User talk:Ronz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not Admin.svg This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)



Yikes! My apologies, Ronz, for raising so much ire––I'm new here and was unaware of the parameters of the issues you and JzG messaged me about. I have read the guidelines about citations, but I was confused because I noticed that in many articles there are primary source citations and secondary source citations from dubious sources and some statements (opinions, really) with no citations at all ("citation needed"). I'm a proponent of evidence-based medicine and have a graduate degree in science, so I thought (erroneously, evidently) that I could identify good sources for the edits I was making. I stand corrected and will be much more circumspect about making any changes in the future––if I am indeed brave (or foolish) enough to attempt any. Sorry for the grief! Best regards, ErinMOBrien (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries. We certainly could use your help. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi Ronz,

I am from Battery people. May I know why did you undo my changes? I have given a clear explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battery People (talkcontribs) 22:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me about this.
I am from Battery people. What does that mean? Is "Battery people" an organization of some kind?
I reverted your edit because the explanation you gave was original research on your part, and the content you removed was referenced by reliable sources. Reliably sourced information should not be removed just because an editor disagrees with it. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

But why are you not giving the full explanation from the "reliable source" or which you consider as "reliable source" mentioning the backlight turned off after 1 hour and we cannot use GPS. They have clearly mentioned in the article. I hope it was well explained now, to either remove the statement or add the required line.Battery People (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. Could you please explain your concerns in detail at Talk:Batteriser#UL_Test_-_recent_removal? --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, In the article, they have clearly mentioned, the test was run with back-light been TURNED OFF, but these lines are been removed purposely. May I know the reason for purposely removing a line and giving a false information? Battery People (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you please explain yourself far more clearly and do so on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

edit query[edit]

please could you explain why you deleted the mindfulness meditation metastudy in the depression wiki article? tks JCJC777

Because you were spamming the same material to multiple articles regardless of relevance. It looks like promotion of a source rather than finding the best article for the information. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Denis Prager[edit]

Why was the whole section deleted? I am quite confused here, as the edit was removed with one sentence "coatrack" even though the added sections were not a coat rack per wiki page on the subject. Eric the fever (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted. Material was already there on the subject. I removed the expansion that was based upon two poor sources. "Coatrack" because the material is not about Proger directly, but about the prageru website. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
And what would count as a reliable source?Eric the fever (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not overly concerned with reliablity, but rather suitability for an encyclopedia article on Prager. While any sources we use need to be reliable, we need ones that are clearly independent. WP:3PARTY describes the problems and solutions. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Resume Page[edit]

When you look at the resume page, there are many references to pages even less credible than and yet you find no issue with them...

Resume writing is often thought of as an art with no strict rules. We deal here with "accepted standards" that evolve over time. For example, it was standard to include an objective statement in the past, but no longer. We're not dealing with "facts" here.

The page on WorkBloom does a good point of summarizing the 3 types of resume formats most often used and accepted by resume writers. Further, there was no reference on the page to a source, so it makes sense to add a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talkcontribs) 20:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And I'm at a loss as to why you would reinstate a reference to a page that we have to pay to view. How can anybody who did not pay the subscription fee verify the relevance of the page? I.e.

Hi. We usually discuss these things on a given article's talk page, but I'm putting my two cents in here because I just undid your most recent edit at Resumé and then I saw you'd commented here on Ronz's page. While references using freely available web pages are preferred, there is no prohibition on citing pages behind firewalls. If there were, we'd lose thousands of valid citations every day. Regarding the WorkBloom ref, I was unable to confirm that it meets the guideline on reliable sources. In general, it's better to cite no source than to cite a questionable one; if the content needs a citation because it's not obvious, and you can't find one, better to just tag it {{cn}} (or, if it's highly doubtful, remove it). Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that the page is not a credible source when you accept these pages full of ads: I spent time to help edit just to see these rigid comments that make no sense and are totally inconsistent. How do you assess a "credible" source? I assess it by its content, not by how big the site is. Doing what you're doing you imply because it's a big site it's credible.

Further, if you look at the talk page of résumé, you would see this: "More Citations & Facts Needed

This article has too many unreferenced claims that provide very little useful information. Please consider not deleting citations because they happen to point to a retail site. If retailers are privy to better information than researchers through industry trade you are depriving users of valuable information. There is no mention of the percentage of usage of Applicant Tracking Systems it's not even mentioned by name. This article needs to have industry professionals to add actual information not just broad statements which are more ambiguous than they are revealing. This article as it is now, on an important topic to many, is not worthy of being in any encyclopedia, peer reviewed or editor reviewed article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC) " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talkcontribs)

It is these kinds of things that alienate people from editing on Wikipedia. People that actually know about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talkcontribs) 02:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"If retailers are privy to better information than researchers through industry trade you are depriving users of valuable information... This article needs to have industry professionals to add actual information not just broad statements which are more ambiguous than they are revealing." If you were in the field, you would know that WorkBloom is a credible and independent source providing comprehensive tips for job seekers. There is so much to change on the résumé page, but we get stuck with these little technical, empty edits. I may be new to Wikipedia, but not to resume writing, so please, reinstate that footnote or refer this to a higher authority and clean up the rest of the page, if you insist on having "proper" references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talkcontribs) 02:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

About firewalls, there may be no prohibition, but that's not saying that a citation hiding behind a firewall is a good thing. A citation should be easily verifiable, otherwise, it would be in the hands of a few and not subject to open scrutiny. That's not how you build an open and strong community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talkcontribs) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Given past the past spamming of WorkBloom, you're going to have a difficult time convincing anyone it belongs.
You are correct, the references can be improved.
Please take the discussion to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Biodynamic wine[edit]

You cut data early today re the number/extent of BD (biodynamic) vineyards on the planet which I had provided. This was data I compiled for the Oxford Companion for Wine. I was not paid for this data. I am not the owner or publisher of that (very large) book. I get no royalty (the editor Jancis Robinson Master of Wine would almost certainly have got paid, as would some of those contributors who did even more work than me). Anyway, I was simply one of several dozen contributor/experts to that book. (I do not think anyone else has such data, given that I have been following/writing about biodynamic wines since 1994 and the biodynamic movement has been more focussed on every other crop than wine, given than many biodynamic folks do not approve of alcohol.) This, I guess, is why Oxford University asked for my help. So the wiki page as it stands has only old data based on bad numbers compiled by someone who appears in some cases to have included names of wineries who said "yes, we're biodynamic" when in fact in some cases they a) had no idea what biodynamics is; and b) were still using chemicals and c) therefore had no legal/moral right to be in the list (given that biodynamics is trademarked). It's like me saying I am an airline pilot when I have no qualification. I contacted the guy who did that list way back and (politely) pointed out that Chateau XY or Z was in fact still using chemicals but he was not into dialogue. If he is such a good/independent source for data why don't you get his updated 2016 list (tip: there is no 2016 list)?

