wanted to reach out regarding the recent changes to the Beachbody page. Just about all of my edits have been deleted and I'm not sure why. I did my best to not write in a promotional manner, so I'm not really sure what was objectionable about it. If you could let me know, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks, alvb — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A large portion of the article has been removed mostly because it was highly promotional in nature. There were also problems related to WP:EL, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz - Sandeep Khurana

Hi Ronz

Fixes have been made for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandeep_Khurana as you recommended, to the references section, the Positive Health links are fixed (they were changed by Positive Health Online a while ago on their website, now we have the correct new links) Also, a new link to another article in Positive Health has also been added. Please review.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.174.90.231 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! At some point editors need to go through the article history and try to determine what each reference actually verifies. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor 2014 refs

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for your email and message. I don't understand why my contributions have been deleted. The contributions I made improved the pages - some of which contained incomplete, erroneous and quite outdated information. My colleagues and I teach design and colour theory at university level and hence it seems appropriate to update the pages using more current information and reference texts, especially as so many of our students go straight to Wikipedia as their first research source. I ask that you reinstate these contributions and I will also include a greater range of citations to substantiate my contributions.

Best regards, Denny Touma (~Kesterton) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesterton (talk • contribs) 01:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete them all, but most that hadn't already been deleted by others.

The edits looked like WP:REFSPAM, and it was done after and editor claiming to be the author had attempted to do the same. Adding a new reference to the beginning of an article will get the attention of most regular editors, as Wikipedia has very serious problems with people trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Adding the same or similar references to multiple articles, gets far more attention. Doing it soon after publication, even more. Doing it after another editor with a WP:COI, even more. I hope you understand.

Besides the concerns of promotion (the actual policies/guidelines are WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:SOCK), there's the matter of rewriting the introduction of an article with a new reference. Wikipedia's guideline is WP:LEAD. Because the introduction of an article is supposed to introduce, summarize, and highlight important aspects; these changes at least could use some discussion and review to ensure that new information isn't being added.

My suggestion is to pick one article to start. If you want to work in the introduction, I suggest choosing an article more specific to the references and your area of expertise. On the other hand Monochromatic color has almost no content and is in need of expansion and more references. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Morris' uploads to Scribd

I've read your comments and noted your edits. The world is moving-on and new knowledge is being generated continuously. For Wikipedia to remain relevant new knowledge needs to be reflected in the text or references.

The people who generate that new knowledge might be considered by some to be too "close" to an issue and therefore have a conflict of onterest. However, the counter opinion is that new knowledge is invariably going to be generated by specialist working in a particular field. In the world of academia the balance between conflict of interest is maintained by peer review.

In comparison I've noted you have not removed references to the work of John Stark and Michael Grieves who are also specialists in PLM and might also therefore be considered to have a conflict of interest because they are too close to the topic.

In summary I'm not clear why you've undone my edits so would be grateful for some clarification.

Regards

Croesomorris (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you agreeing that you have a conflict of interest? --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish blog

You do not make the right decision. Why did you remove my add content? My content is real. You should remove "Who is who (Turkish)" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadir_Topba%C5%9F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaankaraca (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it for the reasons given on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz - Wiki - Sandeep Khurana References fixed and verified

As you further advised I have verified and fixed the links in the References section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandeep_Khurana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.54.1 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ananta Jalil education and description

Alma mater - University of Manchester - this is not true... wrong information. Here is the prove ^[2]. Plus, he is a business magnate not only businessman. Please keep my change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsterio (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: AAT sources, history link, and dog w/vest deleted

Thank you Ronz; I will discuss my concerns on the Talk page.

Kind regards, FWOak FWOak (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletions of external links in "Lists of Playmates"

You made the following comment and are now following through, blitzing articles and links that have been acceptable to most other viewers and editors of those articles for years.

You said, "These "lists" are simply attempts to get around our notability guidelines and the deletion of articles about non-notable people. I think the time has come to delete them"

Your assumption is wrong, and your actions are even more extreme and disruptive than those of a Wikipedia administrator who came through these same pages last December. At that time, a certain kind of external link was removed, but even that highly critical administrator, who was (in my view) cherry picking WP:EL and WP:BLP to try to support an extremely restrictive policy and ignoring specific, well-reasoned objections which cited the same policy pages — even that editor saw fit to leave in place the links that you have now taken upon yourself to remove.

First of all, the "Lists of Playmates" are NOT "simply attempts to get around" anything. They are an entirely appropriate way to cover "Playmates", which are a significant cultural entity, without devoting separate articles to each individual Playmate, who may or may not otherwise be sufficiently "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. It is common-sense, flexible thinking in the best possible sense, as opposed to rigid, straight-jacketed rule-following. These lists, and the external links within them, do not even flout the rules. Both WP:EL and WP:BLP contain intentional flexibility and permit reasonable exceptions. Too many editors, and even administrators, cite a whole policy page to support what they want to do, and simply stop reading where the permissible and appropriate exceptions come up.

