User talk:Rani Lueder

Welcome!

Hello, Rani Lueder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DVD+ R/W 20:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Ronz 20:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No spoiler alerts

WP's Content disclaimer is all the "spoiler alert" readers receive. WP is an encyclopedia and therefore does not censor itself (including fiction plots). Consequently, I removed your spoiler alert at Michael Clayton.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kneeling Chair

I have reverted all of your edits at Kneeling chair. You wiped all of the research and replaced it with your own, including inline links to your own website and references that are only from your site. To this outside observer the replacement was no more suitable than the existing text, and had some further issues. You added original research to the article, expanding on the studies rather than just summarising their findings. Given your area of expertise, involvement in ergonomics and your recent edits to the article, I would recommend not becoming involved with it as there seems to be a conflict of interest issue. I'm sorry I felt the need to revert your good faith edits; please bear in mind that this issue can be discussed with people who are not me (perhaps over at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests, where people will be happy to advise you on what to do about this). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated Balans for deletion, as it doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Your recent edits are so focused on Balans and your site that they look a bit like spam (I almost put a speedy deletion spam template on the Balans page, but realised that it could have been an innocent article written out of interest). You'll have to be very careful about the conflict of interest issues I mentioned above. The potential deletion of Balans can be discussed here. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there, WP. Are you a vendor? I actually did not delete any research, I just added a lot more. The only reason I added the content to a page on my website is because I wanted to provide a clear place that lists all the abstracts on this research, points to all the medline and other resources to order the articles and - when the article or report is hard to find - enables people to download it.

I also did this because my impression is that the page was heavily biased and presented a distorted view of the research. It left in negative comments, but not positive findings. And it only showed a sample of the studies. In contrast, I tried to show all of the positive and negative findings and pointed to where it was available. I don't have an agenda, but I felt the people running this page do since it leans one way.

A vendor? No. I have no connection to the industry. You deleted coverage of independent studies for and against Balans chair and replaced them with a lot of original research stating why any anti-Balans result is invalid. My suggestion is that you publish this sort of thing on your web site and not on Wikipedia as it's just not the right platform for it. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't take out any of the citations - I just collapsed these into a much larger body of research. Each one of the cites that was originally there - which mostly were very poor studies and representations of the topic - is still there. I would be fine with shifting all the studies from my page over to the kneeling chair page, I'm not looking for credit, I just had an impression that this page had an agenda and intentionally emphasized low quality studies that were counfounded but had negative fndings. I don't want to shift everything over though if it will all be deleted again, that was the only reason I pointed to a page. And I find it rather offensive that you don't include one link in the references to the page because it provides a much better review of the research than anything you have now on your page.

As for your comment about the Balans versus the kneeling chair, almost all studies of the kneeling chair were performed with Balans chairs, which were designed by Mengschoel and Opsvik. I'd says actually only one of the studies DID NOT use the actual patented Balans chair. However, many products on the market - perhaps most - are by manufacturers who do not base their design on research findings and often diverge quite dramatically from the well-researched Balans concept. That's why I added it. It could be combined, but what you have is a poor represenation of what is out there.

I appreciate your getting back, though. Rani

How are these studies low-quality? I don't understand your objection. There are two pro-kneeling chair studies and two anti-kneeling chair studies posted there and the article simply summarises the claims of the study, unlike your edits which added original research. Whether or not other brands have supplanted the original vision of the Balans chair designers is beyond the scope of the article. Wikipedia can only reflect the opinions of respected, trusted sources even if it isn't the truth. On top of this, you're right in thinking that moving all of the original references to your web site and changing the references to point there isn't something you should be doing. Again, have a read through WP:COI and consider whether you should be editing these articles or not. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WP. First off, let me again say that I'm fine with moving my content to Wikipedia - as long as I don't think that you are going to hatchet the content to distort it as it is now. Second, I think you fail to recognize that I mention the Balans because ninety-some percent of all studies of the kneeling chair were performed on the Balans, not other versions. Third, let me remind you that I have included all of your citations and added many more - and nowhere did I include content that was not completely supportable and cited in the research. I've spoken to some people who now give me the impression that you have the conflict of interest, much more than I. I'm an ergonomics researcher, you're a provider of a kneeling chair in Australia. I also have the impression that you have plagiarized content by Dr. Jenny Pynt of Australia. My impression at this point by your telling me to step away is that you are improperly trying to control the situation. As I said, I don't need my content to be specific to my website as long as you fairly represent the content without distorting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rani Lueder (talk • contribs)

I'm not involved in any industry remotely related to ergonomics or soft furnishings, I live in the U.K., and my only contribution to the kneeling chair article has been removal of promotional content. The citations that you refer to as "mine" were not added by me (I have simply reverted your alterations because the old ones seem fine whereas yours are inappropriate). Inaccurate snooping and plagiarism accusations (please expand on these; if there is plagiarised content in the article it should be identified and removed) are not going to validate your own edits. At the start of our encounter I suggested that you request help from other editors if you're unsatisfied with what I've told you; given your mistrust of me this would be a good way to proceed. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YOu're in the UK? Thanks for responding, perhaps I was influenced by colleagues who were mistaken in their comments about who you were. Honestly, I don't mean to cause a problem. I was just trying to get an accurate representation of the research, and what was there was a very flimsy representation of the real research. I still don't understand why you see my being an ergonomist as a conflict of interest. After all, you allowed someone else to list a citation as a reference of one of my edited books on sitting posture. I've been researching and consulting and writing about sitting posture and seating for about 30 years. I don't understand how you can suggest that my opinions are less valid than others who do not specialize in the research. As I said, I'm happy to expand on the research on the wikipedia page - rather than providing a link - if you are willing to accurately reflect the real research

