User talk:BronHiggs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, BronHiggs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

behaviour v behavior[edit]

The first is the British spelling. Please maintain the English variant within the article. Generally, an article maintains the variant from the original edit unless it is country specific. See wp:engvar. Please return the article to its British (or Canadian, Irish, Australian... variant)? I can't spell behaviour behavior anymore... Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing articles[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you will enjoy editing. However, please refrain from adding comments like this to article pages. The appropriate place for comments is the talk page of the respective article. Also, you may consider making larger edits, such as expansions, in your sandbox (the link is in the top right corner) first, and then pasting them into the article. This way, no one will add notices about empty sections and such. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm all done[edit]

I came to Wikipedia just a few weeks ago after noticing that a slew of text books (drafts) and journal articles (drafts) were confusing some foundation concepts - notably the 'evoked set' and the 'consideration set' - basic concepts in any course on Consumer Behaviour. I couldn't understand how so many prospective authors were getting it so wrong and decided to investigate. I soon found that several Marketing Tutor websites were printing notes with incorrect definitions, and also Wikipedia was using the incorrect definitions.

So, I wrote to the the Marketing Tutor companies - but they don't seem to be all that concerned. Then, I registered with Wikipedia and began correcting the material. Once I got into Wikipedia, I was shocked to find the poor state of the content on a number of Wiki pages in the marketing area - conceptually unsound, just plain wrong, misleading, unbalanced, unsourced, unfocussed, unstructured and so poorly written. So, I beavered away for several weeks and overhauled a number of pages in the marketing area.

In the process, I was very careful to try and rectify the contributions made by others. Wherever possible, I added references, edited the prose, attempted to integrate repetitive material with existing prose; moved prose to new sections where it could stand alone and when I had no choice but to delete, I tried to suggest another location for that material.

It was going OK until I had an unpleasant experience with an over-zealous editor who seems determined to delete any content that does not have his approval or fails to meet his high standards of excellence. He couches his concerns in terms of Wiki policies (e.g. inadequately referenced, unreliable reference, "editorialising"). After reversing out a few paragraphs that I thought were perfectly acceptable (and were properly referenced), I asked for an explanation. He offered an explanation that frankly made little sense, so I consulted the Wiki policies, sent him extracts of the relevant sections - but needless to say his objections to the deleted material morphed into new objections. Rather than engage with my counter-arguments (by, for example, showing me how I had misinterpreted WP's policies), he simply raised a whole new raft of objections.

After a bit of to and fro, his objections became more and more bizarre. He dropped the pretense of working around WP Policies. Instead, his new objections revolved his own personal likes and dislikes. He said that he did not like my "conversational tone" - that what I had written "trivialises the discipline", accuses me of "making it up" (in spite of three academic references) and finally dismissed me altogether by saying that "some content just doesn't belong on Wikipedia" and advising me to "get a book and work from that". I soon got the impression that he thinks he is the only arbiter of what is acceptable on Wikipedia, regardless of what the written policies actually say. (Actually, I also got the impression that he wasn't entirely certain as to why he was objecting - because the reasons were so fluid and often contradictory). The whole affair was very unpleasant.

I checked this person's editing history - and he is a "deleter" - reversing entries across multiple topic areas for many hours each day. I can only rarely see instances where he has actually added anything. He regularly comes into conflict with other editors whose prose he saw fit to delete for various reasons. He is a diminisher while many of us are contributors.

It's not worth going into battle over these things - let's face it, it is a voluntary role - and if you are not getting any satisfaction out of it - then it is time to quit. It should never become an annoyance. Life is too short to waste on 'anal' editors who appear to be carrying some sort of a vendetta against anyone who wants to actually contribute.

I was a marketing educator for 32 years, and before that worked in sales and marketing. I had a regular column for the Australian Marketing Magazine for many years and I continue to write a weekly blog on topical issues in marketing for one of the major international publishers of business texts. I also help young academics to improve their journal articles so that they can be published in A & B journals. I really know my stuff! And, I was prepared to share it with others via Wikipedia. Moreover, now that I am semi-retired, I have the time to devote to fixing some of the many marketing pages on Wiki; pages that are in very poor shape.

After my unfortunate experience, I will no longer be contributing to Wikipedia. So I want to say this to other editors. Please be extra careful about deleting content on a whim, or when you are in a bad mood. This action simply discourages others from contributing. When people make a contribution, for the main part, they do so in good faith. Always try to find a way to improve the material rather than just delete entire paragraphs or sections.

Here are a few suggestions (instead of hitting the delete button):

  • (for unsourced material),- find a suitable source and add it; alternatively put a [citation needed] sign in the relevant place.
  • (inadequately/ unreliable sources) - find a superior source
  • (poor prose)- edit and improve the prose -sometimes this needs little more than punctuation, but sometimes it does require a bit more effort
  • (repetitive ideas or themes) - find away to collapse the two or to integrate them in some way -usually when there are repetitive sections, one strand will have some ideas that are not contained in the other part. Try to use the best of both and integrate them in some way.
  • (lack of focus) - try and find a way to provide the focus so that the discussion becomes integrated with material around it; ensure that the heading and the content in that section are logically related; if not - create a new heading and move unfocused prose to the new section
  • (lack of structure) - create new headings or sub-headings and organise the material into logical categories under meaningful headings; as a generalisation move from the 'big picture' to the 'little pictures' as if you are 'drilling down' and getting a more detailed and in-depth look at the subject as you go down the page

If you have a go at these things, it will help to improve your own writing and editing skills. Any improvement that you can make is preferable to simply deleting large slabs of text (especially when it is just because you don't like it).

If you really feel that you must delete, remember that lengthy deletions have the potential to leave large gaps on the page - which can result in the remaining material losing its context, reading in a jerky manner and without any sense of flow or purpose. If you must delete, can you replace the content with something that is acceptable so that the prose on the page still works as a coherent, integrated whole (and not just an itemised list of dot points)?

Wikipedia needs a lot of help to get the marketing pages into good shape. Please don't be a diminisher. Please try to be a builder! BronHiggs (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please tell me who this editor is, and will be investigated. Adotchar| reply here 21:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thanks for sharing the list of editing suggestions with citations to Marketing research. That is an amazing list. Books have been written based on that kind of research.

If you pulled all this from a bibliography of a book then thanks. If this is your own original compilation then that is amazing. This kind of insight is uncommon anywhere and very rare to see proposed on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks. Adotchar| reply here 21:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


Go to this link for a short list of articles to fix up: We really need someone to at least get them to C-Class articles. They're stub class, the lowest. Adotchar| reply here 09:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thank you for fixing up a lot of marketing related articles, and making the topic much better. Adotchar| reply here 22:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, BronHiggs. You have new messages at CaroleHenson's talk page.
Message added 05:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CaroleHenson (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk page formatting[edit]


Well, we're on a good roll!

A couple of reminders, so that we can track the conversations:

  • Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (CaroleHenson (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)). I know that you do this a lot, it's just a matter of getting in the habit.
  • Please indent your conversation so each individual response is easily seen - and the conversation can be tracked easily. See this section now.
  • When there has been too much indenting - or you are bringing up a new point - you can add {{outdent}} just before you add your comments. See {{outdent}}.

Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for sticking at it, it's a shame your initial experience was bad but it's good to see all the work you've done on marketing articles. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

E. Jerome McCarthy has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgHello, BronHiggs. E. Jerome McCarthy, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Positioning (marketing)[edit]

As mentioned on the talk page, I set up User:BronHiggs/Positioning (marketing) for you.

Pro: That way you can use that space to develop the article and don't have to worry about having posted content that is not yet fully developed, has formatting issues or errors, etc. And, because it's not going into article space, you're not likely going to get comments along the way, unless you ask for them. Then, when the article is ready, it can be moved into article space. It will take a lot of pressure off of you, if you'd like to do it that way.

Con: You won't have people coming in and asking questions and making edits, which could help further it along faster.

If you don't want to use a sandbox, then the {{under construction}} tag should remain, unless you can ensure that you're not introducing errors and are inserting "ready for prime time" content.

Does that make sense?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I now realise that I had totally misunderstood the Wiki approach. I had been labouring under the incorrect impression that it was about making incremental improvements over time so that an article gradually converged on something worthwhile. I had totally failed to recognise that content needed to be fully developed and/or error-free on the first pass. Thanks for bringing me up to speed on this. BronHiggs (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Origins - I added some content to try and put some "meat on the bones" for this section. I didn't mean to imply that it needed to go, just that it needs work.
Noted with thanks BronHiggs (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
One thing that can happen by being too close to a subject is that you might focus on "how influential" someone's input into marketing thought might have been... without stepping back a bit to find a way to say "why it was influential". I hope this helps.
Just to clarify, I did not write the passage about "influential". It was pre-existing content, and as far as I can work out had been part of the article for many years. I am very reluctant to delete existing content - except where it is factually or conceptually unsound. I simply left the original passage there and worked around it.BronHiggs (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I left the text that you had in the section. It's commented out so you can refer to it... and rewrite it to bring the points home. But in the short run, it's hidden from view.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Noted with thanksBronHiggs (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I have no intention of writing the article, but while you work on it in article space, I'll try and help steer you to notable content that is encyclopedic in nature. I know that this kind of thing has been said to you before, so let me try to delve into it a little more.
Noted with thanksBronHiggs (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Encyclopedic content should be meaningful and objective content, so that once someone reads a paragraph, or a section they know something about the topic, they've learned something.
Was doing my best to work towards this objective. But it takes time, and may require several passes.BronHiggs (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
What should the reader have learned when they've been told that something is "influential"? Because one person says it's influential, is it truly influential? They might be asking themselves, why is it influential? I might use something like that as a hook to engage the reader and then explain why. If you cannot do that with sourced content, then it shouldn't be in the article (see weasel i.e., unsupported attributions). Do you see what I mean?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Noted with thanks. BronHiggs (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Regarding using a sandbox, I was talking about the pros and cons of using a sandbox vs. putting {{under construction}} tag. Working in a sandbox takes a lot of stress off, particularly as you say about getting the right content, But it takes time, and may require several passes. It's not a right or wrong, it's another option.
To clarify what I was talking about above about making pointed and informative content vs. adding what may be considered weasel words, the additions made here by you here include "These articles were to become highly influential", without any backup about what that meant. I repeat this because: 1) we addressed this in the E. Jerome McCarthy discussions, and it came up again and 2) to show you the specific edit.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Clearly, I have got the wrong end of the stick and am incapable of learning or being acculturated into the Wiki way of things. After I complete those two projects early next year, I think it would be preferable for both me, and the Wiki community if just stay away from Wikipedia in the future.--added signature info BronHiggs (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2016‎
I don't think anyone has suggested that. I surely haven't and don't mean to imply that.
For what it's worth, I had a lot of comments about my work early on. Such as this:
...Sit back for a bit, have a brew and remember that WP is a big place with a lot of people involved in it. You are going to have things reverted at some point - we all do, even after we have been here a while - but you can learn from it. Happen I think that your enthusiasm could be very beneficial to the project and I would urge you to persevere. Things do eventually fall into place. My suspicion is that one of the problems at the moment is that your enthusiasm is slightly misguided: this is normal
There are a lot of guidelines, and some of them don't make sense at first, like the primary and secondary discussions. I would like to repeat the great advice I got, "I would urge you to persevere. Things do eventually fall into place." --CaroleHenson (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to E. Jerome McCarthy, did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please don't add tags to clarify something discussed at length the on the talk page. See Talk:E. Jerome McCarthy#Timeline. You know that there's no more clarification. The only option, really, is to take out the info with primary sources if it concerns you. CaroleHenson (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thanks for trying Wikipedia. I appreciate the information you shared but your experience of finding Wikipedia toxic is a common sentiment. There is a steep learning curve and definitely a lot of people do not enjoy being here. If you are not enjoying by now, then your intuition that your time is better spent elsewhere is probably correct. I wish you could stay but I cannot promise a different response than you have already received.