Finally when I first read this Wiki entry I was amazed to see TWO citations from Fortune magazine..... Over to you.MontyWaldin (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.
The article could use a great deal of work, and your expertise on the subject would be of great help.
You may not have noticed, but I had already indicated that more of your edits to the article should be rolled back in. I agree with you: inaccurate and outdated information should be addressed. However, if we have competing sources, it would best bring it up on the article talk page. Outdated information might be retained if significant at that time or historically, by including the date (eg: "In 2001, ...).
Wikipedia has a separate article on Biodynamic agriculture, so Biodynamic wine should be specific to wine and related topics. There's probably too much duplication in the wine article.
My impression of the subject matter is that biodynamic wine production was, and perhaps still is, strongly marketed to wine producers and consumers as an alternative to organic. That marketing appears to have impacted the article in a number of ways, causing some of the problems that you've pointed out.
I haven't looked at the article references as a whole, but I wouldn't be surprised if we are relying far too much on popular press (as well as in-world sources).
Finally, the topic of biodynamic agriculture falls under WP:FRINGE and the general sanctions of WP:ARBPS. Among other things, this places a great deal more scrutiny on in-world sources.
My apologies for not having the time (yet) to fold back in all the changes you made that fixed obvious inaccuracies. Can we continue this on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wellness tourism" - Please, advise[edit]

Dear Ronz,

Thank you for your correction, I am sorry for not realizing that the copy I've written for the "Wellness tourism" page sounded promotional. In fact, I think that all the countries should add more details about their experience in this domain, however, personally, I've only known the French ones. I know that it is important to avoid commercial names and links, so I only mentioned cities. Could you please advice on which corrections I should make and if it is possible in general?

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Amy334455 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for contacting me. Responding on your talk since another editor has noticed. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Anti-japanese sentiment edit change[edit]

Hi Ronz, not sure why you reverted my edit. There is nothing in the citation that would even suggest that many Filipinos hate the Japanese. In fact the word is never used and the negative tirade against the Japanese put forth by the Filipinos in question are specific to a group of leftists not the Filipino population in general. And even if we were to focus on the said japanese hatred espoused by the Filipinos in which the article was referring to, whatever anti-japanese sentiment was expressed was specific to the u.s-japanese military alliance policy that could potentially affect Filipino lives. The resentment towards the Japanese within the article had nothing to do with hatred towards the Japanese government as a whole, the japanese people or its culture but rather past military actions by the japanese dating to World War II, which frankly is quite understandable. And my statement that most Filipinos have a positive view towards Japan is true as supported by the BBC polling results in contrast to what chinese and korean responders had to say. So please i would like you not to revert my original edit. Balisong5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 (talkcontribs) 17:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was not supported by the sources, OR - needs rewrite - better sources would help[1]. See WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I will take you up on that. But on the same token i dont believe the burden should be left entirely up to me. I would also like you to quote from the sources that supports your position then we can compare. If push comes to shove and there cannot be an agreement maybe there should just be a deletion of either our positions on the matter Balisong5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 (talkcontribs) 18:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the edit on Humaima Malick's page[edit]

Hi there! thanks for letting me know that you removed it, can I upload her tweet as reference for her birthday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollyayesha (talkcontribs) 08:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source for such information in this case. See the discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Humaima_Malick#Year_of_birth. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ronz. 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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ronz. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


HI Ronz I noticed that you deleted a journal ref on leadership that I added. The reference added was one of the journal articles on leadership written by a Canadian General Brett Cairns whose works have been cited and referenced a number of times at a national level in Canada. If you google Canadian Aerospace Doctrine Brett Cairns or Canadian Aerospace Leadership Brett Cairns you will see some of his leadership works cited by his nation's Air Force, his nations Aerospace Doctrine Center, and Canadian academics. Others have been archived. An 8 page article on practical leadership written by a military General is something that should be cited in an encyclopedia to complement the ones already there and written from a purely theoretical perspective. The link was to his original work so that people could read what he wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFHistoryBuff (talkcontribs) 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear that the link was just WP:REFSPAM, intended to promote Cairns.
Given the extent of information on the topic of leadership written, I don't see why Cairns' perspective deserves any presentation whatsoever. We cannot possibly identify every document written by every general that has ever written about leadership. I'd guess that even all those written by generals who have theoretical and practical experience would be overwhelming. Perhaps we could use all secondary, scholarly analyses of the perspectives of the most notable of such generals? --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz I see where you are coming from although few Canadian Generals are cited and referenced for their written work nor is their work included in doctrine manuals. This one happened to be. Not worth arguing over but he does make some very interesting points on leadership which are not routine — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFHistoryBuff (talkcontribs) 21:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz as someone new to wikipedia I am trying to better understand the threshold for adding references, journals and additions to current articles. I read some additional guidance from wiki but am still confused. Let's take the suggested addition of a journal for this article as an example (leaving the link to the journal article out as a separate issue). Consider the list of Journals on the Leadership page. When I click on House Robert it takes me to a blank wiki page. The first House article cited is a discussion of a theory that the author states shows promise and should be furthers tested. The second House article is a review of a theory from that one persons perspective. When I click on Vroom Victor it takes me to a page with very little content on a business school professor. The article cited is nothing more than a very general discussion on a page promoting the sale of the article. Lets now go back to the overall page on leadership. The first sentence states that leadership is both a research area and practical skill yet the article seems to be mostly a compendium of theories. Wikipedia describes an encyclopedia as a compendium holding all branches of knowledge and in the knowledge article states that knowledge can either be theoretical or practical. The leadership article seems to miss the practical part. What am I missing? AFHistoryBuff (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Leadership article. Given the topic and categories it falls under, I'd assume there are numerous, experienced editors that work on it. Your questions would be better answered on the article's talk page. You might want to look over Wikipedia:Tutorial for general information about editing.
Robert J House is what we call a redlink. There's no article for it, and if you click on the red link it will start article creation with that name as the subject.
Victor Vroom is a very skeletal article.
The article cited is nothing more than a very general discussion on a page promoting the sale of the article. I'm not clear what you are referring to. Something in Victor Vroom?
If I were thinking of starting to work on the Leadership article, I'd review the discussions on the article's talk page and the two archived talk pages.
As someone unfamiliar with the article, I'm not in a position to know why it is in its current state, nor what content is well-supported. There's no article quality assessment, so I'd assume the article needs a great deal of work. Asking for a quality review might be a good step if one hasn't been done in a long time, if at all. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Brett Cairns[edit]

Hi Ronz a brief follow up on the changes you made to the external links for this individual. After I saw your changes I re-read the guidelines. Clearly the social links should not have been there and thanks for removing them per the policy. Concerning the official links, this retired general runs two businesses - real estate and luxury homes. They are different businesses and wikipedia agrees. Please see luxury real estate. As you are aware Wiki: EL Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site. I then re-read Wiki:ELMINOFFICIAL and found 1. "if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website". Therefore I concluded that there should be a link to the main page and not the about us page as per your amendment; and 2. The guidance also states, "In other situations, it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information". In this situation he has two businesses and a website for each one so two official sites - A real estate site and a luxury homes site. AFHistoryBuff (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you are taking to review the guidelines.
An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:
  1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
  2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself.
The problem with his business websites is that neither fits criteria #2, that the content covers the area of notability. Rather than not include any official website because of this, I've linked to the small amount about Cairns, so at least we are covering what he says about himself as much as we can.
I'd already started a discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Brett Cairns. We should continue this discussion there. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Handling spam[edit]

