User talk:Hipal/Archive 38

Reply to the "Pooja Misrra" revert

I added the last changes because it is quite evident. Pooja was saved in SIX Evictions and got the highest amount of votes in every one of them. If you don't believe me check out the Bigg Boss 5 wiki page you'll know!. Sanjay Dutt the host said so on the eviction nights. She was disliked by the housemates but not by the audiences. I regularly watch Bigg Boss and i know what's happening. Even later on in the article it's mentioned "Few Audiences' support was also seen on Bigg Boss official website where followers 'liked' Pooja's profile using their Facebook account." why would audience give her votes on the site when they dislike her. And people love her for her comical dialouges, how can she become infamous for them??. There have been so many edits, People have been editing and cutting out the details. She in fact got the highest votes on the site(in millions). Millions doesn't mean "only a few". You even reverted my changes about her Stay summary. You want a source for that too? Go to the wiki page, it'll confirm how many weeks she survived in the house and how many nominations she received!--Heyhello1234567 (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

While your enthusiasm is contagious, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not a fan page. Sources please. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're sayin you want a source for her stay summary too? for how many week she survived in the house etc. right? okay here you go --> source Ohh here it is again! Yeah this is the source! Ohh Cmon look at it, I dare you! Yayy! we got anotha source! Woah! Happy now? ahaan? here you go again n again n again (source) hmm yeah u heard that ryt. it's a source baby!!.... source!! source......... Swwet sweet source! ...Time for an LOL --Heyhello1234567 (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and removing it per WP:NOT and WP:BLP. Perhaps sometime in the future the information can be expanded with acceptable sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead, ukhh, you know what... do whatevvvver u want. This means alot to you i guess! be happy! --Heyhello1234567 (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1001rugs.com

I understand that I can't include information from my own site in Wikipedia but would it be posble for you to include the rug care info from my site on Wikipedia and just include a link to the reference page on my site. I am sure that many people will be happy to have this information availble to them. Many thanks

Ramin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.93.142 (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Even if we found an authoritative source, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominative Determinism

Hey there, as a recent editor of Nominative determinism I'm letting you know if you're not watching the page that an anonymous IP editor is intent on consistently deleting content from it, so if you're up to it, it'd be great if you could monitor any changes on that page to minimize this vandal's impact. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Lock the article and work it out on talk. A list of examples seems to be dubious content for an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Bowen technique

Please explain to me why a piece of research, randomised controlled trialled, through an academic institution, peer reviewed and published by the leading scientific journal publisher in the world is not acceptable for you.

What more does any therapy or individual have to do?

The complimentary therapy for dummies is just wrong, out of date, un-researched and inaccurate. Is this better than scientific research? Please help me here as I really don't want to waste your time by just getting 500 people to keep deleting your corrections and would like to get some kind of consensus as to what your agenda is.

Cheers Joolsbaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolsbaker (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Finally, we're discussing sources! Now let's do it on the article talk page... --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

edumaritime.com

I was trying to add few links to external links (as I have done in the past - and accepted). You seems to have objections. That's fine. Could you please explain? Did you check these links?

George Marikas www.edumaritime.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.146.37 (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've been trying to notify you about the links for days now. All the links have been removed, and not just by me. Generally, the link appears highly promotional in nature with no unique information relevant to the articles. The applicable policies/guidelines are WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, and WP:EL.

I've requested that the link be removed by a bot whenever it is added by an ip or new editor. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources in Bowen technique

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Please read reliable sources guidelines and stop unfounded editing. Editing is about presenting accurate and up to date information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolsbaker (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to be specific and do so on the article talk page rather than edit war. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I found this odd edit from Jan. 7. It seems this editor awarded himself a barnstar in your name. It wasn't sent by you on that date nor did you send it on Dec. 14 (the supposed date of the barnstar), so it's a little odd. Thought you should know. freshacconci talktalk 04:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! A little odd? Looks like he's working on getting his ip blocked again. --Ronz (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

sports medicine

Hi Ronz, why are you deleting user contribution for sports medicine image? I understand first time it was having a name and reference to external site url. But I respected your concern and deleted the url and made sure image doesn't have any reference, please check yourself. The latest image is one demonstrating a sports doctor treating a athlete which is a apt image for sports medicine - Muthu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.230.52 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Take it up on the article talk page. Let's see what other think when the coi and promotion aren't so blatant. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Carpet" Revisions

Hello Ron.

I'm brand new to contributing to Wikipedia and am doing so in an effort to provide more reliable information on the topic I am very well versed, Turkish rugs and carpets. The previous contributions are poorly written and full of innacuracies.

I don't understand your "reverts" as I believe my contributions to the Carpet page to be very well summarized. The Persian section, and the Indian section of that page are equally lengthy.

Can you be more precise as to what the issue is, or that is to say, what you find problematic? Would you rather a more accurate, well written summary exist (my effort), or a poorly written innacurate summary (reverted summary)?

Do you want me to exclude the picture?

My efforts are strictly an attempt to better educate the general public, and I must say, I've spent quite a bit of time, unpaid of course, writing the article on "Turkish Carpets" and the small summary for the "Carpet" entry.

Best Regards. Cllane4 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)cl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.63.59 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ron.

I've edited the Turkish sub category of this page again. I have deleted a paragraph and a few lines. Also made the pic of the Usak carpet smaller.

Please bear in mind, others have posted pictures, some outrageously large on this same page.

Please do not "undo" my work without talking with me first.

Also, please do not "undo" my contribution of a pic from the Sultan Ahmet Camii (Mosque) featuring the very important prayer carpet.

Thank you. Cllane4 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)cl

Thanks for responding. Let's take this discussion to the article talk page please. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing Ron.

How do I do that??

I'm embarrassed to say, I haven't a clue.

Cllane4 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)cl

Don't worry, I've started it here. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Book on adulteration of olive oil

I am confused as to why you would remove the changes that I made to the olive oil entry. Tom Mueller is already listed as an author of a New Yorker article about olive oil and I only added that he just came out with a book that goes into greater detail on the same subject. Surely readers would be interested in this fact if they are interested in the fact that he wrote the New Yorker article. Please help me understand what is going on here...

Sullivan731 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the broader topic of Olive oil, and looks like very blatant promotion of Mueller. --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So was the New Yorker article 'irrelevant to the broader topic of olive oil and very blatant promotion of Mueller and/or the New Yorker magazine"?? If not, and 'not' was surely the judgement as the New Yorker article has been part of the olive oil entry for some time, then please help me understand the difference. I understand and respect the desire to not pollute Wikipedia, but this really doesn't make much sense. Please help me understand the thinking behind this judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sullivan731 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's stick to actual concerns. The New Yorker article is not being disputed as a reference.

Now that you point it out, its use is overly promotional. I've changed the content slightly. The emphasis on the author, publisher, and date doesn't seem justified. The additional emphasis on the author and his new book seemed like advertising for the book. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

External link: Anesthesiologist

Dear Ronz, You really think what broken link "Anesthesia Residency Programs Listed by State (US)" are more useful for users than link "How to Become an Anesthesiologist"? Website How to Become an Anesthesiologist contenet information about anesthesiologist job, career overview, education steps and other information about "Anesthesiologist". Visit website, please, before banned resource as spam.Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VincenteP (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any broken links, but I didn't look at any other than the new one that was added. I removed it per WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. It looks like a number of sites added to Wikipedia articles. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cleaned up the external links list. Thanks for pointing out the dead link. --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

NOT coi

My edit was identical to The one left by Brian from stogie review, there is no COI, I am simply the first person to review the new company, I am unaffiliated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarobsession (talk • contribs) 04:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding. My concern is that you are representing cigarobsession.com, and that your edit where you added cigarobsession.com is against our conflict of interest guideline.

Still, it's not an appropriate reference. I've removed the similar reference as well. --Ronz (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you an admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigarobsession (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the concernq

Thanks for the concern. I am cigar obsession, the same as Brian is stogie review in the 5 Vegas submission. He's ok so I'm ok.

Neither is ok, which is why I removed the only stogiereview.com reference. --Ronz (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ronz (a message)

This is regarding the wiki page of Sandeep Khurana.