I regret the negative experience you had and am sorry that the community here is unable to be more welcoming. Maybe some day! I regret the loss of your attention, but thanks for what you have already done. I removed that mentorship request that I posted to seek support for you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


Hi there. You left a couple of notes on my talk page regarding some copyright violations to this page; I just checked, and I've made a total of one edit to that page, back in October 2010, and it was a revert of a blanking. I think you missed the contributor you were targeting. Could you maybe take a look at that, please? Tony Fox (arf!) 05:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please explain[edit]

Trophy.png Please explan
Dear Bronwyn, Another user has notified my that you have marked a set of Wikipedia articles, all around 10 years old, for deletion. It appears that you have seached for all references to McNair and myself, and tagged these for deletion. One of these is an obituary for a well known father of our industry. Your actions appear vexatious. We have not used Wikipedia in many years, and need time to get help in defending ourselves.

Could you email me personally at to tell me who put you up to this attack. It is not about editing, it is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and we are making inquiries as to whether this constitutes online harrassement.

Mpbalogh (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Complaint Made[edit]

Trophy.png Complaint Made
Bronwyn, I have lodged a complaint with Wikpedia. Mpbalogh (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a thread on you at the administrators' board[edit]

Best you check in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fake_Editor_BronHiggs_actually_targeting_people_and_organisations to see what's up. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Nat Gertler Thanks for the heads up. I had already seen that complaint as the complainant had notified me directly. As far as I am concerned, the issue with the relevant page is one of a potential copyright violation. The entire article has been copied from an online source. The user was notified of this with details of the original source, which they are welcome to check. The copyright vio report shows that the Wiki article is about 97% similar to the published source. The complaint seems to be ignoring the copyright implications, and turn the matter into a counter allegation that I might be some kind of a stooge editor. I am sure that anyone who looks at my editing history over the past 4 weeks will form the view that I am no stooge. In any case, no amount of counter-accusations will change the fact that the article breaches Wiki guidelines in a number of respects. I am content to wait for the administrator to invesigate both the potential copyright violation and the user's complaint about me personally. I have every faith in proper processes. BronHiggs (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
No need to explain to me; the accusation did not have the air of something that would carry much weight. Just making sure you knew a specific location beyond the vague post above, apparently from the complainant. Have a lovely day! --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problems at marketing[edit]

The reason your reports keep disappearing from the page is because the individual pages for each date are transcluded onto the main page. For this reason, if you are looking at a cached version of the page, you won't see everything. I have now consolidated all your reports about Marketing and History of marketing on the subpage Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 November 20. If you find anything else to report about these two articles, please add them to the report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 November 20 instead of adding and re-adding to random places. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

talk Noted, with thanks. BronHiggs (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, BronHiggs. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit revert[edit]

Hi Bron, I had to get rid of one of your edits. Normally I would conduct this via email, but you don't seem to have that enabled. You can contact me at wikiwikiwoo1221 at gmail if you want to know more. Someguy1221 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 22:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Someguy1221 That's fine. I no longer challenge any reversion or amendment, and have long since ceased asking for explanations for such decisions. I am inexperienced and assume that other more experienced editors know best. BronHiggs (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal comment[edit]

If we stick with facts, and avoid personal comments or conjecture about someone's motivation, we'll get a lot further. I have never found that assuming good faith has let me down (i.e., there still may be differences of opinion, but assuming good motivation doesn't make that worse).

I have asked for very specific feedback about what in the E. Jerome McCarthy article you think needs to be changed and what source backs up the change. Doing that would be very helpful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

E. Jerome McCarthy - Third Party Opinion request[edit]

I have posted a request for a third party opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion. A summary of the issue is at the bottom of the Talk:E. Jerome McCarthy page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with the article on Mass market which really needs to be deleted because (a) it is redundant and (b) it is conceptually unsound, factually incorrect and uses a bogus reference and (c)every single sentence contains problems (d) it cannot be redeemed with more/better references. I posted a detailed commentary on this article some time ago, after being invited to try and fix it, but my advice was that it could not be fixed. Nothing has happened since then. On most marketing pages, it is about 6-8 years between comments on Talk pages. This page is so bad and so misleading that it should not be allowed to stand for a further 8 years.

BronHiggs (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:AFDHOWTO. That page gives a step-by-step explanation of how to nominate an article for deletion. Huon (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Noting a recent thread at ANI[edit]

In case anyone comes to your talk page and is curious about a recent complaint about your edits, I thought it could be worth linking to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive939#Fake Editor BronHiggs actually targeting people and organisations. The closure by User:Kuru was "Inflammatory drive-by accusation with no response to requested clarification." It sounds like that complaint was dismissed with no action.

I saw your request at Wikipedia:Help desk#Proposal to consolidate articles in the marketing communications/ advertising subject area. Your attempt seems to be a worthwhile effort. We don't have a lot of volunteers to work on these articles. User:CorporateM is one of the few people I know of who has put energy into improving business-related articles, but I'm sure there must be others.

If you have time, it could be worthwhile to try to take one of these articles through the WP:GA process. This is a chance to get feedback on your work, and could help to cure the problem you mention, that somebody comes to the article talk page very rarely. Also, if you succeed in getting something made a Good Article that confers a certain credibility. Then you may get less pushback on your other work. (Some Good Articles in the area of Economics and Business are listed at WP:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Economics and business. They include 13 articles about advertising and marketing). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for your suggestion about Good Articles. I am afraid that I don't have the temperament or interest in admin to be willing to go through that type of process. My primary interest has been to improve the substantive content of the many marketing and advertising articles that are fundamentally flawed. I have only been on Wikipedia for about 6 weeks, and it has been a painful journey so far.

However, I have learned that there are two types of article in the marketing area - those that are heavily patrolled and where all new content is rejected almost immediately and those that articles that are largely ignored. After having a lot of content challenged in the first couple of weeks, I now focus all my effort on articles where there is very little editing action.

So far, I have made reasonable progress and have completely restructured and expanded the articles on Market segmentation, Brand awareness, Consumer behaviour, Australian Market and Social Research Society Limited; have saved the bio of E. Jerome McCarthy from being deleted, and am nearing completion with a revamp of Advertising management. I was also invited to have a look at 6 or 8 shorter articles to see if they could be lifted to at least "C" class - and if those articles could be redeemed, I have reworked the content. On other pages where I have encountered excessive and intransigent resistance to even small changes, I have posted extensive editing suggestions on discussion pages, sometimes including detailed content with references so that other braver editors can consider adding worthwhile content to the article. These include Positioning (marketing), Marketing research, Marketing and other smaller articles.

The amount of duplication of articles on Wikipedia defies comprehension. We not only have separate articles on market segmentation and positioning, but there is also a combined article on Segmenting and positioning. As mentioned in the post to which you refer, considerable duplication is also apparent in the areas of advertising, marketing communications and promotion. Extensive duplication is also evident in articles dealing with advertising media.

A number of articles in the marketing area are incomprehensible. [Marketing communications]] and Integrated marketing communications are two such examples. Despite their representing duplication, and in spite of their incomprehensible style of writing, there is enormous resistance to merging or deleting. It is difficult to understand how these articles could be useful to anyone, except as examples of how NOT to write!

I am confident that the articles I have restructured represent a thousand-fold improvement on what was originally there - and some of these such as Brand awareness, Consumer behaviour and Market segmentation represent the foundations of contemporary marketing. I have no doubt that some Wiki editors will find that they still fail the 'encyclopedic' test and are much in need of further 'Wikification'. I will leave it to other editors to 'wikify' the content. My mission has been to correct factual and conceptual errors, redress glaring omissions, maintain a strong focus on the core topic, ensure that complex concepts are explained simply and clearly with references to high quality sources, wherever possible develop diagrams and tables that help to explain complex concepts and generally make these articles more useful to users. I believe that this type of work makes the best use of my skills. (Admin was never my strong suit.) But I have my work cut out with these endeavours and simply have neither the time, nor the inclination to take up an administrative burden such as going through one of WP's GA process.

It was very kind of you to make this suggestion. It is a most welcome suggestion in an environment that is all too often harshly critical and dismissive. It's good to know that some editors are interested in trying to improve the state of affairs. Regards. BronHiggs (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of E. Jerome McCarthy[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of E. Jerome McCarthy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Re post at Talk:Advertising media selection#Questionable content.2F Definitional problems[edit]

Hi BronHiggs.

Sorry if some things are a bit dispiriting at times. From my perspective as a journeyman editor / wikipedia observer...