This is a serious question unrelated to our recent discussions. What would you recommend for things like Special:Contributions/JasonDD? I'm inclined to hit rollback but that's not an option—we have to spend ten minutes investigating each case, then another couple of minutes offering a reasoned "undo" edit summary. And who has time to engage with the user? Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you wouldn't use rollback except to make it clear what's going on. Usually I'll undo with a comment explaining what's going on (REFSPAM in this case), leave a notice on the editor's talk page, then rollback the remaining spam. It looks like that is what has been done. I will also add at a representative portion of the articles involved to my watch list, choosing ones that don't appear to be regularly reviewed by experienced editors. I certainly don't watch each spammer's talk page - my watch list is too large as it is.
You're right. There's some minimal investigation and communication that should be done, and it can be time-consuming for even the simplest cases.
I've wondered how much of it could be automated safely... Seems like it would be ok to have a helper bot that scans a half-dozen or so edits from an identified editor, looking for spammed links. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, it's not easy. My point about rollback was merely that clicking "rollback" should be reserved for vandalism as defined at WP:VAND (and some other stuff that doesn't really apply in this case), although I sometimes rollback blatant spam, and I think several of this user's edits got the same treatment. User:XLinkBot does a lot of good work, but something to detect cases like the one here would be nice. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Maybe VAND and WP:ROLL need a bit more clarifying? Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback#5 is what I've described. Don't you agree?
Much spam is outright vandalism. In the case of JasonDD, I wouldn't call it that, yet. If he continued without changes to his behavior, I'd give him multiple notices, spread out over days, before requesting he be blocked. I'd then take it to AIV. I realize that many editors, including some admins, would be quicker to proceed to blocking him. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, #5 that you linked is what I rely on when I use rollback in some cases. However, doing a proper explanation is not easy. Saying "I reverted your spam" is not possible because there is always the possibility (WP:AGF) that the person really is a new editor who thinks adding external links is very helpful. Explaining why their links do not satisfy WP:EL can also take quite a bit of time. I don't think there is a good solution. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's difficult to avoid AGF problem in edit summaries: Simply focus on describing the edit(s), while avoiding wording that could be interpreted as being about the editor. For the editor's talk page, the advert- and spam- templates get the basics across without much effort.
Once an editor responds, then details are necessary and AGF misunderstandings easier to fall into.
Explaining why their links do not satisfy WP:EL can also take quite a bit of time. That, combined with the huge amount of spam we get, plus the need to direct editors to focusing on improving Wikipedia rather than linking to other websites, is why EL puts the burden getting consensus to add new external links on those seeking to include them. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Need Help[edit]

ok, thank you for your kind reply, Please guide me that what kind of links i can add that are not bad for my website, you are really expert in these things please guide me as a teacher, so I can work in the same way you tell me. I just want to ask that for example it is a page on Wikipedia ("") and if i want to add a link of biography of my website ( ), how can i add this kind of links please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehana Darani (talkcontribs) 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If you think you have good reasons why the link should be added, you should explain them on the article's talk page: Talk:Mahira_Khan. Because that website is a fan site, I don't expect it would be allowed. While I haven't looked in detail, it appears that the site is violating copyrights as well.
I've left you a detailed welcome message on your talk page that includes multiple resources on how to get started as a new editor. I hope you'll look them over. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Gary Vaynerchuk[edit]

Hey Ronz - I'm confused as to what elements I added would be considered marketing or promotional? All points we're properly cited with exact instances this person stated these events in his life, as well as referrencing other wiki pages or New York Times article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krainak (talkcontribs) 20:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Gary Vaynerchuk - Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced[edit]

Hello Ronz - I'm unsure on what you're reffering to as unreferenced or poorly referenced? All all citations are links directing to the exact talks in which this points were discussed? Can you please provide an direct example of a poorly referenced point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthisundefeated (talkcontribs) 21:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you read my previous comments about these problems on your talk page? --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016 recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia pol[edit]

Hey Ronz - can you be clear about what about these changes are soapbox or promotional? These are better sited than most on the information on this person's wiki and provide a better structured page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krainak (talkcontribs) 21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


Hello Ronz. You said: "Why did you remove these citations from Coconut? [2] As I understand it, they should remain unless they are clearly not reliable or do not verify the material." If you check the original URLs or substituted wayback URLs, the information is not available. I did a preliminary Google search for the content and found no trace of either source. I did leave a citation request for each, so if you have more successful searching, you could put the correct URLs and sources back. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think they should have been removed, as you are not contesting their reliability nor verification. I'll put them back. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand that. From the typical user's experience, the existing references are a dead end. If we can't go to the source for the information sought, then a citation request serves to alert a motivated editor to find alternate sources. But I'll leave this to your decision. --Zefr (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:DEADREF is the guideline. Basically, we should not remove reliable sources that verify material just because there is no longer an online (or conveniently accessible) version. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Did all that and hope you will prove me wrong. But I ended up at #5, which is where I concluded with citation requests, i.e., where we are now: "Remove hopelessly lost web-only sources: If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the webpage (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you cannot find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unverified if there is no other supporting citation. If it is material that is specifically required by policy to have an inline citation, then please consider tagging it with [citation needed]." --Zefr (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
These are absolutely not web-only sources. I really dislike the wording of the guideline, as it causes exactly this confusion.
The first is a local newspaper, so no reason to remove that just because the link is dead. The second is actually two references, so absolutely no reason to remove both of them.
Finally, I'm getting some very strange results trying to look up archives for both. appears to be changing something related to these specific archives. I'm currently finding the second reference at , but I've no idea if it will remain there. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC) looks like either a different version of the first source or an independent article based upon the exact same information. There are also many sources available documenting the quarantine. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
This is why most sources like this should be kept. Even if the exact article cannot be found, someone else may be able to find it or find other material verifying the information by using the old references for searching. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Bent Flyvbjerg socking continued[edit]

  • The sock report is here, and the resulting spam report is here
  • Another spam report?
  • Links to what few content-related discussions there are
  • Other socks
  • List of articles
  • Find some experts to evaluate due weight

External link removed on page - why?[edit]

Hi Ronz,

I received a message from you saying one or more external links had been removed that I had added.

I believe the link you are referencing was this one -

Which was added to this web page -

This had previously been accepted for a long time, can I ask specifically why it was removed? I felt this was a useful reference and the article provides good information.

Also, was this done as a result of someone else editing and removing the link which then flagged it to you?

I would like to know more details if possible...