I have added more secondary sources today, and there are several links to reliable sources like newspapers, film schools, trusted media sites, sites like itunes, amazonmusic, and magazines.

Please review and I hope the warning may now be removed.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.46.103 (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and your work on improving the article. I'll try to spend time reviewing it within the next day.

Lydia Cornell entry...

I am the person who has recently edited the Lydia Cornell article under the IPs (96.235.144.75) and (173.72.91.54). I have never been involved with this entry prior to that, and only today became aware of the ongoing problems with the subject's birth date here on Wikipedia. I do not know the entry subject and certainly have no ax to grind with her.

What evidence would be considered adequate to establish the 07/23/1953 birth date? A link has been provided (apparently several times) to a Texas govt. birth registry. It appears undisputed that Ms. Cornell's birth name is Lydia Korniloff, and that her birth place is El Paso. If, as claimed, that the 1953 birth date belongs to a different person, then where is the record for Ms. Cornell?

Among other things, you yourself have linked to a 1982 newspaper article that would make impossible the 1962 birth date alleged by user(s) claiming to represent Ms. Cornell, and would seem to support the 1953 birth date.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.167.124 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me on this. I'm discussing exactly this on the article talk page. Right now, we've all of once source establishing the birth name and location, and the public records for that name/location give 07/23/1953. I'd prefer to have more sources, but whatever we find at this point will probably be enough. --Ronz (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am the user from above, IP (173.61.167.124). I meant to sign that post. I will take anything else over to the article talk page .... Triton6563 (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

You have recently removed a bunch of links that i have posted regarding topics posted on wikipedia can you please explain to me why you have removed them as they are not spam links, these links are related to the topics and some of the topics here on wikipedia contained content or excerpts from those very sites. I am not a spammer and i am not here to boost rankings of any sort.

Please explain yourself.

Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theolatic (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of external links per WP:ELNO. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, Theolatic. I have to agree with Doc James. If you look at your own user talk page, you'll see that you were warned previously. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

COI with personal website

Hi Ronz, thanks for the usefull information.

I am not related or member of any organisation. As a retired person I want to share my knowledge about the importance of natural solutions for health problems of different origins. During my professional live I had regular contacts with scientists and medical researchers. I intend to bring personal and also published verifiable information related to nutrition and health, together in an accessible and understandable way. Of course my personal view is important but I try to be as objective as possible to explore interesting views and discoveries. I am convinced there is a common interest of objective information for the users of Wikipedia and for the visitors of my site. Natureplus (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The conflict of interest is in your adding links to your personal website. COI aside, your website isn't a reliable source, and it is not an appropriate external link.

I hope you can find other ways to apply your knowledge and interest here at Wikipedia. Science and medical articles have a great need for editors who can identify and use proper science and medical references. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes to 'Cheque' and eDiscovery' email

Hello,

As a new contributor I am interested in recent deletions of both of my contributions. I did not feel that either were self-serving to any specific organization, and wanted to add additional resources to the page, especially as both headings asked for such.

I hope to discuss this is with you so that I may contribute in a way that is deemed satisfactory.

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11Broadway (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

WP:EL covers what is and is not appropriate as external links. Both the ones you added fall into WP:ELNO #19, "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered."

In Cheque you added a short list of example organizations. Generally, lists of examples can be problematic when it comes to making the information unbiased. Without an independent, reliable source, how do we have any hope of making sure the list is unbiased or even worth including?

In Electronic discovery you added a short paragraph sourced by a press release and the publishers webpage for the survey promoted in the press release. Both are primary sources not independent of the information. Again, without an independent source, how to we ensure the information is presented in an unbiased way, or deserves mention at all? --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

NAET

Thanks for your assistance. Famousdog (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like a big mess. Hopefully we can get it on track. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

why delete the ID types figure and etc?

the part ID types is an avant-garde study in ID so,if you do not agree with this paper and this figure, you can leave your comments there or reference another paper(s) to make a comparative atmosphere.

best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instructionaldesigner (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Please take a look at your user talk page. You're editing against a conflict of interest to promote your paper, removing maintenance templates without addressing the concerns, and edit-warring. After you digest all that's on your talk page, take a look at the new maintenance template I added which details the multiple problems. --Ronz (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Naveen Jain's Profile

Hi Ronz,

Wanted to reach out to you as I've seen that you've edited Naveen's profile a number of times (the most of anyone, actually). Full disclosure, I work for a PR firm (Sparkpr) that currently supports Intelius, a company founded by Jain.

We created a document that provides all the information missing from his profile, using hyper links a proof points for each edit and/or piece of content we would like to add. I have this in a word document whereby the content is integrated into Naveen profile in red, so you can see the edit and the corresponding proof point link more clearly. Please let me know if you'd like me to send that to you.

Since I'm likely too close to Naveen, I figured that I shouldn't probably edit anything of his. But with the content I mention above, it would be easy for someone who is more third party to do so.

Is this something I could as your help on, or is there someone else I should be speaking with about this? Maybe there's another process altogether that I should be pursuing?

Any thoughts or guidance is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Best, Jay

Thanks for contacting me. I'll respond on your talk page where we can concentrate on how to go about what you're proposing. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

check the mentioned article

(refactored --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC))

the mentioned figure about trends in ID is a in depth study. you can refer to the paper and see the related sources and references. it is enough scientific point of view, whether your point of view is agree with it or not.

The best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instructionaldesigner (talk • contribs) 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need to stop promoting your research here, or you'll be blocked. I'm happy to help you through all the policies and guidelines you're violating. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Spamming of personal websites

Hey man, Those links I added help people, and I was not spamming. All links were in 100% accordance with Wiki policy, on topic, with factual information.

I run a site on a rare type of hives (cholinergic urticaria), and yet you leave crappy links from about.com and other commercial sites? What's your problem?

It would be different if I was spamming or promoting unrelated topics, but 100% of every link I posted was on topic. This wasn't fair or nice at all.

I bust my chops writing content online, managing a forum, and helping people on every site I own. People still thank my daily for starting my sites and they get a lot more information from my sites and support on a forum than they do from Wiki.

So I really don't appreciate it. I hate spammers just like anyone else, but I do not spam this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BP7865 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're surprised by all your links being removed. COI and spamming aside, I don't believe any of the external links meet WP:EL criteria, and none of the references meet WP:RS. There are corresponding noticeboards, WP:ELN and WP:RSN to discuss the matter if you disagree. --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

DRN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Acupuncture". Thank you. --Famousdog (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks be to ye, noble knight!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your assistance in the recent User:Certifiedallergist case. Famousdog (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ankylosing Spondylitis

Ronz My first edit of Wikipedia, neutral in my opinion, with citations, yet you deleted it. Why please? Also, there is a lot to read and learn about using Wikipedia so I do appreciate input that helps me learn this quicker. Lmanndc (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. I've responded on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

hedgefundletters.com external links

Hi Ronz,

Thank you for notifying me of the problem. I didn't intend to break the rules of Wikipedia. I added the links to external links because the website is copyrighted and information regarding them is present on it officially. Sorry if I broke the rules. I will keep it in mind next time if think of doing something like it. As for the pictures, the permission was sent to Wikimedia by the copyright holder. The pictures are sketched by the permission of the people and they have allowed them to be published. But still, thank you for guiding me.
--Inlandmamba (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

These images have been checked by the OTRS volunteers and have been permitted to be used. These images have also been allowed by the people whose sketches they are to be used on the articles. Is it still against the guidelines of Wikipedia?
--Inlandmamba (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Regarding the copyrights, my concern was that multiple editors had brought up the issue, and you reverted their edits rather than explaining the situation.

My other concern is that such caricatures simply don't belong in these articles. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I believe that I added the links under the wrong heading, they should have been placed under the reference section.

As for the second point, the caricatures have been permitted by the people themselves to be placed on their articles. I don't know how it violates the policies of Wikipedia, can you guide me in this respect too? Thanks --Inlandmamba (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the links shouldn't have been added as references either.