  • Advice: Everyone has an opinion. You can glance at a users contributions, account age, and editing (both directly here and summarised at to get some idea of how much weight to give those opinions. (That said, number of edits alone is a poor proxy for much - someone can have a hundred edits to an article, most or all of them vandalism reversions).
  • Lack of responses: For a large project of more than 5 million articles, Wikipedia has very few regular editors (probably fewer than [30000 with more than 5 edits a month], and [~3200 with more than 100 edits a month] -- and edits may be minor or to places other than articles). When you post on the talkpage of an article, the only people who are likely to see it are active editors who have some interest in the area or the page or the topic and who have either:
  1. watchlisted the article (which means they have probably edited the article and/or talk page; set their preferences to automatically watchlist edited pages; haven't edited the page only using automated tools (eg AWB); and haven't removed the page from their watchlist)
  2. happened to have looked at this one talk page out of the 5 million+ after your edit; or
  3. looked at what pages you've edited and specifically viewed the edit or page.
A lot of edits such as copyedits, categorisation, vandalism reversion, etc, are done by editors without any particular specific knowledge or interest. I'd be surprised if any other editors apart from yourself meet all criteria for that page. (Similarly, when you post on your own talkpage, only those who have it watchlisted, or who have interacted with you — either directly or indirectly — and who deliberately take a look, will have a chance of reading it)
If you post and noone responds, then that's tacit agreement to make the changes you've proposed. If there are key editors of an article and they are still active, then you might like to give them a courtesy ping from the talkpage, if it's directly relevant to them ({{ping|Editor1|Editor2|...}}), or post on their talkpage.
You might be able to get more interaction on the broad issues by posting at the WikiProject's talk page, but the project looks pretty moribund. Of the 20 listed project members, only half a dozen are still active, and not all appear particularly involved in the technical aspects that you are interested in. Perhaps in time you might be interested in helping resurrect that project?
  • Reversions: Some pages and topics have a history of frequent vandalism, point-of-view pushing, single-purpose editors with conflicts of interest, etc. There may well be a reflexive reaction against changes, particularly major changes, if editors are a bit gun-shy about these things. It's possible that certain things have been thrashed out before, and are already explained on the talk page or its archives. For other pages the editor may be unduly exercising WP:Ownership of content. And, as you've discovered, it's possible that editors can differ in good faith on source interpretation. In any case, if an edit is reverted, then the reverter needs to provide sufficient justification, particularly if taken to the talk page, there are options if discussion on the talk page fails to reach a consensus initially (WP:3O and WP:RFC - congratulations on the happy result at Talk:E. Jerome McCarthy!). If you believe that something is egregiously wrong then you should hopefully at least be satisfied that the reversion had some reasonable foundation for it. It might well be worthwhile.
  • Sandbox vs Incrementalism: If you want a root-and-branch rewrite of a heavily trafficked article, then taking it to Draft or your sandbox can avoid leaving things in an inconsistent or traumatic state, and allow for consensus to replace things wholesale. It doesn't need to be perfect to make it out of draft as long as it is agreed that it is significantly better than the current version (if there is one) and is good to go. That said, edits to articles generally work better when incremental, and if an article can be refactored incrementally, then that'd be better. For heavily patrolled pages, perhaps making limited well-sourced edits slowly might be the way to go. If edits are granular, then reversion/discussion should also be limited rather than morphing.
  • Deletionism: Don't let it get you down. While there's somewhat of a deletionist bias at AFD, particularly in areas related to products and companies*, there's also inclusionists and preservationists as well (WP:CORPDEPTH gets a workout). The critical thing is to be able to provide sourced evidence, preferably with reference to policies/guidelines. (* To be fair, there's a bunch of articles that really do need to die.)
Cheers, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hydronium Hydroxide: Thanks for all that advice. I have also been told by several different editors that subject matter experts should refrain from editing in their subject area. I have been around long enough now to ignore this type of well-intentioned, but silly advice. Just so you are aware, the article on E. Jerome McCarthy was withdrawn from the DYK nomination. Both a volunteer editor and the reviewer continued tweaking the article to the point where some factually incorrect material and errors of interpretation were introduced. Despite my best efforts, I was simply unable to persuade them that there were issues to address - largely because they did not seem to be able to understand what the issues were - once they got past continually repeating the need for reliable sources there was not much common sense to be found. I was actually very surprised to find that one of the reviewers felt the need to add new content. My original intent was to save the bio from deletion for lack of 'notability' -which has happened. I am glad that it has been withdrawn. It has spared me from dealing with a couple of very difficult editors. I would be much happier to see a factually correct article with no award, than to be the recipient of some type of honour for a half-baked article. I have thought about throwing in the towell many times, but whether Wikipedia knows it or not, it needs me working on the marketing pages. So, I am content to edit marketing articles whenever I can, but try to avoid heavy handed editors who challenge everything. Some marketing pages will never be repaired because of these editors. But I know that I can do a lot to improve other articles. Anyway, thanks again. It's always pleasing to know that there are a few editors out there who actually want to improve things! BronHiggs (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
BronHiggs, to be fair all regular editors, and many infrequent editors, want to improve things —-- and that includes the heavy deletionists, heavy inclusionists, zealots, nationalists, cultural warriors, fans, whoever. Dedicated editors will, however, absolutely differ on what is actually an improvement all the time (there have been wars here over both articles related to heavy real-world issues, as well as things such as whether articles should have infoboxes or not...) -- which is where the consensus resolution mechanisms come in.
Wikipedia needs expert editors (for one, they have are likely to have a better set of secondary sources at hand, and the background to better distil those into an article), but the trap/pain is that they mustn't insert their own conclusions (WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH), and if they are citing their own works (WP:SELFCITE), or editing from a limited/biased viewpoint (WP:NPOV, particularly WP:WEIGHT) then that's a problem. While edits which are in accordance with broad mainstream expert opinion are unlikely to be an issue, experts are likely to have some pretty firm views for/against something where some other comperably qualified expert is likely to have equally firm opposing views, and both will have sources and a framework which supports their standpoint. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hydronium Hydroxide: I don't understand why it is assumed that new editors will breach guidelines about WP:OR;WP:SYNTH; WP:NPOV and reliable sources. Most experts, and certainly any with academic experience, would be all too familiar with these concepts. Too many marketing pages already exhibit examples of original research, probably introduced inadvertently or carelessly -and many of these examples have been in place for many, many years. I can cite literally dozens of examples of this. The larger problem is that Wikipedia has been around long enough that it has become a source for academic works.
For example, on the Marketing page, there is a section on "The History of Marketing" which includes an opening sentence about the stages of marketing and follows up with a table that highlights the marketing orientations. By juxtaposing "stages" and "orientations," this section is producing exactly the type of original research that Wikipedia guidelines caution against. No serious text-book, such as any of those by Phillip Kotler, McCarthy, Pride & Ferrell or others, confuses orientations and stages in this way. This conflation of two entirely different concepts is unique to Wikipedia. (Orientations refers to ways of thinking about business practice (i.e., praxis) while stages refers to eras in marketing thought, (i.e., theory - the way that marketing is studied or taught.) Yet this content was devised for Wikipedia by several editors over a number of years, has been part of the page in its current form since about 2010, and has never been challenged. Worse, this content has been copied into at least one text-book as well as a multiplicity of study notes (often without acknowledging Wikipedia as the source). Although the original table was devised on Wikipedia, using some faulty conceptualisations, subsequent editors expanded and elaborated on the basic flawed concept, one editor even fabricated some dates to fit with the notion of stages or eras even though the table was actually about orientations which cannot be boxed into any specific time period. Now, the table's flawed idea has not only become conventional wisdom on Wikipedia, but is also creeping into academic works - both texts & journal articles. It is now possible to find apparently reliable sources to validate the table's contents - even though any serious interrogation of the sources will reveal that the origin of the content was Wikipedia itself. Unfortunately text-books do not go through the same rigorous review processes as journal articles. Errors creep into books all the time. The text that plagiarised the table from Wikipedia was a work published by the authors' own publishing company and is unlikely to have undergone any moderation process. Yet, it has now become a mainstream source for a fundamentally flawed understanding of marketing history borrowed from Wikipedia. Meanwhile, diligent patrollers on the Marketing page challenge any effort to improve or modify this content - because it has been there for so long - it has become 'normalised'.
In yet another example, I have just recently finished reviewing a text-book for the publisher, Cengage, where a similar confusion arises with the concepts of the evoked set and the consideration set - both foundation concepts in the study of consumer behaviour. This was the third or fourth time in the past couple of years that I detected authors confusing these two concepts in both journal articles and books. On investigation, it soon became clear that Wikipedia was the original source of the confusion - and it was this insight that triggered my initial desire to start editing on Wikipedia. (I have remedied these definitions in Wikipedia, so hopefully we will not see too much more of it in future academic publications - but it is now part of the written record and is there for posterity).
So, for all that Wikipedia does its best to avoid original research, the 'horse has already bolted.' My impression is that Wikipedia is actually playing a major role in rewriting the most important ideas in the discipline. In my view, Wikipedia has an obligations to the disciplines that it writes about - and fundamental errors, when detected, should be corrected as soon as possible. Sadly, the mindset of some editors militates against substantive revisions of any sort.
I have no problem with reliable sources, original research, neutral point of view, self-promotion etc - understand the concepts perfectly well and appreciate why they are needed. The material that I have been producing is rock solid in terms of its substance and referencing- and I would be very surprised if any of it was rejected by an expert.
My primary concern is to ensure that the content on the marketing and advertising pages is consistent with the accepted body of marketing literature and does not contain glaring omissions. But, there are so many issues with a large number of marketing pages that I do not choose to spend my time endlessly debating challenges or engaging in edit wars. I want to get in there and fix the substantive content. After I have attended to the substance, other editors can come in and add their tags, add their templates, revert content, tweak expression, remove bold typeface ('No need for shouting'), change heading levels, change spelling to American, change reference format, add style sheets, remove non-US examples, delete all external links ('Not a link farm'), change the references and generally finesse the article in any way they please. BronHiggs (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


I came to Wikipedia in October, 2016. My self-imposed mission was to correct fundamental flaws in a number of marketing articles. In the space of just three months, I have worked every single day (from between 4 and 12 hours daily) and completely overhauled a number of articles, by imposing a conceptual framework and adding substantive content:

[Deleted article titles, due to a group of vindictive editninjas WP:EDITNINJAS following me around with a view to deleting content]

I would have liked to overhaul the following, but these pages are so heavily patrolled by editors exhibiting Ownership behaviours that my initial attempts to be Bold were rejected within minutes and I abandoned all hope of improving these articles. Instead, I have left detailed commentary on specific errors and suggestions, in the form of a plan with recommended headings and sub-headings, for a revised article

Articles that should be deleted due to misleading/ inaccurate content'

I have also identifed pages that are so problematic or misleading that they really should be deleted as soon as practical (see article's talk page for reasons), including:

Articles that duplicate other articles

I have also identified many pages that replicate content/ concepts that are well covered in other articles. I asked for some assistance in relation to this on Wiki Help desk, but my query was ignored. The amount of replication on Wikipedia almost defies comprehension, but for the record here are a few samples of articles that canvass the same material organised into groups

Group One: Segmentation

Market segmentation (main page)
Contents replicated in: Segmenting and positioning; Target market; Total addressable market; Serviceable available market; Microsegment; Behavioral targeting; Targeted advertising; Geo-targeting; Product differentiation

Group two: Positioning

Positioning (marketing) (main page) contents replicated in Perceptual mapping; Segmenting and positioning; Product differentiation
Group three: Advertising - socio-historical aspects
Advertising (main page, but almost entirely devoted to history of advertising)
Contents replicated in History of advertising; Targeted advertising and to some extent in Advertising research
Group four: Advertising - practice/ management
Advertising (ostensibly main page, but almost entirely devoted to history of advertising)
Contents replicated in Advertising management; Advertising campaign; Advertising media selection; Media planning; Target audience; Account planning - arguably Advertising management should become the main page
Group five: Promotion/ Marketing communications
Main page is unclear; but possible one of three possible candidates: Promotion (marketing) or Integrated marketing communications or Marketing communications
Content of all three is similar and content of all three repeats material covered in: Promotional mix; Promotional campaign and in the narrower articles of Advertising; Advertising management; Direct marketing; Public relations; Sales promotion; Product placement; Branded entertainment; Promotional merchandise (and that's not to mention the proliferation of articles on digital media of which there are literally hundreds)
Group six: Marketing
Main page Marketing
Repeats content and concepts canvassed in Marketing management; Marketing mix; Marketing strategy - The article devoted to marketing management is really about marketing strategy. These three articles are very unfocussed and confused.
Group seven: Market segmentation
Main page Market segmentation
Contents also covered in Segmenting and positioning; Target market; Total addressable market; Serviceable available market; Targeted advertising ; Geo-targeting and Behavioral targeting and almost every article that has something to do with marketing includes a short section on segmentation, See for example Marketing#market segmentation
Group eight: Target markets
Main page is possibly Target market
Content/ concepts are also canvassed in Market segmentation; Total addressable market; Serviceable available market; Targeted advertising ; Target audience; Geo-targeting and Behavioral targeting

To avoid this ongoing duplication of articles, the entire marketing project really needs to have a strong framework. See, for example, the psychology sidebar Psychology sidebar (just put it inside double brackets {{..}} to view) which clearly shows how concepts and branches of psychology ar inter-related and where articles fit. Part of the problem is that many of the articles start out with very poor definitions of the topic - and this sets the stage for random subject matter to be added to the article. In addition, pages that are unfocussed also lead to the desire to create new articles with a better focus. For example, the article on Advertising is an uncomfortable blend of socio-historical issues and advertising practice - but very strongly weighted towards history and social criticisms. The fact that this article included some theory of advertising along with this management advice led one editor to decide to start his own article on History of advertising - so now in effect, Wikipedia has two different articles on the history of advertising. Vigilance of new and developing articles should monitor the quality of definitions and should also make an effort to evaluate how well the article's content focuses on core themes.

During my time on Wikipedia, I have been bullied, harrassed and hounded. I have been given appalling advice and had some unfathomable work rules imposed by various editors (none of it backed by any policy). At least three different editors informed me that subject matter experts should refrain from editing in their subject areas and should ONLY make edits outside their subject area. One editor, who was a real bully, continually tried to impose work rules on me. For example she insisted most persistently, that all new content had to be developed in the Sandbox where it was to be perfected, before being uploaded to the Talk page for discussion and only after it had consensus approval could it be added to the article (and since it looks like talk pages in the marketing area are consulted once in every 8-10 years, this advice was clearly designed to lead me to a dead-end). In her words, nothing should go into the article until it was ready for prime-time display. She also insisted that I clean up the expression and grammar in an article before adding new content, even when it was clear that some of the pre-existing content had to be deleted - it apparently needed to be clean before deletion. She followed me around Wikipedia, continually commenting on edits, tagging edits and sending me up to 7 mini-lectures each day on my sins (real and imagined). I won't bother detailing all the other rules and advice that she tried to impose. I had a hard time shaking her off.

And, now the last straw is the battle with the so-called Wikpedia External Links Project, whose stated intention is to 'improve the quality of external links', but judging by their actions is actually a front for the real agenda which is the 'total eradication of all external links'. I find their actions to be dishonest and completely out of line with the spirit of the guidelines on external links.

I have sucessfully discussed deletion decisions with several external links deleter types - in an effort to reinstate links to journals and professional associations - they have suggested a range of strategies

(a) write inclusion criteria and post on the article's talk page (I did this, and went one step further by writing detailed justifications for each and every link)
(b) if the link is to a notable journal or organisation, write an article about it and then you only need to include it in the ""See Also"" links (Seriously?)