Kind regards,

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoubora (talkcontribs) 16:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.
I was referring to all the links you've added. They're promotional, WP:SPAM, and I believe you've been adding them to promote your business and theirs. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rozz, They are genuine citations and I think they've been wrongly flagged as promotional. The reason I submitted them was because I felt are genuinly useful. If you actually bother to look to where they link to in relation to the Wiki page you'll see they actually adding relevant value to the Wikipedia page content for the end user. This kind of penalisation of genuine suggestions really serves to discourage any contributions from ordinary users like myself. I actually like helping with suggestions to Wikipedia when I can. Kind regards, Rob
Hi Rob. Yes, Wikipedia very strongly discourages editing against a financial conflict of interest. See WP:COI and WP:PCD. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rozz, my point is there is no conflict of interest COI here at all. These links were contributed by myself, genuinly to help users reading the Wiki pages. You have removed genuinely useful links to relevant websites/articles. This is supposed to be open to contribution and that's what I did - contribute. It makes people not want to contribute if every time we do everything gets removed. Kind regards, Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rozz, look at the links I added for and , they are part of The MidCounties Co-operative of companies - it makes perfect sense for there to be a link on this web page because it is part of MidCounties Co-operative. Instead you have put a paragraph where you link to the generic Co-operative Group Wiki page - ... which infact the edit here is incorrect because that is not part of MidCounties Co-operative. A better process would be to message me first and enquire why the link is there so I can show you this isn't COI or for financial gain but a genuinly relevant, useful link to users. Now you have a link that is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rob. I think we're talking past each other. I hope you don't mind if I slow this down. I will respond to your concerns later, but I'd like to focus on one important aspect of all this. You own and run, correct? From what you've written so far I think it's safe to assume you do, and as such you should not be adding links to to any article without disclosing your conflict of interest (this is required) and requesting on the article talk page that someone else add it and why. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rozz, I'm not talking past you but you haven't addressed my previous point regarding your edit to the MidCounties Co-Operative page. I don't think its useful to the end user and instead of linking to the correct site which was the first one I shared, you've linked to Co-operative Funeralcare who are the main group site. Regarding your point, I do own Odyssey New Media, I am open about that if you bothered to ask me. The link I shared was from a blog post we wrote related to which I though was useful for Wikipedia readers and end users. I have absolutely no interest in promotion. I hardly think someone is going to see Wikipedia and suddenly become a client or something, it just doesn't happen. I just wanted to contribute content that I felt was useful and relevant - which last time I checked was the whole point of Wikipedia! As to declaring conflict of interest, I have no idea how to do this or that I had to do this, thanks for pointing it out for future reference. Again like I said, if you'd just contact me and as me instead of removing links that are relevant to the Wikipedia pages then I could have explained to you my intention for sharing of links. I really think Wikipedia have this approval thing completely the wrong way around. Why not just ask people so they can explain why they have shared external link citations? You're just putting people off contributing when they are just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rob. Yes, I temporarily put aside your other concerns. No offense meant, and I will address them shortly.
As I said, Wikipedia very strongly discourages editing against a conflict of interest. Please disclose so we can get that behind us. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as external links go, WP:EL covers how to handle most cases, supported by WP:NOT (especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTLINK). In general, Wikipedias want editors to focus upon improving article content rather than directing readers elsewhere with external links, which can be easily misused. WP:EL is rather strongly enforced, having it's own noticeboard, WP:ELN, and emphasis to leave links out unless there is consensus to include them. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking over Midcounties Co-operative: The article needs a great deal of work, and has a April 2010 notice requesting more sources. I think the notice still applies, as much of the article remains without sources. As far as external links go, the one external link to their main website,, is fine. That website contains links and information for all their brands. Adding links to the individual brand websites violates WP:EL and WP:NOT. I've cleaned up the article accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)--Ronz (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

rolfing mediation[edit]

Hi, I know you've been a part of discussions on the rolfing wiki in the past. == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==


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. The discussion is about the topic Rolfing. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cyintherye (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ubiquinol, Q-Symbio[edit]

Hello Ronz.

How come you tagged my edit with a speedy deletion notice on Ubiquinol ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrillr (talkcontribs) 11:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Morrillr. I'm not sure what you mean. Your edits to Ubiquinol were removed twice here and here. You also made some edits to Coenzyme Q10, which were removed here. I wasn't involved with any of those edits.
I think you might be referring to Q-Symbio, which you created. I recommended that article for speedy deletion, and notified you at the time. My request was reviewed by another editor who then deleted the article. I assume the article was very similar to your draft version that remains at User:Morrillr/sandbox. Perhaps you would like to update it with independent sources, including some that demonstrate notability, and then submit it for review? --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting Illmaculate's Extr[edit]


Thanks for contacting me. I have just started a discussion about it: Talk:Illmaculate#bandcamp link. Could you join that dicussion? If you want clarification on what I've written, it would be better do ask there as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it twice, the second time after noting that two other editors had also removed it. I started a discussion on the article talk page after the second removal.

I am not strongly against the link, noting it is widely used within Wikipedia. However, it does look like they type of link that should not be used per ELPOINT#1 and ELNO#5. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


Gary Vaynerchuk - Jan 2017[edit]

Hey Ronz, I'd appreciate any more clarity you can give as to how the last two edits of including Gary Vaynerchuk's most up to date web shows are an different than what is already cited or cited on other biographical pages. You've flagged more before for using the references being of the content it's self? How do I provide the most update info on this living person, without it being flagged as SOAP? It's unobjective, and merely states that it exists, when it started, and what the premises of the show are? thank in advance for any clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krainak (talkcontribs) 21:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I think it would be best to get others involved. I'll see what I can do to get some help.
To answer your question: Wikipedia articles should be written from a historical context, and generally cannot provide the most up-to-date information. The solution is to rely upon reliable, independent sources written from a broad and historical perspective. Such sources may be difficult to find, or may not exist; so we do the best we can, recognizing that biographical information must be referenced with high-quality sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it will be easier to copy my response to your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


Merge of "decision-making software" into "decision support system"[edit]

Hi Ronz, I don't suppose you feel like involving yourself in Best wishes Paulwizard (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've responded there. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


Hope these two edits [3] will give you some idea about the word Hindu and how it is wrongly used by so many ignorant people. Hindu is a Persian word. One has to look at how and when this non-Indian word was used for the first time in various regions of modern-day India. In the article Onam, the use of the word Hindu in historical context is terribly wrong and misplaced. We can see such wrong usages on many websites including Wikipedia. Another point is that there are many fictional stories. One story tells that Mahabali had ruled Kerala and another story tells that Kerala was created by Parasurama. The funny thing is that, as per those stories, Mahabali had lived before the period of Parasurama because Vamana who had sent Mahabali to the netherworld was the fifth avathar of Vishnu and Parasurama who had created Kerala was the sixth avathar of Vishnu. Then, how could Kerala be ruled by Mahabali before it was created by Parasurama? Even those fictional stories are conflicting with one another and anyone can interpret them as s/he wants. Instead of relying heavily on those conflicting fictional stories, we should look at the historical facts. Onam is a very ancient rice harvest festival, it is not a religious festival, but some people try to hijack it and want to project it as their own religious festival and even use Wikipedia to achieve their goal. (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page, and note the many comments already there.
Provide sources. Preferably ones that are written with a historical perspective.
Working together, I hope we can figure out a solution that gives proper weight to what perspectives we find in the sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

FAC: House of Music[edit]

Hi there. Would you care to review or comment at my nomination of House of Music for featured status? The previous nomination did not gather enough commentary, so anything at all would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't work on GA and FA articles much, and am not very familiar with the standards for music-related articles, so I'm not sure how much I can help. Looking it over, the lede seems overly large and detailed. The list of recording locations in the lede stands out as unnecessary, and unless I'm overlooking something is only sourced by the cd booklet. If there is other material given similar prominence within the article, only verified by primary sources, then there may be work to be done. If this emphasis is a standard in music-related articles, then it may be fine. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You should ask that question by email[edit]

Saw your comment on Someguy1221's page. I didn't see what happened so I think it's safe for me to comment. Clearly there was an outing attempt, and so Someguy can't tell you much more than that on his talk page as that would defeat the purpose of the revdel. If you really want to know exactly what happened, you're gonna need to email either him or another admin. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Did you sort this out satisfactorily ? Roxy the dog. bark 17:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments to templates[edit]

How can I change hidden comments to templates. Your help on the matter would me much appreciated. Muhaqqeq (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you figured it out before I had a chance to respond. Thanks for your work! --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Help on Hatha Yoga[edit]

So, I joined in the debate over VictoriaGrayson's inexplicable removal of all references to Naths in favor of a single source argument for Dattatreya. I see you also viewed this as a slanted perspective, using a single source to dismiss to relevance of the Nath legend. I could use some help defending my edits which I suspect you would support. Any second opinions would be much appreciated.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've been noticing. I'll comment there. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Josef Joffe revert of my edit[edit]

What was wrong with the information about Josef Joffe that I added earlier today?