"Playmates" are certainly a significant cultural entity, and here I am referring to the title and not any individual holding the title. There would be a hole in Wikipedia if it were not to list them. And that means all of them. At the same time, it cannot be claimed that every Playmate—and here I am referring to the persons holding the title—is sufficiently notable to warrant a separate Wikipedia article. Many are, but certainly not all. Hence the form of these lists, which evolved and became established years ago. Each Playmate gets a section, not a whole article. Each Playmate also gets a link to her own official site if she has one, though I do agree that this should not result in a "link farm" full of social media links. Yes, the "subject" of that Wikipedia article ("List of Playmates") is the 12 Playmates of that year and not any one individual, but that's where reasonableness is called for rather than rigidity. She is notable at least insofar as she is that month's Playmate, so although she may not merit a separate article, she is the "subject" of that section of the article. And rather than clutter the Wikipedia article with a lot of information that may be out-of-balance with her degree of notability, just include a judiciously-selected link or two for more information. (Actually, as I read it, WP:EL pretty much insists that the subject of an article be permitted an official link.) In this case, that would apply to the section of an article, since the Playmate, though a subject of that section, is not the focus of the entire article.

The other subject of these "Lists of Playmates", is that year's series of 12 Playmates. So it's 12 individuals, but also the "institution". "Miss July" and the others are the creation of Playboy Enterprises, Inc., and as such Playboy is certainly entitled to an official link for the article as a whole. The link pertaining to the entire article (that year's "List of Playmates" both meets the requirement under WP:EL permitting an official link for the subject (only Playboy can speak for the "institution" of Playmates), and serves as a reference, given that only Playboy determines who is a Playmate. For a long time, this requirement was met as best it could be, by a link to the home page of Playboy.com. A couple of years ago, I started supplementing this with another official Playboy link focused more specifically on the subject: that year's series of Playmates. The links I added were to appropriate sections of an index at the Playboy Wiki. (I have demonstrated, exhaustively, that the Playboy Wiki is both "official" and—despite the "Wiki" in its title—authoritative and acceptable under provisions of WP:EL. Certain readers stop at "no wikis" and ignore the text that follows it re "except".) If anything, Playboy's general link (Playboy.com) should be deleted there in favor of Playboy's specific link (that year of Playmates within the appropriate Playboy Wiki index).

Finally, I submit that a specific, official Playboy link in each Playmate's section of the article is both appropriate and beneficial to users of Wikipedia. The individual who happens to be "Miss July" deserves a link as argued above, but Playboy also deserves a link, as it is they who determine who will be "Miss July". This again serves as an authoritative reference. It also serves Wikipedia's mission of providing accurate information while helping to avoid what may be an out-of-balance amount of information were it to be posted directly in a Wikipedia article. Moreover, such links provide a "unique resource" as WP:EL encourages. Only the Playboy Wiki consolidates all of the links for the other official Playboy sites. Again, I have in the past linked to the Playmates' individual pages at Playboy Wiki for this purpose. Such links provide, on an official Playboy site, information confirming who the Playmate is and where she can be found officially as a Playmate. Objections re WP:BLP, raised in an attempt to trump exceptions permissible under WP:EL are moot on at least 3 counts. First and least, not every Playmate, unfortunately, is a "living person". Secondly, WP:BLP does not apply where the subject is "Miss July" as opposed to the individual who holds the title. The Playboy Wiki links do not provide any personal information other than in her role as "Miss July". Wikipedia articles need all kinds of elaborate policies safeguarding privacy, and demanding references—and commendably so—when it comes to biographical information. But the Playboy Wiki does not involve itself with that kind of information at all. Thirdly, those Playboy Wiki links provide the only remaining access to certain Playmates' own statements in the form of the Playmate Personal Pages they made, or transcripts of online Cyber Club chats that they conducted with their fans there. Censor Playboy Wiki links, and you may be censoring the Playmate herself. I have not seen any Wikipedia policy permitting the censoring of the subject of any Wikipedia article. Wikilister (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think you'll find much agreement for your interpretations of BLP and EL, which both place the burden on those wanting to include information. You are aware of and are participating in the noticeboard discussion. Let's keep the discussion there. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walnuts thank you

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Thanks for info & tips

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

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

findagrave

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

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

Clarifying external links, spam, etc.

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

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

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuldeepofficial (talk • contribs) 06:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the links appear to have been added in an attempt to draw traffic to the sites. The relevant policies/guidelines include WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, WP:EL, WP:SPAM.

You're a regular contributor? Were you using a different account in the past, or just editing without logging in? --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omez

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

I don't think such protection is called for at this time. So far it's just been two WP:SPA editors. If ip's or other new accounts join in, then semi-protection would be helpful. If either of the two continue, then they would be facing a block fairly quickly.