We're making an encyclopedia. I don't believe such caricatures belong in an encyclopedia. The relevant policies/guidelines include WP:IMAGE and WP:IUP. --Ronz (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, sorry for bothering you again. I have some questions I want to ask
a) Whats the reason beyond stating that the link is advertising?
b) I have reviewed both the EL guideline and the link and find it to be in compliance with policy. I have placed the confusion on EL noticeboard so that some one can take a look. I don't intend to say that you are wrong but just want to confirm it. Thanks
--Inlandmamba (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I noticed your post at External links/Noticeboard. Hopefully someone will reply soon. Let's keep the relevant discussion there. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information from Intelius

Ronz,

I had removed the information after verifying it from the sources and from the companies representative. Once again if this violates the Wikipedia's policy, I would refrain from doing it. Once again, thank you for your guidance.
--Inlandmamba (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. You removed quite a bit more than that. You also didn't appear to read the rest of the article to notice that you added redundant information. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I admit that was my mistake that I changed a lot of text without notifying it on the talk page, but I had confirmed all the text that I changed from the companies representative before adding it to the article. But I do admit that Wikipedia demands references for every fact and this communication which I had with the representative was done verbally. So it was a mistake on my part. Sorry for that. --Inlandmamba (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be original research from a biased source without identifying the biased source. --Ronz (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

removal of external link

Thank you for brining this error to my attention. I see that my link has been removed. I will not make the same mistake again.

I read all the information that you directed me to.

It is alright to link from my site to wikipedia as an authority site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilunieto (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I didn't make any of those comments, but I'm happy you read them.

No, you cannot add links such as those you have added. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of zootherapy

Hi Ron, I have removed several sections from this critic to make it more encyclopedic. By the way this is not a new or personal topic as the extensive references show. Many scientists have raised doubts.These are rarely mentioned for some reason. You can check out the french equivalent of this critic. It has finally passed all the tests. Its shorter to respect the prerequisite of balance for both views. The english version is much longer though so is the critic.

So, now we must settle the issue? Whats wrong with this new version? How can we make some progress and get this published?

Thanks Charles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles danten (talk • contribs) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the talk page in an initial effort to determine what you're proposing.

Let's discuss what you're proposing there. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is the article? What now? I just don't know what you expect from me at this point?--Charles danten (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OK Ronz, what now? I don't know what else can do to improve this article. It seems fine to me after the edits? Why not point out some of the problems so I can correct them? And where is the text? Thanks for your help Charles--Charles danten (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you see what I wrote on your talk page?

My concern is that I don't have time to address this properly and I don't want to discourage you with a quick critique which will just elaborate and detail what I've already written: too much of it violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:OR for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINT discussion

Would you mind refactoring your comments or otherwise clarifying who your response was directed at? I was under the mistaken impression that you were responding to me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the quote makes it clear, but I've included the editor's name and datestamp now. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The previous comment was not as clear, though.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Animal-assisted therapy

Dear Ronz, I have worked some more on Criticism of animal-assisted therapy. See third proposal on talk page for animal-assisted therapy. I have also added some comments below various other sections such as the lengthy one on dolphin therapy.--Charles danten (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to Lisa Feldman Barrett

A question about your edit. The web site www.affective-science.org is indeed Dr. Feldman Barrett's official site, as shown here. She is the founder & director of the lab. Is there a meaning of "official site" for a scientist that I'm not aware of? Thanks. 70.20.23.31 (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL, "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." The link is the official site for the lab. It has almost no information on Barrett that I could find other than contact information. If there's a profile of her somewhere on the site, I couldn't find it, but that would be appropriate as an external link. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

POINT

Your talk page comment on being bullied and harrassed is interesting. I feel like that almost every time I edit Wikipedia. The people with 100x the time I have seem to think that those with more time should get their way. More than once I've given up and interesting, relevant information was lost because of bullying editors who think they're the only one who can be correct.

Anyway, on the question on my talk page, I've seen others make the same request elsewhere. People on the talk page are trying to get to a consensus. Meanwhile, others are busy editing without any consensus, in an edit war. Your recent edit to the page was clearly in good faith, and not trying to circumvent the discussion, so I was ok with it, just making the minor change to say "Other editors". I don't think you intended it to not be NPOV. But, since I disagree with part of it (and presumably others do as well), it clearly has a POV. Until and unless that POV is enshrined as consensus, it should not be stated as fact. In contrast, I tried really hard to make my original edit NPOV and I think I succeeded.

You misunderstood my point on WP:OFFICE. That policy only discusses edits and changes, not takedowns or disruptions or anything else.

I admit that I am amazed by the overall objection. This huge event happened and people think it shouldn't be mentioned anywhere in the policies?

RoyLeban (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't agree with your interpretations of WP:CON, WP:DR, WP:NPOV, and WP:OFFICE, but I think we're moving along fine in both the editing and discussions. I'm going to focus on WP:OFFICE til we work it out.

It sounds like you're trying to change WP:POINT to protest the action. That would be a violation of WP:POINT itself, as others have pointed out. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to protest the action. I'm trying to avoid having it censored. This isn't supposed to be 1984. You clearly have more time than I do. This issue will come up again and again unless there is a home for some official statement. Yes, I feel bullied, but at least not harassed. RoyLeban (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"I'm trying to avoid having it censored. This isn't supposed to be 1984." "This issue will come up again and again unless there is a home for some official statement." Sounds like a protest to me.

Please read what you've written, then find a proper venue for discussing it. It's irrelevant to behavioral guidelines for editors, so irrelevant to WP:POINT. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey there!

I was asked to come back to this site so I've gone to a few of my friendly editors to see what is going on with them. So far out of 3 of them 2 have sockpuppet notices on them and then I see you here with a POV notice. Are things out of control or am I looking at the wrong pages? I just got a new computer finally after a long time without one. Mine broke in hardware so here I am with this one. I've still got things to do like getting files, address book, and email active. I'm not back yet, and so far not sure if I want the drama to start again. I hope you are doing well Ronz. I'll let you know when I get my email back. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear from you!

I still get harassed by editors with differing views on basic policies. Not all of them get banned or blocked, unfortunately.

Since I made changes on how I approach the more dramatic and disruptive editors, it's gotten much easier for me. Asking "how will this improve the encyclopedia?" is a very effective way of keeping focused when faced with drama and disruption. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I saw the note to you about POV editing, and found it to be humoruous to be honest. I know what it is you do and you know the rules better than I do. Heck right now, I need to learn how to do everything all over again. I did two posts on talk pages and by the second one I realized I forgot to sign. :) I am hoping that I will get my computer and esp. my email and files back soon. I am starting to bug him again to get this accomplished. With what I have now it's hard to communicate with people and I don't like it. I was able for a little bit to access my email through Comcast but now it's not working either.  :( I may come back but I just don't like seeing the same drama I had when I decided to take a break long ago. Keep up the good work though. Talk soon I hope. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, thank you, and hang in there

I realize my wrong to say qualify the FDA in my reply to your first notice about the undo. I've a deep disdain for OR, credit to Ms. Masters my writing teacher in high school. Now to credit you plus for the links to Wikipedia rules on sources that'll come in handy. What I'll try to do is by juxtaposition and dates imply the FDA conclusion may need review. Wikipedia and I need you, so I'd prefer if you don't quit.32cllou (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC) PS Don't need to take time to reply to my last Q in tea health talk since I'll know by your undo if I've done wrong again. Hugs32cllou (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. We're making progress. We just need some better sources to help us figure out the current medical consensus. I don't expect the FDA is an organization that would move especially quickly. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Soapy Pyramids

I daresay you're right. I just thought the whole thing a ludicrously good illustration of what's what. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Took me a bit before I got around to commenting on the article talk page. I'm sure we're going to get a lot of this given 2012 phenomenon. Then next year we'll get reinterpretations on why none of their predictions came true. Then we'll be back to just the regular absurdities. --Ronz (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are eternal, I fear. Sometimes we're little more than the Danaids. Haploidavey (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Catherine Wagner

Hi Ronz, I received a "conflict of interest" message about the Catherine Wagner page on Wikipedia. I am Catherine, and I did edit the page (which I didn't create) to correct some errors and add basic information. Is there anything particular on the page that looks biased? I don't want it to be a promo page (I would never have created it myself), but as it's up there I want it to be a correct resource should anyone use it. Let me know if there's something specific you object to. Thank you much! Cathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.31.88 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I was cleaning up some other problems, when I noticed the possible coi. I just wanted you to be aware of the policy. Let me take a look at the article a bit more closely... --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with any bias in the article. It's not much more that a WP:STUB at this time. I'll make a quick note on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes for Carl Zeiss Vision

Hi,

in case these are the rules than this how it will be. My intention was to give a bit more info on this business unit.