Gerry Rudmin

Thanks for following up on this.
As I mentioned to the other editor that added something similar, [4]: "In order to avoid further BLP violations, can you find sources that actually have the full context minimally, preferably with some analysis? Are you fluent in German, or should we get help from someone that is?"
Basically, there's no context, no analysis, nothing that demonstrates this comment by Joffe is any more noteworthy than anything else he has ever said. The sources provided so far specifically eliminate the context, making it all the more suspect. --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed citation on Elliptical trainer article[edit]

Hi Ronz,

Would you mind telling me why you felt that the citation I added to the article on elliptical trainers was inappropriate? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Introstand (talkcontribs) 20:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me about this.
It's not a reliable source.
The website is promotional in nature.
It was added as the very first reference in the article.
Health-related claims require a WP:MEDRS source. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding bringing it to ELN[edit]

You have asked this in ongoing discussions. I often suggest, or bring discussion immediately to WP:ELN because I feel that these discussions on excessive linking do not get resolved on subject talkpages, and discussions on excessive linking could be discussed on WP:ELN per its instructions: "This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline. Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed." Although the reason to start a thread there generally is a disagreement with another user, the intention of the thread is to discuss the external links on the page, not the behaviour of a user.

On local talkpages these discussions hardly ever gain any traction since (and that is specifically obvious on Talk:Beacham Theater), no-one is discussing there (until yesterday only one person added questions there, no answers). It becomes a dialogue (at best) with no resolution (or you get a massive number of people falling over you whose interest is the subject of the page, which gives a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which, actually, is not a consensus as the !voters are not 'randomly selected'; it is like asking on the Rolling Stones' fanclub page which band they think is better, the Rolling Stones or The Beatles...). So starting that local discussion is just going to result in someone having to go to another place to discuss, or opening an RfC (upon which one gets accused of forum shopping; you've seen that with the Grace discussion). I prefer to avoid that.

One could consider to write ELN instructions suggesting to ping/notify the editors who are heavily involved with an article, but also that is sometimes difficult (many editors). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Good points. I'm certainly going to use ELN much quicker and more often now. Still, starting an article talk page discussion is a basic dispute resolution step, helps new editors become involved, and makes it easier to track the trail of events. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

edit deleted[edit]

Hey Ronz. I added a link to an interesting resource on the therapy dog page which you deleted. Did I do something wrong, the resource comes from an authoritative page and it tells how you can take a step further with your therapy dogs. I found it helpful so I added it here? I'm new here so could you please explain why it got deleted so I'm careful the next time. Should I have not added it in the external links but somewhere else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everything education (talkcontribs) 18:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The quick answer is that I didn't see how it offered anything on the subject that wasn't already in the article or couldn't be added.
Given it's a self-report, I'm not sure how much weight it should be given to adding any new content without additional, independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Drew Scott[edit]

I got yor notification that you removed the links at the Drew Scott page, referencing the policy NOT:EL. I think if you review that policy, I think you'll agree that it doesn't apply, as those links all are directly related to the subject of the article, and are the official pages of his various businesses and entertainment sites. Additionally, your reversion actually returned the section to an inferior version, which my edits were intending to correct. They will likely be added at some point, as they are essential for a well-rounded article.

I ask that you reconsider, as I'm sure you likely just weren't familiar with the links in question.- -Esprit15d • talkcontribs 01:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I caught your comment on your talk first, and responded there with what I think addresses all your concerns. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Continual false entries about my physics work[edit]

Harold E. Puthoff here. I continue to attempt to remove the false statement at the end of the Wikipedia article on me in which author Massimo Pigliucci reports that my research on vacuum energy physics (zero-point energy physics)"is considered to be a pseudoscience." Unsubstantiated & false opinion by author of a book for the public does not trump several peer-reviewed publications in Tier 1 physics journals like Physical Review, such as:

H. E. Puthoff, "Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state," Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987);

H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force," Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989); Phys. Rev A 47, 3454 (1993).

H. E. Puthoff, "On the source of vacuum electromagnetic zero-point Energy," Phys. Rev. A 40, 4857 (1989);

D. C. Cole and H. E. Puthoff, "Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum," Phys. Rev. E 48,1562 (1993);

B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff, "Inertia as a zero-point field Lorentz force," Phys. Rev. A 49, 678 (1994).

Please remove the last false and unsubstantiated statement by author Massimo Pigliucci and permit me to offer edits again (it appears that through your edit refusals I've been banned for attempting to correct the record with documentation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I'm going to copy this to the article talk page so it will be easier for others to discuss the matter and refer to the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

sorry for that, I don't know about that, Thank you to inform me. Please guide me that how to make a page on Wikipedia, One of my friends is singer and Actress and she is a famous celebrity. She wants me to make a Wikipedia page for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehana Darani (talkcontribs) 18:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:YFA should help. First you'll need to find references that are clearly reliable and independent of the subject. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Playboy Your Commentary[edit]

Would be appreciated here. Feeling that people are trying to break BLP and using bad sources. help is appreciated. Richterer11111 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I already indicated I agree with you. I've been down this road before, and it seems BLP, NPOV, and NOT simply doesn't apply to some articles. I think the topic is notable enough to avoid deletion, but cleaning up the mess as suggested here is what I strongly agree to and have attempted in the past. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
You might want to track down some of the old discussions like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_6#Proposal_to_change_List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of..._to_simple_lists and Talk:List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1955. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so can you help me make these changes stick on this page please. I keep getting threatened with being blocked for asking them to comply with BLPs. Richterer11111 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm planning on restoring any names that have been completely removed, just the names and date, but I expect someone will do so first. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


See my response at User talk:Foobarnix

Playmate template for 2017[edit]

Athanatophobos February 16th 2017


I wanted a template for 2017 playmates but I don't know how to create an article in wikipedia.

Here the work I did :

Could you create this template if you are able to create an article?

Regards ;)

I'm unlikely to have the time to do so. Could you please respond to my comments on your talk page? --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I responded to your comments, you just have to create the thread for the 2017 playmates with all the stuff I did. I will take 50 seconds. Regards. Athanatophobos February 23rd 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you've responded to. I'm referring to User_talk:Athanatophobos#List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_the_Year --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

contested claim[edit]

I ask that you remove a claim in the Napoleon Hill biography which has been contested. If you wish it included, please start an RfC. Collect (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. It doesn't appear to me that you even were aware it was being discussed and that multiple other sources verify the same information. If you want an RfC, go ahead. The available sources are so poor at this point, that I think it's a waste of time. We could really use help finding better sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

HELP ME - Napoleon Hill[edit]

As surmised, I do not intend to break rules; however, I am just appalled to find Wikipedia allowing Novak's article to be sourced for my grand father's biography. I have shown that Novak omitted facts which do not support his narrative and that he spun other facts toward his false narrative. Surly, this is enough to have any sourcing from Novak's blog rejected outright.