But it actually doesn't matter what I do, in a matter of days, another editor will come along and delete the entire "External Links" section. Their concerted action and peristence, combined with the patent dishonesty behind their actions, is too much. From the outsett, I found the Wikipedia culture oppressive, confusing and contradictory, but somehow found a way to clean up articles without drawing too much attention to myself. But these 'External links' editors are just randomly looking for articles to attack - and for many of them - the only editing they do is deleting external links and writing to people asking them to stop adding external links. This is the straw that broke the camel's back. I simply cannot stand it any more.

BronHiggs (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I"m sorry I couldn't help. It's sad that you're leaving. Can you please tell me the username of this editor that harassed you? Adotchar| reply here 22:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Throughout all your work here, you tried, and people have tried, for some reason, to stop you, and you fixed a large amount of articles that would be so much worse without you. Goodbye. Adotchar| reply here 22:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Fixing up marketing-related articles[edit]

Hey good idea to work on this. I agree the articles are often redundant, often poorly written, sometimes overly academic-sounding and packed with jargon, but you're clearly a talented contributor and I urge you to proceed, particularly with corralling the articles into a sensible arrangement overall. If you run into problems (invariably you will -- expect this, most contributors who've been here a while will tell you this) write on my talk page, please keep it brief exactly what the problem is with a diff, and I'll try to help if I have time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


First of all, I want to send you a big big big thank you for fixing my article! Thank you, thank you so much! I'm really appreciated it!

About the arson case, she actually burnt the guy's mansion because she was angry about him cheating on her, and also because she was drunk. So they later charged her for first-degree arson and took her to a rehab felicity for having been drunk. That was what I meant to say, sorry for misinterpreting it, I just wanted to sum it up as briefly as possible. Can you please help me rewrite the line? Thank you Beyoncetan (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, your fix is truly perfect! Thank you so much for spending time to help me, BronHiggs! Best regards to you too! Beyoncetan (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Massive destruction of good work. What to do?[edit]

Hi BronHiggs. I am a passionate wikipedia contributor on areas of social science, marketing and communication (writing from Italy), and I am a victim too, of massive deletes from MrOllie, who just looked for ALL of my contributions to wikipedia in English in a work of 2 years, and canceled them, without any regard to quality and credibility and usefulness of the contribution. They were all specific contributions citing published research and literature. I am an author of books and my work has been quoted all over the globe, I wonder how it is possible to defend ourselves against this type of behavior that destroys not only specific pages but the overall mission of wikipedia. If you have any idea I will be more that happy to discuss it--Culturalresearch (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I added your page to my watchlist to see if anyone adds another warning and to see why. Adotchar| reply here 10:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


Did you just advise an editor who added Amazon links for his self-published books to multiple articles to continue doing so on less well-patrolled pages? I'm not sure that's good advice, from Wikipedia's point of view. [[User:]] (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Huon As should be very clear from the query from Culturalresearch, and my response, my advice was in relation to a concern about "massive deletes from MrOllie, who just looked for ALL of my contributions to wikipedia in English in a work of 2 years, and canceled them." My response was not explicitly about MrOllie, but about an army of deletionists who are not always acting within Wikipedia's guidelines in their quest to delete content. I have looked at some of the contributions from Culturalresearch to articles on Communication and other pages, and cannot see why they are so problematic that they need to be deleted, and am concerned that these deletions were not made in accordance with good practice and WP policy. What I have done, which should be abundantly clear, is outline some practices that I have used in the past to cope with the worst excesses of deletionists and reversionists. Let me make this very explicit, I prefer to edit content on pages that are not heavily patrolled because it is simply a waste of time and energy making contributions which are deleted within minutes of being added. I am explicitly referring to substantive contributions to the article's main body. I have no knowledge of any links to publications on Amazon - and my comments were totally unrelated to that. I also have no problem with Wikipedia guidelines and policies - but am of the view that they should apply equally to all editors, including those whose primary concern is to delete. BronHiggs (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks BronHiggs, I will take your advice very carefully. The amount of distortion of the truth in my case is incredibile. I make contributions on very difficult items, such as Intercultural Communication, being very careful to cite properly tens of different sources, and out of hundreds of contributions, they pick one and make it seem as the only one. Iams studying the rules about WP:HOUND WP:Wikihounding - repeatedly confronting or inhibiting another editor's work - since that is what they are doing, without any respect for the "need to know" of the community that uses wikipeda, and the values that generated it. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. (is considered a form of wiki bullying) --Culturalresearch (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Then let's go through the latest changes one by one:
  • Training: Two sources, a NATO glossary and Trevisani's self-published book.
  • Models of communication: Four references including two self-published books by Trevisani and a conference talk listing Trevisani as a co-author; the added text explicitly mentions Trevisani, too. I rather doubt the fourth source mentions the topic of the section.
  • Human resource management: Three references, a subset of the above. The non-Trevisani source is misrepresented and doesn't mention Trevisani's three-pillar model any more than the "four distances" model it was cited for before.
  • Empathy: Four references, three non-Trevisani ones for the last sentence and a Trevisani book, though in this case apparently not a self-published one, for the rest of the section, and Trevisani named in the body of the article as developer of the model, with no secondary source backing it up.
  • Leadership: Two references, one a self-published Trevisani book. Half the lead of that article was turned into one big Trevisani quote, plus six images to illustrate Trevisani's theory. WP:UNDUE applies, also copyright issues due to, at best, incompatible license.
I've got other things to do and thus will stop now, but it's obvious from this sample alone that the entire point of Culturalresearch's contributions is to promote Trevisani's work, with other sources often misrepresented to support it when in fact they don't. Huon (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Huon I really don't understand the point of all this. Surely you can't be suggesting that when I respond to a request for help, that I should refrain from assuming good faith WP:AGF, mount an investigation into the user's real identity WP:PRIVACY, out the user's identity WP:OUTING, carry out an exhaustive scan of the user's edits and make assumptions about the user's motivations?
This is hardly outing; Trevisi has repeatedly and explicitly linked his real-world identity and his Wikipedia account, for example here and also here (referring to Trevisani's work as "my work"). The list of contributions above was a reply to Culturalresearch's claim of "distortion of the truth" (without any evidence); sorry for mis-using your talk page. However, my original point stands: Part of your advice in the face of content removal was to continue the kinds of edits that other editors found problematic on pages where the edits might fly under the radar and stick due to not being noticed. I don't think that's good advice, for reasons that should be obvious. Huon (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's policy CulturalResearch has been "Outed." From the WP policy statement, The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research and Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. WP:OUTING It is up to the user whether he or she wants to reveal their identity, it is not up to you to do it on their behalf. BronHiggs (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

I made a post on ANI for the issue you contacted me on my talk page for. We still have many marketing articles that are very relevant and still marked as start-class articles.
You fix up a lot of marketing articles, but they're never moved up in class. So, please put your name under participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Marketing, which will be helpful because you work in marketing articles. Also, there isn't anyone else in the project that is as active as you are, so you really could try to keep all the marketing articles updated with the semi-active project. Once you are on the WikiProject Marketing participants list, please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. The articles you contribute to usually should be C, B, or A class articles, but they're all start class because there's no one in the marketing project to tag them. Here's a list of top-importance start-class Wikipedia articles for marketing: [1]. That's only if you want to keep doing that and not use the bot to fix the article rating. Article erating would require time because you've expanded so many articles, so if you want you can just go through your contributions page. And, if you want, you don't have to do this, because I can't tell you what to do. This would stop people from deleting external link sections you've added because you'd be doing something else. Happy editing, Adotchar| reply here 10:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adotchar: I have checked every Wikipedia article about external links and there is absolutely no mention of omitting corporations from external links. This suggestion is simply not backed by policy. I am quite sure that I will not be doing any editing on Wikipedia now or at any time in the future. Mr Ollie and his friends are now locating every article I have ever worked on, reverting content, changing it, tagging it and generally being disruptive. Frankly, their decisions or recommendations about external links are simply not backed by any policy. They are expressing highly subjective opinions - but because they are acting as a gang - they seeem to think that they have sufficient muscle power to impose their will on other editors, regardless of policy. I have made a careful analysis of the tactics they are using - and what is going on is really scandalous. They have no arguments - just assertions, suggestions and the delete button. And, they are absolutely not interested in listening to any logical arguments that present a different viewpoint to their own highly subjective opinions and spurious assertions. They have decided what is to be done - and the only issue that needs their attention is how to impose their wishes on other editors. Frankly, they are bully boys - and they are in good company because there are plenty of other bullies on Wikipedia - although this is the first time I have encountered a gang of bullies acting in concert in such a well rehearsed manner. Wikipedia has many deleters, but not many active contributors. These gangs of bully boys who are only interested in deleting content to bolster their own personal ego or to give them a sense of power will eventually destroy Wikipedia. Oh, and by the say, I am a "she" not a "he". BronHiggs (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Not everything is based on policy. The beginning of WP:CONSENSUS says it's the primary way we make decisions. It is. Each case is different, there is no large library of policy for everything. I do support that your editing should not have been reverted, but a consensus in both of the noticeboards was against you putting corporations in the external links of the business they specialize in. A proper list, which would be a list page, would be better as you can have a page titled something like "List of Marketing Companies" then there will be room for every single one on Wikipedia.In the external links section, we don't want a section larger than the artle, and if we only add the larger corporations into there it may be considered advertising. Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Marketing & Advertising. Adotchar| reply here 10:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Adotchar: What a bizarre set up! If you want to add links, you MUST adhere to policy. But, if you want to delete links, policy becomes and OPTIONAL extra. Talk about a double standard! The bullies can do whatever they like because "not everything is backed by policy." They can delete links from an article that they have not had any involvement in developing, because in their opinion the links "don't belong here" which translates as "they don't like it." They can misinterpret policy and even fabricate policy because they are the bullies and they need to be protected. On the other hand, an editor who substantially developed an article, is prohibited from adding half a dozen, high quality and relevant links (in an article of more than 10,000 words) because it is considered to be a linkfarm by the vindictive and nasty razor gang. In one of those pages, an administrator, commented that [the links are] a good illustration of implicit linking within the material and probably a good extension of the guideline and I can see there is some deeper material on some of the links. But, the bullies know better! They don't like the links, so they have to go and the editor who had the audacity to question their logic/ use of policy with detailed evidence-based arguments, has to be punished through hounding and harrassment. And you are willing to support that type of behaviour? It is all too much! The agressive bullying culture is oppressive and stifling and as I am sure you know, is widely understood to be the root cause of the steady and rapid decline in the number of active editors. There really needs to be an investigation into what's going on over there at Wikipedia External Links Project - but as I have already discovered, the administators are the biggest bullies of all. Cultural practices and attitudes start at the top and trickle down. There are relatively few online environments that tolerate bullying any more- but bullies are safe to practice their art on Wikipedia which has inadvertently inculcated a culture that not only tolerates it, but actively encourages it. If these guys can fly into a vindictive rage over a handful of links - the majority of which are to journals, conference proceedings, professional associations then let them go right on deleting - they don't ever add any content - the only time they add words is to berate some hapless editor who has come to their attention or to issue 'official-looking' warnings on editors' user pages. They are alienating editors and killing Wikipedia in the process. Soon they will have deleted everything worthwhile - and there will be few editors left who want to add content. Soon there will be nothing left. You can have your bully boys. There's no need to reply as I am currently dismantling my user page. It's time to use my skills writing for a rival wikipedia and helping to build it up.