Ionly wonder why the Camera lenses unit can feature a set of all their products whereas oth erbusiness units only have one sentence to describe the business.

Maybe it would be better to split the entry and have - a copmany overview on the various business units / divisions (like Industrial Metrology, Meditec, Vision Care, Sports Optics etc. - all have their own coporate websites) and - a produts overview

This would increase readibiloty and improce structure. In case I can help - great. But this iterative process is quiet time consuming ...

All the best Christian

PS: Of course it is great to have review of edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edittide123 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this.

The most important rule is to make the article a better entry in an encyclopedia. Right now, it likes like a combination of Zeiss publications.

Ideally, it should be rewritten from sources independent of Zeiss. The easy, short term solution would be to just trim back the sections so they have similar, basic content, keeping what few independent sources we have. Without new sources, that's the most appropriate step to take.

I'm happy to help with either approach. In the meantime, I've tagged the article to identify the problems for anyone else that might be interested in working on the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Similar mess at SensoMotoric Instruments GmbH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. He's not understanding the need for independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been doing new page patrol on medical articles lately (dismal work :/), but I don't know where to even start on that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

To stub or not to stub, that is usually the question... What's best for the encyclopedia? I'm afraid that following and enforcing Wikipedia policies and guidelines is just too hard for most people here. Combine that with their not being able to distinguish encyclopedic content from promotional materials, and it's easy to get frustrated fighting the tide of advertising and promotion. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. Since moving away from FAC and into new page patrol of medical articles, I'm finding how really really really bad it is out there. On some articles, I just prefer to pretend I didn't see them-- throw my hands up. Been at work all morning on just four articles. Which ones to save? When can we just stub them? Not an admin, don't know, but this is not sustainable work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Stub it, explain what needs to be done on the talk page. That should be more than enough. Anyone that thinks otherwise simply doesn't understand our policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be most of them :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

SensoMotoric Instruments GmbH

Hi, understand your comments.

I wanted give the people at SMI a headstart in finall yhaving a Wiki page since they are former colleagues of mine. But I understand (and appreicate ) your process keeping quality up. I now have to see whether the SMI peole can add the required info and sources to keep site alive. I have to pull out and focu son my new duties.

However I wonder why there is no argument with e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobii_Technology ? The first paragraph on existence of teh firm is pointing to an company internal source. The other links are mostly product related, hence promotion? Same for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EyeTech_Digital_Systems?

What is the difference betweem SMI and Tobii or EyeTech_Digital_Systems? Except that SMI is one of the oldest firms in that niche...!

All the best and again thanks for keeping Wikipedia an great site. I'll try to improve in future when editting again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edittide123 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Glad this is making some sense...

As I was discussing above with SandyGeorgia, there's something called a WP:STUB article. My take on WP:STUB is that when an article is short enough, we don't expect it to contain much encyclopedic content. As long as the subject matter appears worthy of an article at some point, having the potential to meet WP:N, it's worth keeping as a brief article.

I consider Tobii Technology to be little more than a stub.

EyeTech Digital Systems would be probably better stubbed. It would probably be best to copy all the references and external links to the talk page so they can easily be investigated further. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted website as reference in 'Kriya yoga'

Dear Ronz,

The info that I provided were after much research and studies. It was disheartening to see all that being deleted by you just at one go, that too within 10 minutes after I edited that page !!!

It's the policy of Wikipedia only, that .org websites are considered with more acceptability. Hence, I thought of referring to that website.

Also, the trivial info given there were of much earlier time. That too in a spiritual domain. Resources are hardly available in websites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kriya_Yoga&oldid=484415312

Hence, if resources are not available enough in amount, then, do suggest that Wikipedia readers should be deprived of the TRUE facts ? Just because there are not more amount of resources.

And I would like to repeat once again, it was truly disheartening to see the way all the changes were deleted by you within 10 minutes of editing !!!

Looking forward to have better co-operation from you, on a mission of catering as much a s info possible to the Wiki readers.

Regards, Akash.

Akash 2011 (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding

The article is an absolute mess. The addition of kriyayogashyamacharan.org as a source only made it worse. Yes, there are many other references in the article of similarly questionable.

What the article needs is independent, reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast response. As you mentioned, the article is in a mess, please let me know your views on my following queries :

• 1. I could hardly see other references in that article which goes hand in hand with the given 2 links of wiki regarding independent and reliable resources. Unfortunately, my edits were deleted within 10 minutes of editing. Please let me know your next initiatives while addressing other issues in the same article. How are you planning to clear the rest of the mess, as against the '10 minute deletion' that I had to suffer ?

• 2. Kriya yoga is an utmost spiritual subject. We can hardly expect this subject been covered in newspapers and all. This is a special scenario. And right because of that, there are so many direct links in that article already. Hence, if there is not much media coverage on such subtle spiritual subject, then what's the way forward according to you ? Should the Wiki readers be deprived of the latest developments in the such fields, just because newspapers or news agencies didn't cover that ? On the contrary, we are of the opinion, that Wiki itself is the biggest repository of news and free thinking. Wiki is an institution on its own - a democratic platform.

Eagerly waiting to have your views on the queries mentioned above.

Regards.

Akash 2011 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As you'll note, I've tagged the article to identify the problems and get help fixing them. Now, I'd like to see what others think.

Please don't take it personally. By chance, I noticed your edits soon after you made them.

Ideally, I'd like to see citations from noted experts on the subject, as well as any secondary/tertiary sources that might be available. I'm sure we can find at least a few. --Ronz (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. Let's hope things will be sorted out properly and in a fair manner. Till then let us wait and watch.

Regards.

Akash 2011 (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're so interested in working on the article, there's no need to wait. If you propose new sources on the article talk page, I'm happy to review them. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know what problems are you referring to when you say - "Same problems"

The reference links been given this time :

1. Life positive : http://www.lifepositive.com/ 2. Cross and Lotus http://www.crossandlotus.com/

Both of these are quite famous magazines/websites on spirituality.

3. 1st World parliament on spirituality : http://www.wpsconnect.org

++ Article of Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee - published in "The Times Of India" (India's most circulated and famous english daily news paper)

The Dharma of Infinite Science : http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-23/science-of-spirituality/29447692_1_infinite-creation-science-religions

Please let me know what else can I put there to avoid the 'same problem' as against other already existing references !!

Many thanks in advance.

Akash 2011 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Again to Add, http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ is the official website of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission. Founder of which is Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee.

If in any case, this is considered to be 'biased'; other links, which are provided are from absolutely neutral and unbiased sources.

Hope to hear from you soon as I can hardly see any such reference in the already existing references section.

Also, kindly let me know what more would I have to include ? what else is left to be put ?

Akash 2011 (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Also to add, please find below the link from one of the most famous news papers in India - "The Hindu" :

http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/22/stories/2008012250630200.htm

Would like to hear from you soon Ronz ...

Akash 2011 (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Ideally, I'd like to see citations from noted experts on the subject, as well as any secondary/tertiary sources that might be available. I'm sure we can find at least a few."

I guess I wasn't clear. Let's take this to the article talk so others can take part. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We have taken the issue to talk section of 'Kriya yoga'. now what ? Should we wait till others come and verify ? Till then all the amendments are stalled ?

BTW, Please let me know the reasons, that made u think http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ is not reliable.

Akash 2011 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I was responding to your comment on the talk page when you wrote the above. Let's stick to the discussion there. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding MM

I have replied [1] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of zootherapy

Hi Ron, Haven't heard from you in a long time, is there a problem? Charles Danten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles danten (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No real problem. Editors seem overwhelmed with all the potential sources.