A couple of comments...

  • I do not know HOW to sign my input.
  • I do not know how to answer specific questions or, better said, how to navigate to where I can answer them.
  • I do not understand why Novak's newspaper reference is OK but my newspaper reference from the same paper 2 days later is considered original research. Is it because I haven't previously posted the reference.

Over a 10 year period, I created a time-line for Napoleon Hill's life much as Novak attempted. It was not becoming. Then I overlaid upon the timeline information from Napoleon Hill's letters, family letters, Naps own words, and other material. I researched his friends, his associates, his wives, his business partners, and his claims. The results were astonishing and it wasn't until I did all of this that I began to appreciate Nap. I was far more shocked by what I could verify than what I could not verify. So, Novak's work is so contrary to what I discovered and know to be true that it is beyond description.

PS: Someone asked a question about Nap's son Blair: Blair Hill was born in Fairmont, WV on 11 Nov 1912. He was delivered by Dr. E.W. Strickler, the husband of his mother's first cousin.--JB Hill (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@JB Hill: Hi JB Jill. Thanks for contacting me. I've been meaning to comment on your talk page, but you're already getting excellent advice and I didn't want to overwhelm you with more suggestions.
I don't like the quality of the Novak source and have been working to find better ones.
Let me see what I can do to help you some of the basics:
I do not know HOW to sign my input. I'm not sure I understand. You signed your comment here to me just fine. WP:SIGN covers that type of signature. However, when you are logged into your account, all your edits are identified with your account name and the time you made the edit, as discussed in WP:PAGEHIST. If you're asking about something else, let me know.
Wikipedia: The Missing Manual might help you better than the welcome message I left you. This is a section on communicating with others that should help you answer questions and navigate.
I haven't had a chance to look over the references you've offered. They're (mostly?) contemporary news reports, correct? I will get around to looking over them all and comment on each.
(More to follow) --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that you make edit requests to the article on the article talk page, keeping them brief and clearly identifying the verifying sources. When introducing a new source, especially anything that is not available in searchable form online, please quote relevant information from the source, provide page numbers, the column and location in a newspaper page, etc. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with info - Alexis Fields[edit]

What is Alexis fields middle name? Can you search and find that information for me. I have been trying to find out on numerous of sites and no luck. I would really appreciate it if you could find that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundai21 (talkcontribs) 21:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Alexis Fields? If it's correct that she was born in Los Angeles, birth records should be available. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you look up info on her background to find out her middle name. Sundai21 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Look up info on sanaa lathan and her middle name as well. Sources say her full name is sanaa mccoy lathan. But there is no middle name given. I would appreciate that. Sundai21 (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Such as intelluis or other sites that can search her background. Sundai21 (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not finding an "Alexis Fields" born in California in early March in any year. I'd guess her birth name is different. Sorry, I doubt I'll have time for more work on this. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Holi, Punjab[edit]

Hi, would you please review Holi, Punjab created as a WP:CFORK by @Malikhpur. I have removed OR, blogs, offtopic, etc. It is near stub, and not a distinct festival. Any good reason we should keep it as a separate article and not merge it into Holi? Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I skimmed it and responded on the talk page. Looks like a povfork that should be redirected back to Holi. I'm not clear what should be merged. The first reference doesn't have an index, so I may be missing something. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Povfork it is, as are quite a few articles that Malikhpur has created in the last 2 years, all Punjab-related that I have stumbled into so far (but I haven't looked deeper). In the "Holi, Punjab" article, there was one source that @Malikhpur added that was interesting to read. Though mis-summarized, it turned out to be notable for different reasons. Its about the Holi tradition under the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh. That is the one to consider keeping and merging. The easiest, best course is probably to move that para, leaving a "redirect" from "Holi, Punjab" to the Holi article. If someone objects, we can go thru the merge template and discussion. Or would you recommend something else? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Good catch. I think a merge is the next step. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war - Watts Up With That?[edit]

Sorry Ronz. I didn't know two edits constituted an edit war. I'll try to restrain myself. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

re: Prezi[edit]

Best thing would be to start a discussion at WP:RSN, but bottom line - they are just presentation slides, so they are self-published and of low reliability. Copyright is just like with regular slides, which means the same like with everything else - belongs to the author. I explicitly license my Prezis under CC. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Gene Zef[edit]

Thanks for the note on my page. Man this place is tough to learn. I noticed the small changes usually go thru without a issue its when you try to add or do too much at one time. It raises questions with staff. Learning process. I will for sure stop by and ask for help. Thank you so much for the warm invite. :)

--Gene Zef2 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad to help. --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey RonZ, Tarryn Alberts (tarryn TNT) one of the dancers onstage with Die Antwoord would like a wiki page for her accomplishments. How would be the best way of going about that, she says she will take a picture specifically for wiki. Just let me know whats up and if thats something I could do. *thumbs up*

--Gene Zef2 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Find sources about her that meet WP:BIO, then write an article based upon those sources. As you're directly in contact with her, do take extra caution to follow WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Well she wants me to use this picture for her wiki page.

Im just not to sure about trying to make a new page for her, because last time i did I was building it and adding refs and all and staff came right in and pissed all over my parade. Same shit goes on with the Watkin Tudor Jones and Yo Landi Visser pages. I know all the info for making the pages correct, but wiki requires "links" to prove things......

Who is to say those "things" posted on the internet are true? I know the truth but am prevented from posting it due to some things that wiki requires, that even when posted are not true.

I personally fought for getting YoLandis birthday corrected for about a year, and still I cant get them to let me put in her birth year.......

Even though I personally know these people.

Sucks but I will look for ref's.. even if I know they are wrong...... So glad Wikippedia is accurate with their info. ;)

--Gene Zef2 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Ronz, OK, I see that Wikipedia does not want Find a Grave links. My intent with such was to indicate exactly where the deceased is buried. May I do that parenthetically with the death date (as I just did with Coach Frank Howard)? Poptop43 (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

resting_place is available for that purpose, but I don't recall seeing it used in good articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alkaline diet[edit]

Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC) is not a reliable source[edit]

Hi, Thankyou for informing me, but Famous birthdays is a popular website and I believe that most of the information that the website provides is true. Random people can't edit anything on the Famous birthday's website, only the people that work there I believe can edit. Most of their work is true. The birthdays I know for a fact are true, and if they have got anything wrong you can update them. Plum3600 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"I believe that most of the information that the website provides is true" does not come close to meeting the reliability threshold established for biographies of living persons. You may want to start a new discussion at WP:RSN if you feel that site has suddenly become more authoritative. Kuru (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC) is not WP:RS[edit]

Is not a reliable source for categorizing an author's works. states that it is basically a reading Wiki. "You can create "bookshelves" to organize what you've read (or want to read). You can comment on each other's reviews. You can find your next favorite book. And on this journey with your friends you can explore new territory, gather information, and expand your mind." Collect (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What sources do you think are reliable sources for categorizing books, both in-world and independent? I didn't want to start with in-world, but we might as well get it all done now that we're looking closely at the topic of book and author categorization. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

World cultural fest[edit] sir this is the proof that 4.75 crore fine was given instead of 5crore by the 'art of living ' Pls edit this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herosourabh (talkcontribs) 10:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but that looks like a press release. The reference in the article also looks like a press release as well, though not as clearly. Let's see if we can find something better if we can. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, the reference you offer has both numbers. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sally Bretton -[edit]

Hi Ronz,

About FamousBirthdays, what about the previous note to you by Plum3600 about being a reasonably reliable source? What do you base "does not come close to meeting the reliability threshold established for biographies of living persons"? (Plum3600 writes, "The birthdays I know for a fact are true, and if they have got anything wrong you can update them."