Thanks again for getting back.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rani Lueder (talk • contribs)

I have no doubt that your expertise is valuable, but your involvement with the subject matter coupled with the edits you've made which look too much like original research (as well as citing your own site) which is heavily discouraged here. Because of your position as a prominent ergonomist you're less likely to be able to contribute without bias. I know it seems a bit mad, but that's the way Wikipedia runs. Another example of a conflict of interest issue: public figures are discouraged from editing their own articles. Of course a celebrity knows more about their own biographical details than anybody else, but Wikipedia is more interested in reflecting the views put across by reliable published sources than getting the information straight from the horse's mouth, even if that means the resulting article's accuracy is reduced. Your case is similar; you have a deeper understanding of kneeling chairs than most editors ever will, but adding a block of your own research is tipping the scales of balance and spoiling the more stable summary of several items of research (correct or not).

None of this means that you can't contribute to the article or other ergonomically-themed articles! We just need you to be really careful about balance and including your own research. As an expert in the field your contributions are welcomed and encouraged, as long as you can successfully walk the tightrope that is complete objectivity. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of editing tips: When you post on a talk page discussion you should sign your name with four tildes like so: ~~~~. This will be substituted for your signature and a time stamp when you submit the edit. Secondly, you should only mark edits as minor when you're only making a very small change, like fixing a typo. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back, but I'd appreciate it if you would come out about who you really are. You know who I am. I was always logged in by my name when I posted, or at least I tried to on every occasion. I don't understand your continuing suggestion that my being an ergonomics researcher undermines my credibility - if you really believe that, you can at least come out and acknowledge who you are - I gave you my name. I also don't understand why you say that my linking to my site is suspicious despite my repeated statements that I don't need a link, I'm happy to transport my content to the web page as long as I have a sense that I'd be treated fairly.;

I have no idea what you're talking about. Again, try to get some advice from another editor here. I'm getting tired of your paranoia. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I paranoid when you've locked all open discussions about the topic on the thread? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lani Lueder (talk • contribs)

I haven't locked anything, I don't have the power and I wouldn't want to if I did! Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but my impression is that it was locked earlier, so our chats were in private. By the way, you cite my edited book at the bottom of the page... I'll just leave it that the page is really a quite poor representation of the real research and that you don't want the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rani Lueder (talk • contribs)

I didn't cite it, but I can see from the article that your book was cited to support this passage of text only:

A proper kneeling chair creates the open body angle by lowering the angle of the lower body, keeping the spine in alignment and the sitter properly positioned to task.

Do you disagree with that?

I'm sorry that you're unhappy about the article, and I would urge you to draft the changes you want in your userspace (e.g. at User:Rani Lueder/Kneeling chair rather than the main article) and then ask for feedback from an experienced editor, and not me. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that all talk pages on Wikipedia are public, and there is no way for us to have a private chat. This is all in the open. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. And I'm glad the discussion is public. No, I think Mandal's chapter is appropriate here because he did create a sea change in thinking on the forward tilting - although he has made many incorrect citations in most of his paper - Mandal stopped talking to me as he did with many researchers after I tried to correct some of his cites in that paper that were not substantiated in the original source he cited. (I could name them if you wished). I only mentioned your reference to my edited book since you indicated that I had a conflict of interest and was not a credible resource. As I said, I'm fine with having my own content transferred to the page, I only linked to it to enable readers to see the original abstracts and provide them an opportunity to download articles that are not commonly available elsewhere. I was not surprised that you edited my content, but I was surprised that you found my page not credible - it is much more informative than your page - and that you felt I had a conflict of interest as an ergonomics researcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rani Lueder (talk • contribs)

I think you're a little confused about the way Wikipedia works, as you keep referring to this as "my page". I am not the person who wrote the text featured currently, my only involvement before you arrived was to heavily crop the page content to remove some blatant advertising. Please don't get the impression that you're not considered a credible source. Given that you've already been cited and that this has been kept in the article as a source it would seem that you generally are considered a good source for the article, and I agree. The issue is you becoming directly involved with the content of this page. It's okay for other people to cite you or even your web site, but citing yourself and remaining neutral is dangerous territory and has to be approached carefully to avoid undue weight and bias. Posting your own research yourself to correct other people's research is a no-no. Other people can post your research more objectively. I really think you should read through WP:COI to help clarify some of these issues. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clear this up further: I didn't mean that you should archive this discussion in your userspace, but that you should rewrite the Kneeling chair page itself into your userspace to the way you think it should appear, so that other editors can discuss it and decide what changes you've made can be integrated into the actual article. Our discussion on this page will be public anyway, and we should try not to make copies of it. I've changed your link on the Kneeling chair talk page to show people this active conversation instead. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the point of making any changes to the page, as Wenttomowameadow suggested, since he automatically removes even the slighted edit I make. Honestly, I fail to see how he can call my brief mention of the name of the inventor of the kneeling chair - on a page about the kneeling chair - as anything inappropriate.

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]