I agree with IRWolfie's comment of 17:07, 16 March 2012 "I suggest that if any content is to be added that it is done so very very slowly, in that way the content can reasonably be checked. It isn't reasonable for a wall of references without links to be checked by anyone really." --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Mayakovsky

Which bit of the Vladimir Mayakovsky legacy section do you consider trivia? I am not a fan of trvia sections at all, but none of this strikes me as fluff. Not very written but not trivia. Your thoughts please. I have starred this page, so please reply here. Thanks Span (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Starting with the discussion of Carmelo Bene. --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Analytic Hierarchy Process ‎

HI,

The material that I'm trying to add was given by professor Saaty himself to add on Wikipedia. Everything that I was added was very close related to the AHP. I needed the access so I could add the formulas of the model as pictures.

Updating this page is part of my semester tasks, so I would really appreciate if you would not delete them anymore.

You would see at the end that all the information i will add are really useful regarding the AHP model.

Thank you.

Bests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sava magda (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That would mean you're working with a very strong conflict of interest. I'm sorry that this could interfere with your schoolwork. I believe my concerns are legitimate, and am happy to go into detail on them. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think is a conflict of interests at all. What professor Saaty wants is to add also the mathematical background and methodology of the AHP/ANP. This was what I was trying to do.

All the information provided until now on the Wiki page are more intuitive.

And I still don't understand you concerns regarding the material which is a pure mathematical and explanatory one regarding the AHP methodology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sava magda (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You've an obvious conflict of interest. Let's take this to WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Seduction Community

There is nothing promotional about that edit, it is factual. The Seduction Community is not just PUA's, it is an insult to our community that anyone would imply such nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.37.186.94 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 April 2012

There is nothing promotional about that edit, it is factual. The Seduction Community is not just PUA's, it is an insult to our community that anyone would imply such nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieranrdblack (talk • contribs) 03:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Find an independent source, and avoid self-promotion please. --Ronz (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hipal. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Priyanka Jain

Ronz - I'd like to discuss the sources on Priyanka Jain's entry. I think that they are all solid, independent sources, yet you removed them as well as the information that accompanies them. Could you please discuss with me your thoughts on the sources? Thanks! jheditorials 14:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The article has gone from a clear copyright violation to one sourced with poor sources. What's to discuss? --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the welcome message; I did some changes to the Alicia Silverstone article yesterday who had been reverted; it may not be perfect but I really believe the overall quality have been much improved and is a step forward, so would it be possible to not revert the changes and use the new article as basis instead. Thanks JMB-HappyMonkey328 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support

Hi Ronz, So sorry to hear you have been harassed and abused by other editors. I now what that feels like. I hope you don't retire as you have made many good contributions here. In fact, sometime ago you removed an image from Ray Dalio and now the image has been put back in again. I agree with you that it has "dubious value" and I favor removal. What do you think? I've started a thread on the talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and for notifying me. It looks like this is unrelated to the previous problems with these caricatures, though I don't know why the image hasn't been deleted. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Dream focus has started an ANI thread about you and seems to have forgotten to inform you, so this is here as a courtesy. SÆdon^talk 23:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! He informed me. He was just unable to be civil in doing so. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

		A beer on me!
		For your continuous good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alicia Silverstone. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Diffs? --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The last revert I made was here over clear vandalism, which is exempt from 3rr.

Prior to that, I made this revert. While I understand that the removal of tags without resolving them isn't clear vandalism, it was a few days ago. Of course, I've been participating heavily in the discussions on all this and other matters, and dropped the matter of the tags entirely. So what's the problem? --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ronz

OK - First, I don't have any experience at being a Mentor, and I would be a poor choice as one because of many reasons: My lack of experience in that area, my focus on different things, and my fluctuating schedule which means I never know when I'm going to be around for any extended stretch. I have mentioned the situation to a wiki-friend who has experience with it off-wiki, so if a stranger shows up with an offer, don't be alarmed.

Now, as to my advice in your present circumstances I would do the following things if it were me.

1. I would mention that you're going to walk away from the Silverstone article in that ANI thread - and take a break from editing there for a while. I understand that you are passionate about the topic, but other people will take good care of it. You can work on details in the future once things have settled down a bit.
2. I would remove any of the "I am being bullied" stuff from your pages. It may be perfectly true, and we can discuss how to deal with that down the road if you wish; but, it makes anyone coming to your pages feel a bit uncomfortable.
3. I would probably take a break from Wikipedia for 2 or 3 days just to go out and enjoy life, and clear your head of everything that's going on. I'm can understand if it has been stressful, and sometimes we all need to just take a break for a bit.
4. When I got back, I would read the essay WP:IDHT, since that is the impression I get from other people who are feeling frustrated with your editing. I'm not condemning your work - I am just saying that I can see other people saying you are difficult to work with.

Now, give me an idea about the types of things you like to do on Wikipedia and I will try to go from there. You are also welcome to email me if there is something you want to say in private. In general, I would say that for a bit, once you start editing again, just do minor editing. Fix typos, correct spelling, research and add a line or two with references to the things that catch your eye. Don't focus on just one thing and stay on the same topic. Don't try to FORCE any changes. At most, go to the talk page and ask why something was reverted if it was. Read what the reply was. Try to understand why your changes were reverted. The big thing is that after you say something, then you have to listen to what others say in response. Understand what they are trying to point out, and move forward to finding an acceptable solution. There will be times here where you may be perfectly correct in what you are saying - but on Wikipedia, consensus is what dictates what gets done.

As far as an official Mentor goes, you can look at: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and find someone with similar interests at: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. And feel free to drop me a line anytime. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  21:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and I didn't protect the article so much to help you, but more to help the project and diffuse the disruption that was going on. But I am glad you took it in a positive way. — Ched :  ?  21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, the page protection was to diffuse the situation. I'd been holding back on requesting it myself only because there was other improvements being made by a number of editors. --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi Ronz.

I was contacted to look into this case as a possible mentor for you, as I've had experience in mentorship in the past. I'm afraid I did outright reject the idea of mentoring you by myself, due to the fact that you do not fit the profile of editor I take on. However, I went on to look through your recent history, combined with your comments here and the comments at WP:ANI, with the view that I might be part of a mentorship team or offer some helpful advice. Unfortunately, based on my review of your recent history, combined with previous issues in 2010, which are similar to the current problems:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for the reasons given below. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I'm not going to go too far into the substance of the debate on the articles, as I believe they are tangential to the problem. Other editors are likely to disagree with me on this point. However your recent behaviour including:

• Disruptive editing, controlling behaviour which verges on bullying. For example:
  • At Animal-assisted therapy - attempting to control "how" information is added [2], spamming articles with tags [3] and templating regular editors who disagree [4] [5].
  • Personalising issues at Naveen Jain, ignoring direct questions, instead shouting about harassment.
  • Ignoring talk page discussion at Talk:Cindy Sheehan, and dismissing it when raised at your talk page [6].
  • Labelling discussions that are less than a week old as stale [7] and marking other sections you were involved in as resolved [8], stifling possible discussion.
• I didn't hear that behaviour, removing good faith talk page notices as "harassment" or violating WP:AGF, whilst ignoring the substance of the issue.
• Ignoring (or giving the appearance of ignoring) discussion regarding your behaviour at discussion fora such as AN/I, where multiple uninvolved editors have raised concerns.

Put simply, as a completely uninvolved admin, I do not believe anyone is harassing you, but instead it is a reaction by multiple editors to your battleground behaviour. I don't see any particular egregious edits, but the general pattern of editing is problematic. This is a relatively short term block, preventative as a deterrent to ensure your future edits are within community norms. I also suggest that you do find a mentor and move forward in a positive manner, which I do believe is a possibility. I have commented at the AN/I that if other editors feel that this block does not improve your behaviour, they should use our normal dispute resolution techniques, such as WP:RfC/U. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll be taking some time to digest this all. I'm trying to follow the advise of Ched Davis, looking for a mentor, and trying to figure out the best course of action given some conflicting feedback I'm getting.