Notwithstanding an argument for or against FamousBirthdays, WHAT ABOUT the OTHER TWO SOURCES I USED that you deleted?

Also, IMDb has the birthday, and I saw a newspaper article that does not give a month and year, but the age given coincides with a 1980 birthday.

If you have another birthday why not add it and the citation?

Best regards, Dave

what about the previous note to you by Plum3600 Yes, what about it? It was answered by another editor before I got to it.
that you deleted? I didn't.
IMDb is not a reliable source.
I was just cleaning up an unreliable source, and wanted to let you know why. As I've worked on many articles with difficulties determine birth dates, I'll see what I can do to help. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

AC Bonifacio -[edit]

Thanks for letting mo know that this famousbirthdays website isn't a reliable source. Removing that as reference won't be a problem with me. Will find more reliable sources. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlcbaltazar (talkcontribs) 14:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if I can help. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Gary Vaynerchuk - speaking engagements[edit]


Can you elaborate how listing events that Gary Vaynerchuk, a well known established worldwide public speaker has spoken at, is promotional?


FreightTrain90 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC) FreighTrain90

In general, any appearances, speaking engagements, etc that aren't verifiable with independent sources should probably be left out per WP:NOT. Listing individual events is almost certainly WP:SOAP unless something quite out of the ordinary happened, again covered by independent sources that clearly demonstrate how the speaking engagement has some encyclopedic value. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
You may have missed my previous explanation about addressing the promotional material: "Wikipedia articles should be written from a historical context, and generally cannot provide the most up-to-date information. The solution is to rely upon reliable, independent sources written from a broad and historical perspective. Such sources may be difficult to find, or may not exist; so we do the best we can, recognizing that biographical information must be referenced with high-quality sources." --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ika Wong[edit]

If it is not an reliable source. Tell the creator of Tony Vlachos.

Musicalorange6 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I'll explain more fully on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Joyce's music scores[edit]

(copied from my talk page [5] --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC))

Hi Ronz — thanks for your message. I encountered that list of music scores where James Joyce appears as librettist and thought that would be a good external link / reference for his article in Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that so many music scores were available with his lyrics, and considered that to be an interesting contribution. Could you expand on your views about it, please? Thanks again. —Avorio (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to respond on the article talk page. I hope you dont mind that I copy your message there. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Content You Removed - Alex Okoroji[edit]

Hello Ronz, I'm Kwamzy. It's nice to meet you. I noticed that you removed a large chunk of content and the citations included, supporting your changes with the suggestion that my recent edit from yesterday was advertisy and that I have COI.

I want to clarify that I do not have any direct ties or external relationship to the above living person. I'm only an entertainment lover who has interest in all things nollywood and if I stumble on information I believe should be included I do so keeping in mind that Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people.

I honestly think you made a mistake by removing a third of the content on that page (much of which has been there for months & wasn't Even edited by me).

If you believe my edit violated Wikipedia guidelines - you could have either re-edited it to meet the guidelines or simply removed ONLY the content I added without taking the rest of it with verified sources. The person in quote is, not just an actress, she's also a prolific writer, speaker, author and radio host. Removing valuable information about her other expertise doesn't do the article justice. Thank you! Kwamzy10 (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume you have a conflict of interest based upon the image you provided. Am I wrong to assume you took the photograph yourself? If so, I apologize.
WP:BLP is very clear: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Whatever "high-quality" sources there may be about her, they weren't being used for anything I removed that I'm aware. If they exist at all, do point them out. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Ronz, You are right to assume I took the photograph myself, except if you can see from the image. It was taken with my mobile phone inside a public flight - on an airplane. I ran into her and some of her colleagues on the same local flight to Warri 2 years ago. As a fan and lover of all things Nollywood - I asked if I could take some pictures and she nicely obliged. Then decided to add it to her wiki when I foun± it. That doesn't mean that I have a "Conflict of Interest" based upon the image I provided.
You removed mention and links to her interviews, her Huffington post contributions, feature on women rock project, her mention on Total Facts about Nigeria and recent ranking on Richtopia --->

which I believe are all high quality sources, unless I'm wrong. If the real bone of contention are the recent edits I made including (which I totally agree with you isn't a high quality source), I believe you can access the original wiki article and revert it to what was there 3 or 5 months ago before I edited the article. Thank you. Kwamzy10 (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for assuming you have a conflict of interest based upon the photograph.
Interviews, press releases, self-published publicity pieces are all poor sources. Note I started a discussion on the article talk page about this: Talk:Alex Okoroji. --Ronz (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Eddiebow[edit]

This posting is FYI.
One thing, (possibly the only thing?), on which we agree is that User talk:Eddiebow is a pain. I was going to recommend that he be blocked when I discovered that neither I, nor you, nor anyone else, had ever posted a warning on his talk page. I have now placed a very-pissed-of-first-warning on his talk page. If he continues to be a pain, please don't hesitate to express your own opinion on his talk page.
But who knows? Maybe a miracle will happen and he'll start behaving. (No, I'm not holding my breath either.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I don't think I had noticed the edits.
Looks like requesting a block would be the next step. I don't see the need to contact Eddiebow further unless there's some attempt to communicate beyond the uninformative edit summaries coming from the account. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with Cally-Jo[edit]

Hello, Ronz! Thank you for message me about my page Cally-Jo. I'm still learning English, so please forgive me for my mistakes.

You added a template to my page Cally-Jo. Please indicate what I need to correct. This page is dedicated to a person whom I personally don't know. All information was taken from various interviews of this person. I received some personal information from this person's mother. She personally confirmed and changed what I indicated. Therefore somewhere there is no source for this.

Tell me please, what do I need to correct to make the article not seem to be an advertisement? After all, I'm doing all this for free, and don't want to insult anyone. I just wanted to have page in Wikipedia with this person that I like. This is the first time I've written an article on Wikipedia. Please help fix all that I did wrong. «This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (May 2017)» — What I need to do? Thank you, --Nedika (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. The problem is that WP:BLP articles are not good for learning Wikipedia because of the requirements that such articles strictly follow Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines.
I'd recommend you put the article aside until you understand Wikipedia's polices better. The article needs a rewrite from better sources, presenting clearly encyclopedic content with an appropriate tone. To do so requires a very good understanding of WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:MOS.
I will try to find some time to clean up the article so that it's easier for other editors to work on. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Please don't delete the article. Help me to fix it. I will try to examine in more detail what you pointed out to me. It's just not so easy. Thank you, --Nedika (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

References that do not work should not be removed [Question][edit]