The volunteer workforce that built the project’s flagship, the English-language Wikipedia...has shrunk by more than a third [between 2007 and 2013] and is still shrinking... The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage. Tom Simonite, “The Decline of Wikipedia,” Technology Review, October 22, 2013 <Online:>

A large proportion of articles contain some sort of warning that they are incomplete, poorly written or inadequately researched. The problem, most researchers and Wikipedia stewards seem to agree, is that the core community of Wikipedians are too hostile to newcomers, scaring them off with intractable guidelines and a general defensiveness. Chris Wilson, "Why Wikipedia Is in Trouble," Time Magazine, 15 January, 2016,

[A] study led by Aaron Halfaker of the University of Minnesota found that the number of "collaborators" or volunteer editors has been on the decline from around 56,000 in 2007 to some 35,000 at the end of 2012. "Wikipedia has changed from 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit' to 'the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit,'" they wrote. "Wikipedia losing editors,", 2013

Throughout my entire working career, I put up with bullies. Now that I am semi-retired, I choose NOT to suffer more bullies. Bronwyn Higgs, February, 2017

BronHiggs (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

what is[edit]

Perhaps you missed my comments about it [2]. I haven't looked closely, but it appears to be an article written by Hairong Li in 2007 when he owned the domain. I can't understand why you think it is "A useful outline of media planning decisions written by expert media planners and intended for a practitioner audience, published by the Advertising Media Organisation"[3]. Who are these "expert media planners" other than Li and who is the "Advertising Media Organisation" other than whoever currently hosts the article? --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ronz You have already deleted the link to the article, just as you have followed me around Wikipedia in order to delete all external links on almost every article that I have ever worked on. Insisting that I provide an explanation for something that you have already deleted, is nothing short of hounding/ harrassment, is disruptive and unwelcome. WP:HOUND WP:Wikihounding WP:HARASS WP:BADGER Please do not contact me again over this matter. BronHiggs (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I started this discussion in the hope you would provide some explanation for your edits. Yes I deleted the links because the only response I got was to remove them. Could you address the question? --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Ronz I think that we both know your motivations are much more insidious. You want me to justify the deleted link so that my attention is diverted from editing (adding substantive content) and directed towards investing in justifying a problematic link. The greater my perceived personal investment in that link, the greater the delight for you and your mates when you ultimately delete it. It is very clear from the pattern of behaviour that total deletion is your ultimate goal. I have not seen anything that suggests a genuine interest in learning why or how the link might be useful to Wikipedia users. By your own account, you "haven't looked at closely" at the article. Even though, you haven't looked at the article in any detail, you are in a position to make the judgement that it "doesn't belong." Seriously? (rhetoric question)
I have made it very clear that in marketing and advertising, the practice of accessing commercial databases in the area of marketing research, market research and audience research has become so normalised that it is included in basic, introductory texts, in marketing dictionaries and glossaries, is widely discussed on professional industry association websites and is also used by academics for research where it often forms the data-set for testing theories and models and is therefore widely canvassed in journal articles. I have provided extensive hard evidence to support this position. In spite of detailed, evidence-based arguments in favour of retaining a small selection of carefully selected external links, you and your mates have decided that this material "doesn't belong" (which incidentally is a non-argument) or that other options would be preferable. None of these options are backed by policy - they are mere suggestions - and in my view, an inferior replacement for existing selection of external links that are clearly within the parameters of the existing policy.
Wikipedia has very few policies, but it has guidelines. WP documentation is very careful to explain that the guidelines are flexible and that there are always exceptions. In the case of marketing and advertising, I believe that access to industry standard proprietary databases and software constitute a reasonable exceptions. There is a very strong case for including this type of material in some marketing related articles. However, instead of examining the evidence and context, you and your mates are in favour of imposing a blanket ban on all external links. Clearly, there is some other agenda going on. I have no idea what it is, and have no interest in exploring it. (If you are uncertain what is meant by industry standard, please search for the concept on the Advertising management article - and, while you are there you are certain to find more external links that you can have the pleasure of deleting or you can tag the article with promotional tags). In addition, WP lifted the ban on archives as external links (e.g. newspaper collections, collections of conference proceedings, collections of photographs,etc) several years ago, to the great relief of librarians and archivists globally. Perhaps you and your mates need to brush up on policy before you get too carried away deleting archival material?
If it is not possible to write about marketing and advertising as it is currently practiced, and as it is treated in high quality texts, then there is no point in writing about this subject matter at all! To omit mention of proprietary databases, especially in market segmentation, audience research, media research and market research, where the databases are so very widely used, is to fail to do justice to a complex industry that is heavily dependent on data, and in practice outsources most of the highly skilled, extremely technical and prohibitively expensive work involved in data collection and analysis.
Marketing is my area of expertise and I have no desire to edit articles outside this scope. Accordingly, and reluctantly, I have made the decision to quit editing on WP and am in the process of dismantling my user page and stitching up a few loose ends. I have no doubt that you and your mates at 'Wikipedia External Links Project' will be rubbing your hands together in glee, in the knowledge that you have notched up yet another victim.
I have previously asked you not to contact me again about this matter. I again remind you that I do not wish to invest more time discussing a link that has already been deleted - and which, in the current climate, has no prospect of ever being reinstated, regardless of how useful it is. In a couple of days' time, I will cease monitoring my WP account. I will not bother you again - and I ask you to do the same.
Sorry you feel that way. I wish I could convince you to stay, but if you cannot provide even a simple explanation for information you added that appears unverifiable, then you would continue to have an extremely difficult time trying to edit here.--Ronz (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Image sizes[edit]

Appreciate your point about having the image line up nicely with the navigation sidebar, but we should keep in mind that some users have their display preferences set to use custom image sizes. If a user has all thumbnails enlarged to 400px by default because of eyesight issues, they won't appreciate getting a header image fixed at 270px. If we want a detailed image to display larger than usual, we should use "upright=" markup so that our 400px user will also get a proportionally larger version of the image, rather than a smaller one. --McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Image test


Comments copied from Marketing Communications: Talk[edit]

Comments copied from Marketing Communications: Talk

frankly you've done a great job of taking the article on Consumer Behaviour from -this version in September to a recent version -- double in size, many more references, better organization, so good job BronHiggs. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Another comment Hey BronHiggs I briefly looked over your contributions in marketing, particularly the article on Consumer Behaviour and your work is impressive -- you're a good editor here, talented, and have made a positive contribution. On the Consumer Behaviour article, it went from 56K to 109K with many more references, good ones, like Kotler etc, and the article is more intelligible overall (a problem with much business writing is that it quickly gets dry and vague -- it is really difficult to write in a way to make ideas vivid). And this is largely your work -- great job. So please -- all power to you, go ahead and fix up these articles as you see fit. If you run into problems, write something on my talk page, and I'll try to help out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments copied from Retail: Talk[edit]

I don't have any expertise to contribute to this article myself, but it's nice to see it finally becoming an interesting read, with some historical depth, considering the actual magnitude of the topic. Thanks for your work. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments copied from Marketing Research: Talk[edit]

BronHiggs (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

BronHiggs This is an amazing collection of insights. Most or all of this belongs in the article. I am unable to add this content myself just now, but thanks a lot for sharing here. Your posting this here makes it easy for someone to edit this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Yep, @BronHiggs:, 'amazing' is the word, and it would seriously augment that otherwise slightly one-sided section. I would do it myself, but I think that you should do the honours! Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 15:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you very much for effort to retain Vision_vs._Mission article! I studied this topic thoroughly and know it's importance. fivetrees (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution steps?[edit]

I apologize that I don't have time to go back through our interactions to see what was said and where it was left. However, continued comments like this are not a solution to the content dispute nor the personal dispute. Please follow WP:DR and focus on content. If you believe the personal dispute needs its own resolution, I'm willing to participate in mediation or something similar. --Ronz (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Newbie Prize[edit]

Entrance to Newby Hall - - 439738.jpg Helping a Newbie Prize
I read your main page and I thought this welcoming pic of Newbie Hall was appropriate. Thank you for helping. You do realise that you are encouraging new editors? Oh well - someone has to break the mold. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for your welcoming of a new user. Your words are likely to inspire this student to go from someone with an unusual task to do for university into an open education convert and Wikipedian..... and we could do a few more of those. Victuallers (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Victuallers I am happy to help out with those who genuinely want to contribute. As for converting this student or indeed, any new user into a Wikipedian, I am afraid that I am much more cynical. Wikipedia has no problem attracting new editors, they just don't stick around for long. Unfortunately there are a number of organised groups of very aggressive bullies who rely on intimidation tactics to enforce their unjustified deletionist activities. Within a matter of months, most newbies encounter these people - and there is nothing that can be done - they are not interested in evidence-based arguments, but instead twist and contort policies and rely on their 'gang' to claim "consensus" without having to advance any real arguments in support of their various agendas. And, woe betide any editor who does not accept their consensus as legitimate - they will be stalked, harrassed and bullied into submission in order for the deletionists to impose their will. Most newbies are totally unprepared for the level of hostility and aggression that occurs daily on WP. Very few editors know how to handle these guys, so they just give up and quit. BronHiggs (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I admit I have seen some very unusual behaviour. Editors who delete new users sandboxes or their draft articles. I must admit it tests my AGF reserves..... so it its a joy to come across your comments to a new user. They do need resilience until we can find the tools to deal with bullying. Victuallers (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Share a Coke[edit]

I can't point to anything specific; it just seems promotional throughout, though that might be due to the article being about a promotional campaign. Trivialist (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Trivialist: Yes, the article is about an advertising campaign. However, it uses high quality references for all factual claims. Any material about the campaign specifics that is likely to be controversial - such as objectives etc are in quotation marks and properly attributed in order to distance the article writer from the content. We might take issue with a claim that the campaign was deemed successful, but is factual to state that the campaign was "deemed to be successful by the Wall Street Journal" or that the campaign "won specified awards." The article contains some 20 references, and only two are to the company website. Most references are to daily press such as the Wall Street Journal and trade press such as AdAge. This particular campaign has been extensively canvassed in the press and in trade news. It is widely written up as a case study for use in universities and colleges, where it is seen as an exemplar of customised communications strategy. It would be a shame to delete the entire article simply because it is about an advertising campaign. Unless, you can point to specific issues that are of concern, would you mind removing the tag? Thank-you. BronHiggs (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi BronHiggs. I hope my perspective on this matter will be of help [4]. Basically, I see it as a very similar problem as what you identified at Marketing research [5]. If you'd prefer not to work with me on it at this time, I'm happy to put it aside. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: My major problem with the Marketing research page is that unsupported claims were made about Arthur Nielsen's role as a key player in establishing and entire research industry. That claim, which is unsourced and highly dubious, simply cannot be supported by the copious amounts of evidence provided on the talk page of that article. The Share a Coke article throws up an entirely different set of issues. As far as I can work out, you do not like the Share a Coke article because you do not approve of its structure which you believe to be reminiscent of a creative brief, and you have also made unsubstantiated claims that the article has a preponderance of primary sources (a claim which incidentally cannot be supported by a simple check of the reference list and a tally of the types of sources). If you wish to revert the article back to the time before I started editing, be my guest. I have suddenly lost interest in it, just as I am rapidly losing interest in Wikipedia. Incidentally, it had been my intention to rework the history section of the Marketing research article, but since I was targeted by you and your friends, I have given up making subsantive changes to articles and now confine myself to wiki tweaks. BronHiggs (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the civil response. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment copied from Marketing article[edit]

@BronHiggs: I was asking myself how a copyright violation in Wikipedia's flagship article for the marketing topic area could go unreverted for nearly 3,000 edits (7 years, 118 days), but after I looked to see who reported the violation, the answer became obvious. Wikipedia editors with your knowledge, ability and diligence are just that rare! I for one am glad to see that you are still here. Best regards, wbm1058 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Personal selling[edit]

I'm going to hold off on responding to your comment [6] in the hope that you'll remove or rewrite it. I hope that you'll consider doing so, and appreciate that I'm doing this in an attempt to de-escalate the situation. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said, it is now time for me to take another break from Wikipedia. I have documented all your reversions, comments etc on articles that I have worked on for the past few months - and it really is quite a substantial listing indicating real persistence of effort. I had hoped that after taking a little rest from editing, you would turn your attention to someone else. Clearly that is not the case and you have now resumed your former activities. How that de-escalates the situation simply defies comprehension. BronHiggs (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That's your choice in perspective, action, and inaction. Here and now, I'm trying do de-escalate the situation as it stands at this moment. I hope you'll join me. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

nesse,mNA8Ufifpioousrieytreipquhreqw8ui NEEWWS FIR THE KING SIREEEEEEQWWUFQYRW8F[edit]

i'm sorry sire'aabnanbeaONLKJDSABHSFGVYSAZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Page of potential interest[edit]