I have not edited Alicia_Silverstone since 00:40, 16 April 2012, nor do I intend to do so in the near future. My most recent editing there has been to diffuse and calm the disputes.

I most certainly should have shared my decision to stop contributing to Alicia_Silverstone at the ANI. I'd like suggestions on how long to wait. My thinking was to first wait until editing has dropped down after the protection is lifted, then let it sit for a week or more after that.

I'm very unhappy with how Animal-assisted therapy has gone. I tried to step in between strong advocates like Montanabw (talk · contribs) and strong opponents like Charles danten (talk · contribs). Simply trying to get editors to focus on content and policies/guidelines wasn't enough. As you point out, my adding tags to the article only escalated the situation. At that point I should have been focusing on de-escalating, diffusing, and calming.

I stepped away from Naveen Jain long ago. I've returned, but my attempts to find new ways to deal with the problems there are still problematic. I've most recently just tried to move on and work with the new ip there. I think it's going well.

I was concerned that I might be stepping into a minefield with Cindy Sheehan. I should have gone directly to the talk page there, explain my concerns, and waited. When Viriditas came to my talk page, I should have simply followed up on the article talk page and focused on the content dispute which we resolved shortly after.

I agree that I should not have used the section labels at Talk:Alicia_Silverstone given how recent the discussions were. I'll not do so again.

Yes, I need to focus on WP:IDHT.

Yes, I should have responded at ANI to let everyone know that I was backing off of the disputes at Alicia_Silverstone, and more importantly to let them know that I hear their concerns and am taking them to heart. This will be probably my most important area of focus during mentoring.

"whilst ignoring the substance of the issue" That's one of the most important things out of all this. While I do try to focus on the substance, I need to do far better. Further, it's a matter of respect to others: When they feel they are being ignored, they quite justifiably feel disrespected. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Thank you for that, I do appreciate that you are thinking about your actions and looking for methods of improvement. The link that I got wrong was meant to be this (now corrected above). The problem there was no so much the template (I'm aware of WP:TR) but the fact that it was in conjunction with the inline templates "spam", and you had been having reasonable conversation on Montanabw's page prior to it. That made the template appear much more rude than it would in other situations.

I've said on AN/I that I am amenable to unblocking, should you either find a willing mentor or show active steps that you believe will help deal with the underlying issues (not just walking away from them), and would have no objections to another administrator doing so. The purpose was a wake-up call, not punishment and your comments above go a long way towards that.

If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Cindy Sheehan

Hello. You have a new message at Viriditas's talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

NIA fitness article

Hi Ronz,

you removed my attribution in articel Nia_(fitness). The advertising criticism gives me the thought, you might working for NIA. The content of this side actually seems for me rather raw. The whole article should be reworked, but I contribute now the part, where I have done some research and know something I can prove/reference.

Maybe you can explain to me, what I realy did wrong in this article.

Thanks for your advice.

Rolerus (Roland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolerus (talk • contribs) 12:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rolerus! Thanks for responding. Yes the article needs a great deal of work to make it something like an encyclopedia article. The content in question, the costs and business model, is inappropriate per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTADVERTISING, as well as the related policies and guidelines mentioned in those sections of WP:NOT.

Additionally, the sources are all primary and not independent of the topic. We have absolutely no sources that demonstrate that the topic worth mentioning at all, let alone in any detail. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Village Pump policy discussion

This message is to inform you of a policy discussion of which you may be interested, due to your involvement in the discussion instigating it. Silverseren^C 01:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Links to Recipes

Hi,

You recently removed links I made to recipes for several items. On most of the pages there were existing links to recipe sites and on some there were not. What was the reason for removing the links I added and not others?

Thank you.

Jasonbook99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for following up with me on this.

I removed them because it was fairly easy to do so as routine linkspam cleanup that had previously been started by another editor.

Yes, there are other links that need to be removed as well. Yes, some of the pages did not have such links. It will take a great deal of time to assess and clean up all the links in all the articles. I did some simple work on Étouffée, but I just didn't have the time to look closer.

If you are aware of other editors adding such links across multiple articles, let me know, or bring it up at WP:RSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I noticed several food articles did not have any links to a recipes. Guyana Pepperpot is an example. Is it inappropriate for me to add a link to a recipe on that site? Jasonbook99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

I mostly just keep my eye on food articles because they have a large amount of spam problems and few editors watching them. WP:Food should have guidelines on when and how to use recipes properly. I'd check there, and ask if it's not clear.

That said, my perspective is that notable recipes may be included, as in Bolognese sauce. While I've not looked at Pizza in detail, there are certainly notable pizza recipes and it looks like the article has some of them. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Request to remove Journal Communications websites from spam list

Hi Ronz,

I'm a web content specialist working for Journal Communications. It recently came to my attention that our sites have been added to Wikipedia's spam list. It apparently happened some time ago. Here's the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=231963257#Websites_of_Journal_Communications_Inc.

I noticed there is some reference to Matt Bigelow, a previous employee here. I've been with Journal since 2009 and Matt was gone before I came on board. As a publisher, we obviously don't want to do anything inappropriate. I have several questions.

First, how do we get removed from the blacklist?

Second, we are a publisher who creates community-based magazines in conjunction with chambers of commerce and economic development organizations in cities and regions around the United States. Many city listing have links to media with information about those communities. We have an independent editorial staff and our own team of in-house photographers and videographers. We create a large amount of original content with in-depth information about cities including digital magazine. Most of them now live on our two websites Livability.com and BusinessClimate.com. We've taken down most of the Images websites listed in the reference above.

Are we able to add links either in the media section or in the external links section? Here is an address to one of our digital magazines so that you can see what we do: livability.com/brentwood/tn/magazine

As I stated above, we're not attempting (nor have we ever been to my knowledge) to spam. We think we provide compelling, informative additional information about the cities we create magazines for and would like to be able to link to content. However, if that's not permissible then we won't do it. But we would like to be removed from the spam list.

Any information/guidance you can provide is greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for in help you can provide.

John Hood68.216.75.194 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks for contacting me about this. The basic instructions are here.

As far as links to images are concerned, they will usually be removed. Images should be uploaded per WP:IMAGES instead.--Ronz (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Isolation Tank article

I am refering you to the Isolation Tank talk page for a response to your deletions of External Links. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark77210 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Court Reporting edits

I noticed your removal of the "companies" section on the court reporting page. The reason being "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject."

All of the companies listed network with other firms and have worldwide scheduling available online, so they do, in fact represent a worldwide view. Please consider reposting the company information for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chsrose (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the worldview tag at the top of the article. When I removed the list I wrote, linkfarm removed referring to WP:LINKFARM and WP:EL. It has nothing to do with a worldview, but with promoting those companies and their websites. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Love Systems AfD

Hey there. Sorry if I didn't make the nomination of multiple articles clear... this is the first case of me nominating additional pages in addition to the original AfD. I mostly followed the process on WP:BUNDLE, but might not have done it right. _scootey^talk 20:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A new source for David S Rose

Ronz, your even-handed editing is much appreciated. In the case of a particular article that you de-proded a couple of weeks ago, you might find of use an editorial, fact-checked, feature article from the current (June 4, 2012) print issue of Forbes magazine (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/0604/entrepreneurs-david-rose-investors-new-york-archangel.html), which I think one would be hard-pressed to challenge. Because of past history, however, I think it wiser that I not make any edits to the page in question. Yorker (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm adding it to the talk page. I think it resolves any notability concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

New England Foam spam

We were getting edit conflicts on each other- see also WT:WPSPAM#New_England_Foam. tedder (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I was expecting there would be some follow up with all that has happened. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Ronz,

I am new to wikipedia and I know my edits were not necessarily up to literary standards.

But the WARNINGS NEED TO BE THERE. YOU ARE ENDANGERING PEOPLE BY REMOVING THEM.

Please please be constructive and try to help me save people's brains. This is very important to me and I will do everything necessary including getting editors or even lawyers involved to make sure the page tells people the correct polarity.

AS WRITTEN, THE ARTICLE GIVES THE OPPOSITE OF THE CORRECT INSTRUCTIONS.