It looks like you found a reference that you couldn't get to work, so you removed it. [6] I replaced it with a working copy. If you find such references in the future, they shouldn't be removed. See WP:DEADREF. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ronz! I was just curious - while the Archive version works now, the original page was removed. Do archived pages that have been removed count as valid sources on wikipedia? Is it possible they removed it because new evidence was found? The most recent study they reference is from 2008.
They also have a disclaimer at the bottom of the page that says: "Note: This information may not cover all possible claims, uses, actions, precautions, side effects or interactions. It is not intended as medical advice, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with your doctor." Does that imply if a doctor recommends to use such a therapy it should trump the information on that page?
Thank you! I'm just trying to better understand the topic and trying to be nuetral / objective! - Zach (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The relevant policies/guidelines include WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. The article falls under general sanctions, so this definitely isn't something to try to approach without a good understanding of how the policies/guidelines apply.
Basically, the source is fine and editors appear to be doing a good job of keeping the article up to date. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

handout for students editing articles about books[edit]

Hi there,

I'm hoping to solicit your feedback regarding a handout Wiki Ed is developing for students who want to work on articles about books: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Books. It will be a print guide that supplements other resources and materials for student editors, like the interactive training and brochures that address broader aspects of editing, like etiquette, NPOV, citing sources, working in sandboxes, using the talk page, etc. This guide focuses only on aspects of editing required for contributing to articles about books in classroom settings. We're hoping to get some feedback from the community by the end of Monday, so we can send it off to the printer before the end of the month. I realize that's not a lot of time so no worries if you don't get to it. There's one other draft we're looking for feedback on, for editing articles about films, if that's also/more of interest. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Stonebranch[edit]

Hi mate,

I see you removed the listing for Stonebranch's Universal Automation Center from back in September.

Just so I understand, could you tell me why? Stonebranch has been a highly regarded job scheduler software provider for decades and was recognized in the most recent Gartner Magic Quadrant. Just wondering why you would clip it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighton1234 (talkcontribs) 19:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Magic Quadrant is enough to warrent inclusion, especially when Gartner says their reports are pure opinion on their part. Do you know of other independent sources? --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome template query[edit]

Hi, you placed a superbly, helpful template on the talk page of User talk:Henrythompson - a new user I'm trying to engage with in a supportive manner. Could you point me to the template text you used, as I would love to place it on the pages of other new contributors I have contact with? Many thanks.Nick Moyes (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Replying on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about your edits[edit]

Hi there, I'm not clear on why you removed some of my recent edits, particularly given that one of them was correcting an error in the Golden Gate Bridge entry. It's correcting a fact about Bank of America and I cite a BofA history page to back it up. Can you please explain further?

Here's the note in my watchlist: (diff | hist) . . Golden Gate Bridge‎; 15:39 . . (-1,269)‎ . . ‎Ronz (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 784953107 by LFBedard (talk) REFSPAM)

I also don't understand your removing my text beefing up the subsection modern bond platforms in the Municipal Bond entry. The section -- one sentence -- is pretty flimsy: (diff | hist) . . Municipal bond‎; 21:10 . . (-731)‎ . . ‎Ronz (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎External links: removed section per EL, NOTLINK)

Thank you for explaining! LFBedard (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for responding. Simply, your edits as a whole appear to be spamming the self-published material from in order to promote I didn't look much further than that.
Regarding Golden Gate Bridge, I wrote [7] I think better sources should be found and used to ensure accuracy and neutrality.
Also, please do not remove comments as you did here from article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I apologize about appearing to spam. I thought the company's muni guide and some of its educational articles were valid sources.

I disagree, however, about your argument RE the Golden Gate Bridge sources. BofA's own history of itself is essentially a primary source. I understand citing news or reference texts in most instances but this particular example looks like an exception to that rule.
Regarding the modern muni bond platforms section, can you please explain that? I cited a news source so I'm not sure what the problem was. I think I understand you not wanting me to reference companies as examples but I don't get the other deletes. FYI, I've submitted a revised version of that section without the private sector references.

LFBedard (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd just be repeating myself. The solution is better sources that ensure accuracy and neutrality. In the case of platforms, perhaps something that puts the new platforms in historical context. Otherwise, it looks like advertising for Neighborly. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

About the update on eXo Platform[edit]

I am an employee at eXo Platform, and we need to add a wikipedia software page ( ) that have software oriented content, this is why we want to keep only company data on the current eXo Platform page ( ) by taking software oriented content to the software page. Could you please validate the new content I added to the company page in order to avoid duplicate content in both pages: company and software Thanks for your comprehension, I am available for any further details. Nour-hm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nour-hm (talkcontribs) 10:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That explains it. Thanks.
I think you should slow down, and learn more about Wikipedia. Both topics need to be notable for separate articles to exist. You've not demonstrated that the corporation has notability beyond that of the software platform, so you're unlikely to make any progress. Further, you have a conflict of interest with the topics, requiring you to be much more aware of Wikipedia's policies and to follow them closely. If you have time constraints from your employer to get this done in a short timeframe, you're likely going to find yourself very frustrated while accomplishing little.
I've left you information about Wikipedia on your talk page. Let me know if I can help further. --Ronz (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

My Sincere apologies, I am new here and I really didn’t know that I shouldn’t edit directly on the online content. I also didn’t want to violate Wikipedia policies, so I indeed took some time to read how I should act from now on. Now that I am aware about what I did I will follow the recommended process. For the Conflict of interest part, I can assure you that I am an employee at eXo Platform and that I am in charge in updating this page, so I hope following the recommended process to edit a page won’t create a COI anymore. Thank you so much for taking time to list the resources needed to edit a wiki page and thanks for your understanding.

Best Regards Nour-hm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nour-hm (talkcontribs) 13:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on both articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Monte Carlo simulation[edit]

Hi Ronz

I tried to add a link (that you removed) to a page on my company's web site that described Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) for business. I understand your reason for the deletion - relating my name to the company, but perhaps you could reconsider.

I am a well-known risk analyst, author of 3 different books published by Wiley on Monte Carlo simulation in business. The current MCS Wikipedia page really underplays the role in business, in which MCS is very probably the greatest application of interest. But the description was too long for me to put in Wikipedia, so I thought I'd write an explanation on our web site and then make a link. I also felt it best to do this transparently.

Can I ask you to take a look at the page I linked to to see whether it is of good quality before dismissing it? MCS always uses software, so inevitably there is a mention of our company's software in giving an example, but I think it is quite underplayed. I looked around before writing the topic but found no other succinct explanation on the net.

Kid regards

David Vose — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Vose (talkcontribs) 19:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you review the situation and WP:COI, then follow the recommendations. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur)‎[edit]

Hey Ronz,

Can you please explain why you reverted my recent edit to Andrea Rossi?

I do not understand how information such as filing for a new patent can create an unbalanced narrative, considering the fact a patent was indeed approved in 2015 as mentioned in the reference.


WMartin74 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

To the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: Talk:Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)#Recent_attempt_at_highlighting_a_demo. I've assumed that you'll review the discussions on both articles and WP:FRINGE. Simply, all the evidence is that this is a scam, and presenting it as something else violates NOT, NPOV, and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tariq Nasheed[edit]

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

I apologize that you found the message I left you unpleasant. I'm happy to refactor it to your liking. I struck it all out and started again. Let me know what else I can do.
BLP states: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
From my perspective, you aren't making proposals for improving the article in any way, and you are not using reliable sources suitable for a BLP article.
BLP states: To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.
I've been assuming you are an experienced editor that knows that Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages. I may have been wrong in that assumption. --Ronz (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Ramdev Article[edit]

Hi Ronz,

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

There are n no. of articles who even dont have any references and are still alive. Wikipedia people are biased. See this one and give one reason why it exists -

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