Hi BronHiggs. I believe @EdJohnston: pinged me to a page involving you a while back, because of your interest in marketing/advertising topics. I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising and have contributed to several related articles like History of public relations. Though I am in law school now, my background was originally in public relations. Generally the work I do on Wikipedia now is bringing articles up to Good Article status for pay. For example, at Talk:Taboola I have disclosed a conflict of interest on the Talk page and shared a draft that I think is far superior to the current page. Because of my conflict of interest, Wikipedia requires that I find an editor un-affiliated with the company interested in reviewing and approving my work. I thought because of your interest in marketing/advertising topics, you might have an interest in taking a look at the proposed article on this content advertising company? It is rare to find anyone on Wikipedia with an interest in marketing/advertising as an actual subject of Wikipedia pages, so you were top-of-mind. CorporateM (Talk) 15:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Hi CorporateM. Thank-you for thinking of me. I am sorry to say that I have been targeted by several individuals, who object to most of my edits for reasons that are not entirely clear, and have been following me around Wikipedia for a many months, deleting content, tagging articles, posting snide remarks and generally harrassing me. These actions include looking into my editing history and attacking pages that I have worked on in the past. I have tried everything from expressly asking them to desist through to laying low - taking time out and confining myself to making little more than wiki tweaks, but nothing seems to shake them off. Any article that I have ever had any association with is at risk of being attacked by these people. As a consequence, I have been forced to quit editing Wikipedia. I am happy to have a look at your article, but if my enemies see any comments that I have made about it, that will be like a red rag to a bull and they will almost certainly come up with reasons to find fault with it resulting in it being tagged, attracting negative reviews on the talk page, having lengthy sections deleted, putting out requests for it to be rewritten etc. At the heart of this matter is that this group objects to the mere mention of a commercial organisation which they see as spam. It is impossible to argue with these people because they have formed a cartel and rely on weight of numbers to win debates and use each other to act as henchmen to impose their will and punish any resisters. Any article in the marketing, advertising, PR area is at risk, because promotional activity is treated as inherently evil and anything or anyone associated with promotion is automatically suspect. Incidentally, this might help to explain why so few editors are willing to work in the marketing area. BronHiggs (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I am semi-retired myself and becoming more retired with the passing of time. Because you brought it up, I took a quick glance at your contribs, and just skimmed the situation at Share a Coke. At a quick glance, I found myself agreeing with your opposition. Ogilvy's website is not really a good source or link and some of the others like investopedia are also not good sources. We need sources with a reputation for fact-checking, like historical societies, peer-reviewed journals, and major newspapers (AdWeek, New York Times, etc.), whereas a PR firm's case study is probably not a reliable source of neutral information. That being said, similar content would have stayed up on a page about an open-source project. I think the criticisms you are getting are real, but the aggressiveness in deleting, tagging, etc. is at least in part because of the subconscious biases of the community to allow promotion on topics the community favors, and attack it excessively on unfavored topics.
In any case, if you have any interest, I found a few sources on the Share a Coke campaign and I think if you use these, you'll find editors more supportive of your additions.[7][8][9][10] CorporateM (Talk) 01:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Repeatedly deleting sourced content from Share a Coke[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Thank you. [11] [12].

Please stop your edit warring and join the discussion. I'd offered to leave the article to you, but you declined. Now I've started working on it and your reverts are disruptive. Yes, it needs work. Are you interested in working on it now? --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added comments to the talk page with an extended discussion, which expands on the edit summary already provided and gives susbstantive reasons for the reversion. BronHiggs (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you are WP:GAMING. There has been no repeated deletion of content. You deleted two sections with only very vague explanations and I deleted one section for which I provided ample reasons and which amounted to the fact that the last remaining section had been stripped of all context as a direct consequence of your previous deletions and was therefore rendered meaningless by your actions. I have absolutely not repeatedly deleted anything, and you know it. In addition, there is no edit warring, since a single deletion does not amount to a war. I believe that there needs to be three or more reversions within 8 days for it to be classified as an edit war. When you say you are "working on" an article, this appears to mean wholesale deletions/ tagging and certainly doesn't mean adding anything in the way of substantive content or improvements to the quality of references. Finally, as to your advice to "join the discussion," frankly it is laughable. We both know that any effort on my part to discuss anything will be met with hostility, denial, gaming the system and a renewed, aggressive series of vindictive edits and deletions. Your conduct in all my previous attempts to discuss issues have taught me that there is no discussion - there is just you deciding what content can stay and what can go and providing some extremely inarticulate reasons for your edit decisions. I have learned after 5 months of suffering you engaging in WP:Wikihounding WP:HARASS WP:BADGERWP:HUSH WP:INDCRIT WP:DRIVEBYTAG is that there is no opportunity for good faith discussion there is just you trying to WP:BULLY me into submission. And I understand that you have so many targets that you can't even remember who you have said what to. This is some of the most appalling behaviour I have seen in a very long time. BronHiggs (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. I don't see anyone agreeing with you after all this time, nor have you attempted anything to resolve the situation beyond withdrawing and leaving notes like the above.
Also note your comments at Talk:Personal selling [13]. If that was a good faith attempt to work out the ongoing dispute, you need to take a different approach. Ignoring past discussions in this manner won't turn the situation around. --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
What discussions???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? BronHiggs (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
And as for nobody agreeing with me, that is a joke! Over at ANI, you have a very long history as a serial bully. In reality, both on Wikipedia, and off Wikipedia, your reputation as a bully is well-known. BronHiggs (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]

Stop icon Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at User:BronHiggs/sandbox. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Katietalk 19:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I do not believe that there was any personal information in the content that I posted in my sandbox. The only information that was included was readily accessible on Wikipedia's archives and only referred to the user's Wikipedia name. I know nothing about this user's offline identity and have no interest in learning more about this person. The user in question has been stalking me on Wikipedia, bullying and intimidating me for 5 months now. I was interested to learn that this user has a long history of bullying behaviour, similar to that exhibited in my own case. A cursory check of this user's current editing conduct shows that s/he targets new editors daily with warnings, reversion of content etc - triggering many new editors to quit Wikipedia permanently. This user's bullying goes back many years - and the worse that happens is that s/he is blocked for 24 -48 hours. I searched for the user's Wikipedia user name as part of my preparation for a complaint to ANI about this appalling conduct. If you wish to block me for that, then feel free to do so; it is of little consequence. My editing experience has been so badly marred by this bully, along with a couple of other bullies that I have lost all interest in further editing in this toxic environment. My last act on Wikipedia will be to lodge a detailed, evidence-based complaint about a serial bully. BronHiggs (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Consider this a final warning. Repeatedly casting aspersions about another editor without any evidence whatsoever will result in your being blocked. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: So, just to clarify, if I had posted the mass of evidence that I have collected, then my comments would be OK? BronHiggs (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
You'd run afoul of outing restrictions. You'll need to contact ArbCom. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Movement Strategy reminder[edit]

Hi. You contributed in a previous part of the discussion, so this is just a reminder to you (and any interested talkpagewatchers), that it's the second week of our Movement Strategy Cycle 3 discussion. There's a new topic each week in July, and this week's is: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways? You can see more details, and suggest solutions or respond to other people's thoughts (from this week and last week) at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2017. You can also read a summary of discussions that took place in the past week. Cheers. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


Not sure what you thought was being deleted here, I was moving "prices are commonly set by bargaining" out of the etymology section because it had nothing to do with etymology, and adding a couple of lines about dates and souqs being covered markets, as the lead section didn't seem like it was actually saying much. --Gapfall (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quintana Olleras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avila (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) 11:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"for" vs. "that refers to"[edit]

[[14]] It is a minor issue, and I agree that "for" and "that refers to" mean the same thing, but why use three words when one is sufficient? Thanks! Volunteer1234 (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer1234 Firstly, refers to is two words, rather than three as you suggest. Secondly, if it is a minor issue, why do we need to rewrite the policy to police it? Refers to is perfectly acceptable grammatically. Indeed, it is preferable in some instances. While, there may be more succinct ways to express the same idea, do we need a policy to reduce a phrase of two words to one? On wikipedia, I often read articles of 1,000 - 2,000 words that are totally meaningless and could be express the same idea in a sentence or two. There are lots of things on Wikipedia that I don't like - but I would never consider introducing policies to band them? And, do we need an army of volunteers running around on a search and destroy mission to replace the innocuous "refers to" with "is" - even while the proposal is only at the discussion stage? And sadly, some of these editors are doing little more than a "simple string/ replace" which means that they are leaving awkward expressions or grammatically incorrect sentences in their wake. One of WP's policies is that editing decisions should NEVER be based on "likes" and "dislikes" yet now some WP editors are planning to introduce a policy to ban things they don't like. WP has some nonsensical policies - but this one takes the cake! BronHiggs (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
For your work on marketing-related articles. Good luck in the future. Adotchar| reply here 00:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


How was that vandalism? Please explain. I was merely trying to clean up the list, as I thought listing the same phrase twice wasn't necessary.Sumanuil (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sumanuil The edit history clearly shows that you added the word "fornicator" at 5:05 on 9 November (Line 101) and then, one second later, you added "procurer for prostitution" at Line 108.
The absence of any edit summary does little to explain why these additions were seen as necessary. The description of "fornicator" for a flesh monger is inaccurate since a flesh monger is one who peddles or trades in flesh (i.e. a pimp, a madam or a brothel-keeper) and does not imply that the monger is selling themselves. The absence of edit summaries combined with the inaccurate description is a strong indication that the edit was made for malicious reasons. BronHiggs (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not add that. It was already there, and had been for months. See here, in a version from this May:[[15]]. I merely tried to remove what looked like a redundant entry, as both 'flesh monger' links led to the same page. Sumanuil (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sumanuil Thank-you for the additional information. The reason why edit summaries are expected is to give the editor an opportunity to explain why edits are needed and what exactly was accomplished. We are not mind readers; we do not know why an edit was carried out. All this could have been avoided if an appropriate edit summary was provided in the first instance. BronHiggs (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. By the way, I traced that little bit of vandalism all the way back to an edit made by User:Arcarius back in 2007, but it may go back further. Sumanuil (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sumanuil Thanks for clearing that up. How amazing that an edit like that can go undetected for 10 years! Just so that you are aware, I am no longer actively editing on Wikipedia, but I am monitoring a few of the articles that I completely overhauled last year and earlier this year. As I am sure that you are aware, vandalism is a major problem. There is hardly a day goes by that one of the pages I have been watching isn't subject to some type of vandalism - usually the addition of obsene words or phrases. BronHiggs (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]


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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, BronHiggs. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Talkback on my talk page[edit]

Seeing as I am not sure you have pings enabled, posting here to tell you that I've replied on User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Spanish Translation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


Sorry about this edit. I misread what you had done. I thought you had deleted the section where I was having a discussion with User:IdreamofJeanie; you had instead created a second section with the same name. It was your last edit that confused me: in the edit you delete an entire section, which I mistook for the other one with the same name. Again, sorry—I should have read more carefully.--Srleffler (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Srleffler: No problem, apology accepted. I regret the confusion over the second edit, but for some inexplicable reason, my comment appeared twice on the User's page, so I felt that I needed to delete one of them. I have some oncerns about this user, who appears to be adding the category, French words and phrases to many disparate articles, and whenever it has been reverted by other third party editors, s/he reverts the reversion, effectively adding the category back in again. To my mind, it is very clear that these types of articles are not what was intended by those who set up the French words category. In the case of the article on Retail, the article itself discusses the derivation of the term, and that makes it very clear that the term, retail itself is not French, but that a different term, tailler is French and that this term is the probable source of the English derivation. I do wish people would actually take the time to read article before they jump in and make editing changes or add their wiki tweaks! BronHiggs (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The text on the category page makes it pretty clear what does and does not belong there. I have begun reviewing articles and removing ones that do not belong.--Srleffler (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank Buchser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Unable to locate the link to which you refer. I have checked and there is no link to "Orientalist" in the article. There are however, links to "Orientalism" and to the category "Orientalist painters" and both appear to working as intended. BronHiggs (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walter Gay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Sargent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Services marketing[edit]

Hi BronHiggs,

I recently reverted your addition of the category Category:Services marketing to two articles, SEIU and public service. As far as I can tell, the category is (supposed to be?) about a particular kind of marketing that happens to involve services; while SEIU and public service both have "service" in their name, they don't have anything to do with marketing (e.g., the word "marketing" does not appear in either article). I am a bit skeptical of some of your other additions from the same batch, but I was less familiar with them so I didn't change anything. If you think I am mistaken, I'd be happy to discuss further.