What about the instructions is confusing? I've done it so often that I don't pay attention. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linkfarm

Thanks for your contributions.

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

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Thank you for being so vigilant about spam, linkfarms and the myriad of related problems plaguing articles! The work you do too often gets overlooked, but we do notice. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Glad to have helped. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

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

It got some substantial discussion going, which is what is needed. I'd already said I didn't want to take the route of actually enforcing WP:BLP to that extent while the AfD was open, but it seems other editors would rather WP:IDHT than collaborate.

I appreciate your comments on the article talk page. How about removing the threat [10] and focusing on the content/policy-related discussion? --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of Playboy Playmates of 2014

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

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

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

Much appreciated all.

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

The related external links problems

For anyone paying attention, I realize that my starting this discussion in conjunction with [11] [12] might be seen as cutting it too close to what I agreed to above. Let me know what you think. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than too close.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Could you elaborate so I could understand where you think I should draw the line? --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, if you have a question about whether its too close, its probably too close. Here, any involvement with the same article, or playmates generally for that matter, will be used against you. Its only likely to draw you back into the same stuff, with the same editors, and very unlikely to be productive!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points. Thanks.

My concern was with the warning to him, and I'll definitely draw the line at any further such warnings.

Hopefully, that will be the last time it anything remotely close even comes up. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice over your editing behavior

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy1890 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semir Osmanagich -bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Indija! Sorry you had such difficulties contacting me.

It would be better to discuss this on the article talk page so others can easily see and contribute to the discussion.

I was using "notability" to refer to Wikipedia's Notability policies, specifically WP:BIO in this case. Osmanagić is notable for his claims of there being pyramids in Bosnia, and his efforts to promote these claims.

By "prominent" I was referring to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, specifically WP:WEIGHT. Usually prominence is determined by the amount of coverage a topic receives from independent sources. For instance, a number of sources have mentioned Osmanagić's book The World of the Maya, and claims in that book.

From what you've written, I'm not clear what information is wrong, nor do I understand what the numbers are. This would be best brought to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what is this Ronz?

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

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

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

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

regarding my edits on head/tail breaks wiki

Hi Ronz

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

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

Semir Osmanagich

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

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

Semir Osmanagich

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

Osmanagic

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

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

Nofel Izz

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

Just quickly, I can confirm that Nofel Izz recently hired four Wikipedia editors. I had suspected a fifth, but at this stage I have to assume not. I'll handle the warnings and remind them that they need to disclose their relationship with the client. - Bilby (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To update, there's a fifth very likely paid editor (definitely a paid editor, was recently hired, but I can't definitely confirm it was by Nofel). That one I'll block as a sock of a banned editor. The final editor does do paid work, but I have no evidence that they were hired. Normally a maximum of 3-4 get hired - this is the first time I've seen 5 or 6, but I gather Nofel Izz understands WP well enough to play hard. - Bilby (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be helpful to share what evidence you have before they try to hide it all? --Ronz (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, making it publicly available would involve outing, so I can't share the evidence. However, all six editors (I've confirmed the 6th now) were hired by the same client. Nofel hired BiH, Renzoy16, Anupam, Inlandmamba/InlandmambaPLU, Johnmoor and Anishwiki12. I had been intending to block Anishwiki12 anyway, as a sock of banned editor Kavdiaravish, so I've taken care of that now.

It is frustrating to see that many editors hired to skew an article. - Bilby (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Johnmoor is one, he's not been hiding his identity (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Editor_Johnmoor). He has tried to hide the fact that he's a paid editor though. If he's back as a paid editor, he should be blocked. If he's back to his old editing habits, I think there's a good case for blocking him regardless. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revisit Johnmoor in the morning - I'm curious as to how he will respond. I've got a couple more ducks to line up before I handle the last two in the list, anyway. - Bilby (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby, Your suspicion or conviction about me being a paid editor has been on for years already.

Ronz, I wonder how you would use your administrator privileges if you ever become one.

Thank you.—JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psychedelic drug advocates

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

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

Re: Conflict of Interest

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

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

RE Brahma Kumaris article

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

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

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

Regarding CoQ10 wiki page - inclusion of ubiquinol

Dear RonZ:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please WP:FOC. You're clearly interested in promoting the substance, and appear quite defensive about your personal preferences. Please try to cooperate with others instead.

If you can provide reliable sources to support your changes, especially WP:MEDRS sources for anything health-related, then do so on the article talk page and I'm sure we can come to some quick agreement on changes. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Nofel Izz

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

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

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
In seeking consensus on the article talk page, your responses to Anupam and other contributors so far has been WP:DONTGETIT.
—JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://badufos.blogspot.ae/2013/09/a-bizarre-horror-show-at-ufo-conference.html

[2] [[13]]

[1]

[2]