PLEASE HAVE SYMPATHY FOR YOUR FELLOW MAN. Improve the warnings, reword them all you want, but do not remove them for heaven's sake.

Jon Rodriguez Chief Scientist Vergence Labs quora.com/Jon-Rodriguez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciddreamworld (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jon. Thanks for contacting me about this. Have you seen the comments I made on your talk page?

If there are any instructions anywhere in the article, they should be removed.

Any medical information in the article should be verified with high-quality medical sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

EDIT:

You are right to ask for sources. Here are many sources that indicate that anode = positive in brain stimulation:

http://soterixmedical.com/learn/overview.php http://www.mindalive.com/1_0/article%2011.pdf (bottom of page 3) http://www.drmueller-healthpsychology.com/tdcs.html http://transcranialdirectcurrentstimulation.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-experiment-with-tdcs.html

Best, Jon Rodriguez, Chief Scientist at Vergence Labs, quora.com/Jon-Rodriguez

ORIGINAL: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciddreamworld (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You've provided sources about the terminology. I don't see anything that suggests the need for warnings. I've asked another editor for help. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

RfA

Ronz, its time for your knowledge, experience as an unquestionably valued and trusted member of Wikipedia, to consider and Accept an Administrative role on this project.--Hu12 (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to think about it a bit, as I've always thought I should take on admin tools solely for the purpose of helping with vandalism problems. At the same time, I'm weighing if an how to continue as a editor on Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Until I have a mentor, I don't think I should pursue this. I've sent a more detailed response via email. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Aw. That's unfortunate. tedder (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Mabey another time. keep up the good work.--Hu12 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Burlesque

I understand the removal of the links. I did however restore the Midwest description which is in line with the pre-existing east and west cost mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeneditors (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd already started a discussion on the problem. Adding to the problem isn't helpful, but understandable. I've gone ahead and trimmed back the section so editors are less likely to add such advertising. --Ronz (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dystonia edits

Would you please restore the additions I made to the Dystonia page that you deleted.

This disorder is not understood even by the experts and researchers. I have seen many of the doctors that are working on this disease and they have very limited information and are fearful to conduct experiments. Patients too do not know what to expect and this causes their symptoms to be worse. I know this first hand because I have been afflicted by the disease for more than 15 years.

I would like to use Wikipedia as a way of sharing information even if it is preliminary and non clinical. Because none of the research has been conclusive yet, this is an ongoing mystery that needs the spread of theory and unique observations.

Perhaps a clue that will lead to the cure was in the information you deleted.

Don't you want some patient or doctor on the other side of the planet to have access to that information?

Perhaps you could designate a section for settled research and ongoing investigations. If we wait for proof and FDA approval of new treatment, I and others like me will not live long enough to benefit from the treatment.

74.9.237.252 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. I really appreciate that you explained the situation in such detail.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not to be used for such purposes (per WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOTADVOCATE, and WP:OR). In cases such as this, not only does the information need to be verified by reliable sources, medical sources are necessary.

If you disagree, it would be best to get others involved. WP:3O would be a good next step, but there are many options as detailed in WP:DR.

Personally, if I was in your situation I'd track down medical researchers studying the matter and politely contact them. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

List of oud players

Will it never stop? — Bdb484 (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The joys of maintaining lists... --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Ronz, thanks very much for your help. I'm new to editing and can see that there is a lot to learn. I was wishing for a kindly deux ex machina to appear and help me navigate the endless labyrinths of wikipedia.

Tattvamasi.1 (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

galleryburlesque

what i am trying to ad is not and has nothing to do with advertising or promotional information.

the info and web page is sydney one and only neo burlesque collective that runs events and is widely known.

and we feel the info and link should be available for all interested people to see.

regards

Onur Karaozbek www.galleryburlesque.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.19.184 (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. If you're intent on this and want to do it in a way that might have a chance of remaining, you'll need to write an article on the organization that demonstrates it is notable. WP:CREATE gives you step-by-step instructions on how to create an article. Before you get too far I highly recommend you find a few potential references from reliable sources that are independent of the collective, of which at least one of the potential references clearly demonstrates the notability of the organization.

I'm happy to help review the potential references for you.

Also, please look at WP:SOAP and WP:COI. If you continue adding the link as you've done, it's very likely you'll be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your cooperation with the issues I have brought to your attention. I feel that the previous page on orthotics was unfairly written, and I hope you can understand my view point on this after my explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.65.219 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And thank you.

There's some glaring problems with the article, but the extent of them is only going to be revealed by looking into detail at what sources might possibly be used to rewrite the content. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Hypnobirthing

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hypnobirthing , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineslarge (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What means linkspam according with wikipedia policy ?

May i ask you according with wikipedia policy which i read before, why the link which I've added is " spam" and "livescience .com" which has more then 600 links on wikipedia is allowed to make publicity with bullshitting articles , some of them even worthy enough to be read. What policy they respect and i don't ? Have a look here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=livescience.com&title=Special%3ASearch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.55.251 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 June 2012‎

WP:LINKSPAM. The relevant policies/guidelines/essays are WP:EL, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK, and WP:SPAM.

If you see other links that are a problem, report them at WP:RSPAM as I'll be doing with u2know.net now that I see the extent of the spamming. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please make further comments in the report: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#u2know.net --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

More on galleryburlesque.com

Hi, i really dont know who you are...

please stop deleting my entry on the topic neo burlesque!

GALLERY BURLESQUE is australias one and only neo burlesque organisation that supports all local and creative content and keeps pushing the style and scene forward!

i have no idea why do you have the need to keep erasing the post.

we have all the right to add that information so people know what the scene and style is and how its represented in the world and not just america!!!

please respect the addition of this information which is not in any way shape or form ADVERTISING or what ever you are calling it!

if you have any issues contact me directly from the email provided at galleryburlesque.com

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.19.184 (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

also i have just read your response...

potential references?

if you do your search even a little you will see the web page and what it has... maybe a little further look in to the face-book page and see the series of nights and artists that we have supported over years?

our/my reference is my work and creation.

I sense that what you are doing here is on purpose deleting an information that you might not want on the page it self.

do you have a hidden agenda?

its not like i am adding a link that is trying to sell underwear?

please clarify with a response that actually explains things and dont use wikipedia jargon, all i am doing is adding a note on the NEO BURLESQUE ORGANISATIONS part , which we are ONE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.19.184 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please take your own advice, and consider how your comments apply to yourself.

If you truly have no idea why I've removed it, and have reviewed the multiple policies and guidelines that have been mentioned, then follow WP:DR and get others' opinions on the matter.

You're promoting an organization you are associated with. If you continue, you'll be blocked. You also put galleryburlesque.com at risk for being blacklisted from Wikipedia. Neither of us want those things.

I've offered to help you resolve this, and that offer remains open. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Crystal Skulls

A real skull cannot be a fake - only the claim that is made about it as to it's possible origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.151.254 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 July 2012‎

I suggest you look up "fake" in a dictionary, then join the discussion that I'd started earlier about it. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Scoliosis