All the best, JBL (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar for excellence in business articles[edit]

Wow -- really impressed with Positioning (marketing) -- such a great improvement over a while back.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Gold barnstar 2.png The Business and Economics Barnstar
To BronHiggs for excellent work on Positioning (marketing). Super job!!!Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, years back I heard a marketing lecture from a General Mills research executive. He took the structure of a definition and used it to illustrate the concept of market positioning, and showed how it could be a great conceptual approach for market positioning, to clarify one's thinking about a brand and how to market it. I gave a brief Toastmasters talk on it here if interested.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Outline of marketing[edit]

Over the past 6 months or so, I have spent a bit of time here and there, updating the Outline of marketing by adding relevant links, providing brief explanations of core concepts and organising the plethora of links into logical groupings with relevant headings and sub-headings. This has been an ongoing project and is far from complete. However, I only work on it, when I have some spare time.

I notice that you recently added a tag which stated, amongst other things, that "further improvements are on the way." I was wondering whether you have some specific plans in relation to updating or improving the Outline? If so, I will desist with my present plans and leave it to you. My feeling is that any page, such as this outline, will have the best possible outcome, if there is just one single vision for its overall structure and organisation.

One of the biggest challenges that I have encountered in the construction of this outline is the level of duplication of articles in the marketing area - i.e. articles with the identical/ similar content, but with different article titles. I have posted elsewhere including the marketing project page (with a long list of duplications), and on individual talk pages in relation to this level of duplication. However, as I search for relevant links to add to the Outline of marketing, more and more duplication becomes apparent. Just last week, for example, I found an article for Six Segment Analysis which is an inferior version of PEST analysis. Such is the culture at Wikipedia that there is a great deal of resistance to article mergers or article deletions, that any substantial reduction in the level of duplication is unlikely in the forseeable future. Therefore a key challenge is how to include duplicated articles, within a coherent and meaningful structure. BronHiggs (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No specific plans from me. That's just the standard notice on all outlines to prevent them from being nominated for speedy deletion or AfD by editors who are unfamiliar with them. What happens from time to time, is that an editor comes along and looks at only the portion of an outline that is above the table of contents, and notices that it starts out the same as the article on the same subject. Then, without looking further down the page, assumes it is a content fork and proceeds to tag the article for deletion. When he opens the page in the editor, he sees the notice that explains what kind of page it is, he realizes that deletion is inappropriate.
The "further improvements are on the way" is mostly referring to new outlines, to let the above mentioned editors know that it is not a flash in the pan page. Some outlines start out quite sparse, and some editors have the tendency to want to get rid of pages that are not fully developed from the get go. The notice helps prevent that too.
I hope that explains the purpose of the notice to your satisfaction. I'm very happy you have adopted an outline to develop. Another adopted outline that emerged recently is Outline of underwater diving. We need more editors like you two. Keep up the good work.     — The Transhumanist    01:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and additional comments. Wow! Who knew that underwater diving was such a complex and diverse topic? Best wishes BronHiggs (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Some observations[edit]

Outlines are great organization and revision tools.

Technically, the outlines on Wikipedia are reverse outlines.

They show gaps and overlaps in the coverage, and can help to reorganize things in a more sensible way.

Merge tags should be placed in the duplicates you come across. Think of them as weeds. If somebody doesn't weed the garden from time to time, it'll get choked with weeds.

As for treating duplicates within an outline, I would simply leave them out or remove them.

I hope these comments help.

Sincerely,     — The Transhumanist    02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

José Navarro (painter) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Orientalist
Paul Leroy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Orientalist

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank Buchser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Realism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Retail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited José Navarro (painter), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

See also on Guildhall, Bath[edit]

Thanks for your edit to Guildhall, Bath, however I'm having problems seeing how some of the wikilinks added in the see also section ( eg Guildhall School of Music and Drama, Hanseatic League etc are relevant to the Council Offices. I will trim them a bit.— Rod talk 08:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Royal Prussia not Kingdom of Prussia[edit]

Tiedeman Giese
The whole story takes place in Poland so Polish names should go first. And Chełmno was the original name, mot just "modern" like you insist.
Georg Giese
Royal Prussia was just a region of Poland, not even a province. Poland was the country not "Prussia". Look it up.
Johann Ernst Gotzkowsky
"Original" suggests that Konitz was a city in the Kingdom of Prussia modernly Chojnice in Poland. Chojnice is the original name, the country was Poland and "Prussia" is misleading, because there were two Prussia's at the time.
More to come, happy editing Space Veteran (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Space Veteran
The stories that we are writing about took place in the 15th and 16th-centuries. The part of Europe where the actors resided was known as Prussia. I think that Poland was a region of Prussia, and not the other way around as you suggest. Refer to Prussia for details. Moreover, the term. "Prussia" is used by the secondary sources cited in the respective articles - and there are multiple secondary sources using that term. As far as possible, authors should use terminology in line with its use in the original source being cited.
In the case of Tiedeman Giese, multiple sources state explicitly that he was the Bishop of Culm (and not the Bishop of Chelmno). As far as practical, editors should use technical terms as they appear in the original source used. In this article, prior editing changes have attempted to use replace modern names, and these were reverted to the historical names as far back as 2006. All I can see is your assertion that Chelmno was the original name, but this viewpoint is not consistent with the language used by multiple historians cited in the article.
In the case of Gotozkowsky article, I can see that inconsistency raising its head again. In the first part of the your argument you claim that Konitz was "modernly Chojnice" and that it was in Prussia, and subsequently insist that Chojnice is the original name and it was in Poland. I simply cannot follow this type of logic.
From a style perspective, historical names should go first rather than Polish names, German names or some other native name. Modern names, if included at all, (and it is optional) should be in brackets and immediately follow the historical name for period in which the narrative occurs.
You have not addressed the apparent inconsistencies in your edits - why change some from modern to historical names in some articles and historical to modern in other articles?
Well, if You think that in XV and XVI centuries Poland was a part of Prussia, than maybe you should refer to Prussia but for basics. I also recommend Royal Prussia, Duchy of Prussia, Brandenburg-Prussia
For you all German names seem to be "historical" and Polish names "modern".Space Veteran (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Johann Ernst Gotzkowsky
"Original" means the version you called "original". I pointed out that the original version would imply the city was Konitz, Kingdom of Prussia. when in fact it was Chojnice, Poland. I'll write soon, happy editing.Space Veteran (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the articles I recommended? Any more questions? In the future, however, try to be a little bit more self sufficient. Just a suggestion. Happy editing! Space Veteran (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Space Veteran Actually I had read those articles even before you recommended them, thanks. And what I read there makes it very clear that these towns were in the Royal Prussia. I placed a map on the talk page for Tiedemann Giese. The map also shows that Konitz is another name for Chojnice in Royal Prussia. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read the articles. BronHiggs (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually it's very unlikely, that you read those articles before, because then you wouldn't write that you think that Poland was a part of Prussia in 15, 16 centuries. Thank you very much!
Now let me explain that map to you: The names are not divided into "modern" and "historical", but between contemporary Polish (no brackets) and German (brackets). Polish names first, because these lands were under Poland then. I'll buy bishop of Culm. I prefer "Chojnice (Konitz), Poland" over "Chojnice (Konitz), Royal Prussia. Country seems pretty important to me. And Royal Prussia wasn't even a province of Poland. I will write soon, happy editing.Space Veteran (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Plus: the term is awfully confusing to some people (I don't mean you). They think Kingdom of Prussia. Space Veteran (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Space Veteran I think you are playing little semantic games here. Danzig is both the historical name and the German name for a city that has been variously claimed by Germany, Poland and Russia at different times in its thousand-year history. From a very early stage in its development, Danzig was part of the Teutonic order [1]and its population was ethnically German.[2] This explains why the city took the German name, and why this name also became its historical name. Even when Danzig was annexed by Prussia, it retained a unique and far-reaching form of independence, e.g. had its own judiciary and minted its own coinage because its inhabitants resisted becoming part of the Poland. [3] At that time, Danzig, Torun and Kulm became part of Royal Prussia, and not Polish Prussia. [4]
The use of the correct geographic determination, "Royal Prussia" need not be confusing. Wikipedia has links to relevant pages such as Royal Prussia, embedded in articles, for the benefit of users who are interested in learning more about the background. It is not up to editors to 'reinvent history' on the basis of some assumption about what might or might not be confusing to some users. As Wikipedia editors we're expected to accurately report what reliable sources have to say on a subject, and to avoid introducing our own subjective biases into articles.
  1. ^ Rampley, M., Heritage, Ideology, and Identity in Central and Eastern Europe, Boydell Press, 2012, p. 115; Davies, N., God's Playground A History of Poland: Volume 1: The Origins to 1795 Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 197; Frankot, E., Of Laws of Ships and Shipmen, Edinburgh University Press, 2012 p. 78
  2. ^ Atkin, N., Biddis, M. and Tallett, G., The Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789, John Wiley & Sons, 2011 [E-book edition], n.p.; Rampley, M., Heritage, Ideology, and Identity in Central and Eastern Europe, Boydell Press, 2012, p. 116
  3. ^ Davies, N., God's Playground A History of Poland: Volume 1: The Origins to 1795 Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 197; Frankot, E., Of Laws of Ships and Shipmen, Edinburgh University Press, 2012 p. 78; Rampley, M., Heritage, Ideology, and Identity in Central and Eastern Europe, Boydell Press, 2012, p. 115; Rampley, M., Heritage, Ideology, and Identity in Central and Eastern Europe, Boydell Press, 2012, p. 115
  4. ^ Davies, N., God's Playground A History of Poland: Volume 1: The Origins to 1795 Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 197; Frankot, E., Of Laws of Ships and Shipmen, Edinburgh University Press, 2012 p. 78; Rampley, M., Heritage, Ideology, and Identity in Central and Eastern Europe, Boydell Press, 2012, p. 115

BronHiggs (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Space Veteran Wikipedia has been the subject of endless debates about the German vs Polish forms of place names. On the talk page of Talk:Tiedemann Giese, you will find the following policy applies in the event of disputes:

": For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945

For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers."

This policy came about following a vote and reaching a consensus; see Talk:Gdansk/Vote.

BronHiggs (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Marketing performance measurement[edit]

Hi Bron. Just wanted to clarify what was happening at the article. I am cleaning up Good Articles and came across this one. Not sure how familiar you are with the process, but this article was nominated in 2009 and passed. Here is the review Talk:Marketing performance measurement/GA1. To be fair it looked like this [16] when it was passed. An editor later decided that it shouldn't be a Good Article and removed the status[17]. I agree with them, but that is not how articles are delisted. Well it used to be, but now it is a bit more formal. We have a reassessment process. I reinstated the status and then started the reassessment process. I know it is a bit buercratic, but this way future editors can easily see what happens (it is listed under milestones) and it helps prevent edit warring over statuses. It also gives prospective editors something to work with. I want to thank you for your comments at the reassessment (Talk:Marketing performance measurement/GA2). I added level three headers to your comment here as level two ones break the section. I will probably delist the article next week if there are no more comments. Hope this helps explain what was happening. AIRcorn (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Thanks for taking the time to explain. I was really shocked to find that the article was already at GA status. It really is a terrible piece, and it smacks of under the counter efforts to promote certain companies and their publications. I looked at that article about 6 months ago, with a view to rewriting it, but when I saw just how awful it was, and smelled a rat in terms of "spam", I thought that any attempt to change it would meet with so much resistance and hostility that it wasn't worth getting involved. In any case, there are many other marketing related articles that require some attention - so I have been working on those instead. Thanks again, for clearing that up. BronHiggs (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


Please don't ever add biographies to Cat "Arabic art" - they go to "Arab artists", but ONLY if they have no sub-cat of that, like "Iraqi artists". See WP:OCAT. And get the live categories off your own sub-page. Put a : in them as in Category:Arab artists so they don't read through to the category. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Noted, with thanks. The issue has been rectified. BronHiggs (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


Dear Bronwyn,

The following fragment of your message is so funny, I decided to quote it:
Danzig is both the historical name and the German name for a city that has been variously claimed by Germany, Poland and Russia at different times in its thousand-year history. From a very early stage in its development, Danzig was part of the Teutonic order and its population was ethnically German. This explains why the city took the German name, and why this name also became its historical name. Even when Danzig was annexed by Prussia, it retained a unique and far-reaching form of independence, e.g. had its own judiciary and minted its own coinage because its inhabitants resisted becoming part of the Poland. At that time, Danzig, Torun and Kulm became part of Royal Prussia, and not Polish Prussia.
Indeed, "Gdańsk" and "Danzig" are both historical names. You're right. Only Polish name is more historical, because it's the original name and was in use way before "Danzig".
I never heard about Gdańsk being claimed by Russia.
The early stage in the city's development is purely Polish. The city was founded around 980 by Mieszko I of Poland and served as a Polish seaport. It had a substantial German population, but small compared to contemporary Kraków, then, a capital of Poland, for example.
In 1308 the Teutonic Order conquered entire Pomerelia together with Gdańsk and slaughtered entire Polish population of the city.
During the Thirteen Years' War Gdańsk returned to the Fatherland. The Pomerelian Germans fought side by side with Polish troops of the king Casimir IV Jagiellon, against the hated Teutonic Knights.
When Gdańsk returned to Poland (not Prussia, as you wrote obviously by accident) it didn't retain a unique and far-reaching form of independence but autonomy. Pomerelia was put under a special protection of the Polish King, hence the name Royal Prussia. Polish Prussia was a synonym of Royal Prussia. Same exact territory and same exact timeline. Autonomy was over in 1569, after the Union of Lublin.
More to come.

Thanks for your time, Bronwyn. (à propos: did you know, that "Bronwyn", pronounced "Brawnveen" is an Old Prussian name, somewhere from the "historical" region of Bromberg).
PS. Don't patronize people concerning subjects you have microscopic knowledge about (History of Poland). Come to think of it: don't patronize anybody. Yours truly Space Veteran (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Space Veteran: I have previously quoted from a number of secondary sources about the origins of Danzig and its German origins, and the sources are there on the talk page for anyone to scrutinize. These sources back up all my edits (but fail to back up your constant reversions). All I have seen this far, is your opinion, which whether we like it or not, doesn't outweigh reliable sources on Wikipedia (See WP:RS]]. To date, I have studiously ignored your condescending comments, but this is becoming very tiresome, and is clearly turning into an edit war. BronHiggs (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Bronwyn,
I'm unpleasantly surprised! You took my entries as condescending, when in fact those were just jokes, meant to entertain you.
When did I revert anything? I'm not a warrior. I'm a space pilot.
  • Vanished Kingdoms. Norman Davies
  • Iron Kingdom. Christopher Clark
  • The Vanished Kingdom. James Charles Roy
  • God's Playground. Norman Davies
  • The Polish Way. Adam Zamoyski
  • The Other Prussia. Karin Friedrich
  • Teutonic Knights: A Military History. William Urban
  • Europe. A history. Norman Davies
These books I read cover to cover, so what I say is a little bit more than just an opinion. Please read History of Gdańsk, a heavily referenced article. I have to run. Space Veteran (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Danzig (Gdańsk) was taken by Russians in 1734 and 1758, but it wasn't claiming. It was just pressure on the Commonwealth and Saxony. Space Veteran (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Shortening citations[edit]

Please see WP:CITESHORT to understand about shortening multiple citations to different page numbers in the same reference on Wikipedia. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jpbowen: Thank-you. And, can I also take this opportunity to recommend WP:CITETYPE? This WP policy informs me that long citations "are the most commonly used on Wikipedia" and that short citations are normally used when "a full bibliographic citation has been provided either in an earlier footnote or in a separate section." [emphasis added] Changing long citations into short citations is optional, and I have no real problem with that, but it is a concern when a long citation is changed to a short citation without providing the full reference at any other point in the article. Editors who regularly convert long citations into short citations all too often lose information value because they omit critical bits of info, most often the page references. Obviously this well-intentioned, but flawed practice, leads to loss of value, creating difficulties for any user who might wish to locate the original source. In the particular case to which you refer Hanaa Malallah, the author and art historian, Nadia Shabout, has written many books and articles on Islamic art - so, in the absence of a publication year, publication title or publisher details, readers would never be able to find the actual source. And, not only that, the tag team, would soon have a field day, tagging the article with "more details" or "full reference" or "cannot be validated" or "refimprove" or "page refs needed." I am not a great fan of editing changes that result in the loss of valuable information. BronHiggs (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Completely agreed that the full reference needs to be included. This is in the Hanaa Malallah#Bibliography section in case you missed it. I hope this helps. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jpbowen: Just so that you are aware, the article in question was a stub before I expanded it. The article consisted of just two paragraphs plus a lead, and used just three citations, all to digital sources and with no clear citation style. Moreover, the article failed to indicate why this artist was notable. When I added references, of which many were to published books, I made the decision not to use a Notes section for the references, but to use long citations across the board - which as I understand it was my prerogative since WP has no preference for citation style, provided that the same style is used consistently throughout the article. The article now consists of a mix of long and short citations, which frankly, I still cannot see as an improvement. I realise that many editors pefer to use named references, but for a variety of reasons, I do not use them. But, I have no objections to the use of short citations, providing that editors are prepared to convert all the article's references into short citations. In the vast majority of cases, editors who convert to named references, only attend to one or two, and then they typically omit page refs or other details (which mercifully you have preserved the page nos).
It is very frustrating devoting a lot of time and effort, to develop an article with high quality sources, only to be informed that referencing needs a lot of attention, particularly when the editor is merely expressing an opinion about personal preferences in relation to citation styles, and not actually reflecting policy requirements. There was nothing wrong with the citations when I finished expanding this article, but now there are quite a few problems with it. But I have wiped my hands of it, and will not be expanding it any further. BronHiggs (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with BronHiggs. His citations were perfectly fine. Everybody has their own way of handling citations and there are numerous choices. It's not a big deal when compared to BronHiggs' excellent contributions here. As long as the citations allow a reader to check the reference, the particular citation style is not that important.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I am sure we are all trying to help! I am a "mere" academic. :) —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Well kudos to both of you academics who are doing a great job here improving Wikipedia. Me, I'm a mere handyman, although I've studied marketing, used to own my own market research firm, and I'm learning the Python computer language when I get a chance.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Untitled by Khaled al-Rahal.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Ludwig Hans Fischer.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Orientalist artists[edit]

Thanks for leaving on my talk page your very patronising message, which had its basic fact and premise wrong, as I did exactly the opposite of what you claim I did and you did exactly that which you reproach me of doing. Your apologies (if offered) will be accepted. Lomojo (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Lomojo (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Iraqi Art[edit]

Sorry, I hit revert on popups accidentally, I didn't mean to revert without an edit summary. I don't think the courtesy extended in EngVar extends to former colonial possessions of Britain - also, Iraq was technically not one, at least not for very long if it ever was. Seraphim System (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Untitled by Khaled al-Rahal.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Untitled by Khaled al-Rahal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

re: Ahmed Al Bahrani (sculptor)[edit]

The religion parameter is no longer recognized in the 'Infobox Person' template. It was not visible in the Infobox Person before I made my edit and it is not visible now after your undo. In fact it creates an error which you can view by clicking the article edit tab & then the show preview button. Those errors make their way to this report.
Gene Wilson (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Gene Wilson Re: Ahmed Al Bahrani (sculptor) Thank-you and apologies. I looks like the edit was made in error. I actually thought that I was deleting the reference to religion in the infobox. The edit summary clearly shows that I wanted to delete it, not because of its validity as a parameter, but because the artist's religion is not mentioned anywhere in the article, therefore there are no reliable sources supporting the claim. Not all Iraqi artists are Muslim - some are Syrian Orthodox and others are Jewish. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the artist is Muslim simply because he resides in an Arab-speaking country. Incidentally, I have never heard anything about this parameter not being valid in infoboxes and the field still appears in certain infobox templates. It seems to me that if the parameter is no longer valid, then the best way to attend to that is to remove it from ALL templates. In relation to the al-Bahrani article, the issue has now been rectified. BronHiggs (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, no need to apologize at all. I did notice that what you wrote in the summary was inconsistent with the action you took. I'm glad you had an opportunity to look at it before any changes were made. No problem at all. We all work on this together. PEACE! Gene Wilson (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Murad al-Daghistani) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Murad al-Daghistani, BronHiggs!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An interesting and well-written article, but the infobox and later text contradict the date given in the lead as to his date of death.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ali Adjalli[edit]

Hello BronHiggs I've noted your excellent work on Iraqi artists and wondered if perhaps you might be able to help with the sourcing of Ali Adjalli. I don't want this request to come across as a form of canvassing. I don't know if your even interested in the deletion discussion, but perhaps you can help evaluate the sources? Thanks, --Vexations (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Vexations Hi there, Thanks for your comments. I really enjoyed expanding the articles on Iraqi art and the Hurufiyya movement. That endeavour led me to the List of Iraqi artists which seemed to be missing many names of influential artists, so I decided to add articles for the most important of these. I have been researching these for some time and preparing drafts in my Sandbox - and am only just now starting to upload them to the main space.
Locating sources for Arabic artists is difficult - I generally find that I need to visit my State Library which has a good collection of books on Middle Eastern art (in English)- and generally have to search for newspaper/ magazine articles in Arabic - which involves time spent translating them. I do not speak Arabic at all well - but I do understand the alphabet, basic terms and how sentences are constructed, which the aid of Google Translate allows me to get by.
In relation to your article, I'll see what I can do and add references directly to the article, where appropriate. (Incidentally, I only do long citations - so if you want short citations, you'll need to convert them.) I'll send you a ping when I have finished or can go no further. It may take a few days or week or so. BronHiggs (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Vexations I have deleted half a dozen references that failed to check out. But I have added some 9 new and better-quality references, including references to art books authored by known art historians. I have also reworded some of the existing content - all with explanations in the edit summary; and have expanded the article somewhat. The artist is interesting because he developed a new script for use in painting, and this illustrates the dynamic nature of Islamic calligraphy which is all too often seen as ancient and rule-bound, therefore never-changing and moribund. I would like to be able to find a reliable source that makes such an observation, as I think that this it the key to this artist's notability.
I have also added my voice to the article's deletion discussion. So far, the "keeps" outweigh the "deletes" and if you also add your voice, it should be possible to make a case for keeping the article. I can't do much more without visiting my State Library, and I doubt that I will have the time to do that this week. I hope that this helps. BronHiggs (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This is very much appreciated. I haven't gotten involved in the Ali Adjalli article yet. I have always been very interested in Islamic art, and I'm reasonably familiar with earlier work, but not so much with more recent developments. I wish I'd taken an earlier opportunity to let you know how much I've enjoyed your contributions when reviewing new articles for WP:NPP. Thank you! Vexations (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Vexations Me too! I just love Islamic art. I studied art history at the University of Barcelona in the early 1970s and, of course, we learned all about the Moorish influences on Spanish art and architecture, but then I left it all behind for a career in advertising and marketing. I am now semi-retired, and have travelled to Spain and Morocco several times which reignited my interest in Islamic art and architecture. I live in Melbourne, Australia so travel to Europe and North Africa is a once every second year event due to the cost and the distance (24 hours air travel is brutal). But, I hope to visit Baghdad on my next trip, providing that it is safe to do so. On my last trip, I had to cancel a planned visit to Istanbul, due to the explosion targeting tourists at the Museum. I am glad that I ignored one Wikipedia editors' advice to desist editing art-related articles - instead, I decided to focus my writing on contemporary Middle-Eastern art and artists - which for most European editors is a bit of a backwater. (Little do they know about 20th-century developments taking place across the pan-Arab region, such as the hurufiyya movement, the Baghdad Modern Art Group, the rise of calligraffit etc). I am also glad that someone else shares an interest in this subject matter. BronHiggs (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
For your work on Ali Adjalli. Thanks. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)