Hi Ronz I appreciate your interest in my addition to the Scoliosis page on Wikipedia. I hope you have read it because it is what happened to me. I was the child born in 1941 with a severe form of scoliosis. I have X-ray taken a few years ago of this deformaty but Icannottake photocopies of it to show you. I have tried three time to add a passage into the artcile because it says that the cause of it is not known when that is untrue. I read an article in about it which said that Ether in the blood stream was the cause of scolosis. I read it after my father died in 1987. He was born in 1903. His father Dr John Howells was doctor and his cousins. His brother was a surgeon who joined the navy as a surgeon in 1916 and served with distinction until he died of Spainish influenze in October 1918. My father took over his father's practise and also worked as an Anaethetist in Swansea General Hospital, Morriston, Singleton and other places. He was pulled up once for driving under the influence of Ether. His surgery always smelt of Ether. He used it to clean my clothes of oil after I had worked on my first car an Austin Seven Special. It is not surprising then that he had Ether in his blood when I was conceived. I haved lived all my life with it and it has not caused me much pain. It had a period of pain in my left leg but after some years and then I had a good Physiotherapist work my left side of my back and this released a trapped nerve which was causing the pain. I still sail an National 18ft dinghy and a Merlin 14ft dinghy which are quite strenuous sports. In 2009 I sailed in three races at the National 18ft Championships in Portland Harbour (the Olympic sailing centre) for six hours on the last day without pain. My father was a famous and much loved man I would like to write an obitary to him for Wikipedia. He was awarded the O.B.E. in 1952 for assiting in the setting up of the British National Service. My sisiter was Dr Gillian Poole who died earlier this year and she was amuch appreciated local doctor in Llanynmech. Richard Howells — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard963 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ronz I realise that I am not neutral but the cause of my deformaty is not given in the present information on Wikipedia. In fact it says `cause unknown`. A victim must be seen as a vertible witness as I am living proof of it. I have X-rays and if necessary I will pay a modern x-ray to be done which can record the picture onto a CD. My sister Dr Gillian Poole died earlier this year from a Stroke. I had a multiple by pass operation in October 2008. I have not long to live. If you do not accept my entry then Wikipedia will never have this information on it as Ether is no longer used in surgery and no research is being done on it. I can send you photos of my father and of myself if that would help you decide. Richard Howells aged 70 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard963 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Richard,

Thanks for sharing your story. It must be very difficult to live with severe scoliosis as you have.

I'd be happy to help you write an article on your father if suitable references can be found that demonstrate he is notable by Wikipedia standards. WP:CREATE provides details on how to create an article.

As for your concern that ether might cause scoliosis, we need medical research per WP:MEDRS for any information to be added to related articles. I hope you don't take this as a slight on your personal experience. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Lean Startup Article

Hey Ronz,

Thanks for all the work on the Lean Startup page. I didn't intend to add the reference to the Lean Startup Machine as an advertisement, but rather as an objective measure of the community around the movement which is not included in the article right now. I will rephrase the sentence and include a different reference that is more neutral.

Also, I think that the page has been made worse by removing the pictures of the book and events. The plain text is not as enjoyable to read and the readers do not get a good idea for the movement without pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanstartup (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.

I'm not sure what images, if any, belong in such an article per WP:IRELEV. The article isn't about the book, nor the events, nor the company, nor the person. We don't simply add images for color.

Any material about events, training, etc. should be considered for removal per WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTADVERTISING.

The article needs a thorough going over. I'll not have time to do so for some weeks, so didn't add multiple tags. I'll start by reviewing all the references, checking if they are reliable, independent (not always necessary, but the majority should be independent), and actually verify the information.

I'll try to get others to join in the efforts to clean up the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the mashable video reference needs to go. It's nothing but an interview. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Scoliosis

Dear Ronz Could you please re-instate my entry to Wikipedia on the subject of Scoliosis and acknowledge my emails. Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.13.179 (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume this is from Richard.

I've responded to your comments above. I've not received any email from you.

Because the information is original research, it should not be reintroduced into the article. Find a WP:MEDRS source and I'll be happy to help incorporate it into the article. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Scoliosis ‎

Hello Ronz

Thank you. However I do no see how my post contains "advertising or promotional material", when all that I have stated are facts and the language used is neutral.I do agree with you though that it needs a better source, which is why I am adding several more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gicoro (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. The discussion is here --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed

Hi Ronz,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! Jeremey Bentham (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Awamiweb.com and awamipolitics.com

I will not add any irrelevant things from now on. Can you guide me that is I have to edit (write) any article than how can i edit?

Awamiweb.com and awamipolitics.com post those news and reports which are published or aired in leading newspaper, tv channels in Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mubashir09 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. That's the impression that I got from the news sites - they are trying to be news aggregators. They're doing a poor job of it though. I'm going to see what others think.

I'm not sure what help you're asking for. I've left you a welcome message on your page that covers a great deal on creating and contributing to articles. Let me know if that answers your question. --Ronz (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

--Mubashir09 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks

Improvement of the "Exercise Ball" article

Dear Ronz,

I've improved my edit in the "Exercise Ball" article by removing specific information about the adverse health impact of sitting and adding an additional citation to support my assertion. I hope you will find these changes acceptable.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbbma (talk • contribs) 03:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Let's discuss it on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Digitalreasoning search

Hi. The link on the Johan Retief page did work when I first referenced it - it opened a text file. (I saved a copy of the file in case I needed it for future reference) But it looks like it is no longer working so I guess I will have to remove it. If you tell me which page the other dead link was on I will go look for it. Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Both the txt files were an official biography of sorts. Luckily I saved both but its a real pain that they are no longer available Gbawden (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBigXray 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding removal of my contributions

I don't understand why you just removed a lot of my contributions on these pages:

List of free and open source eCommerce software Model Engineering College

These are written from first hand experience. I've been involved with e-commerce in India for the past 2 years and also involved with the college for the past 6 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyriacsmail (talk • contribs) 11:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the notice on your talk page. Note that continuing to edit as you have done could result in a block for advertising and spamming.

First hand experience tends to fall into WP:OR, which is yet another problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Mehrajmir13's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 MehrajMir ' ^(Talk) 05:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at 99.73.137.73's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

99.73.137.73 (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And again. 99.73.137.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Veena dal mein kuch kala hai crop1.jpg deleted

Ronz, I've deleted this image as the copyright remains with the original creator, though you have edited it, and the original is clearly (c) All rights reserved not a creative commons licence - Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated, I could not figure out what copyright information was appropriate. I'll keep trying til I get it right or someone assists me. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I may be able to help here. In the case of a copyrighted image that you have cropped or otherwise edited the appropriate licence to use is often one in the Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free list, probably {{Non-free promotional}} or {{Non-free fair use in}} in this case - even though you have edited it that does not apply another layer of copyright as the modifications (cropping or other minor edits) don't add any creative content. The image also needs a non-free rationale and that is where hosting this image on Wikipedia would also come into some difficulty, specifically it would probably not pass at least the first of the the following non-free content criteria:

• 1 - replaceable. It is almost always deemed here that images of living people are replaceable with free content and such images are routinely deleted under speedy deletion criteria F7 or via files for deletion.
• 2 - some images like this are licenced commercially for sale (via Getty or another company) and payment is required for editorial use. If this is the case the image is deleted except in rare circumstances (eg: the article is about the actual image itself)
• 8 - Reader's have to learn something significant about the subject by seeing the particular image that they couldn't learn by reading text alone or by seeing a freely licenced image.

- Peripitus (Talk) 11:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. We've found a good-enough replacement that I don't think the cropping is needed any more.

Next time this comes up, I'll delve a bit further. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

help, editing Dirt! The Movie?

Hi, I notice that you seem to have some contol/authority over the content on Dirt The Movie page, and I would like to know how I can edit the information on that page. Please advise, thanks! Bettyblack70 (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you're interested in helping with the article!

I've no control or authority. I just helped stop an editor from causing problems with that and a number of other articles.

The article could really use some work. I left you a welcome message providing a wide range of information on editing Wikipedia, including getting started. I suggest working a bit on an article that hasn't such problems first. Once you've done some editing to other articles, you'll automatically be allowed to edit Dirt! The Movie. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove Fuzed as Software Example from Enterprise Social Software

Hi Ron,

Following the history of Enterprise Social Software page, I see that on June 30th 2012 you removed Fuzed from the "Software Examples" section of the page. Can you please let me know what prompted you from removing Fuzed?

Thank you, Raheelr (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Raheel

Thanks for contacting me about this.

My brief edit summary referred to the external links (see WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:SOAP) and to the entries not having articles of their own (see WP:N and WP:WTAF).

Basically, such lists should not include external links to the websites of the entries, and each entry should be notable.

I've left you a welcome message on your talk page with links to many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you're intent on creating an article on Fuzed, WP:CREATE should provide you with most of what you'll need. --Ronz (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your interesting idea regarding scientists outside mainstream global warming

Hi Ronz,

Nice to meet you. I would be pleased to resolve the perennial arguments at List of Scientists opposing.... blah blah. Your reference to "List of docs opposing vaccinations" was interesting. With your permission, I'd like to copy (not move) your comment where you made those remarks to a new section on that talk page, for the purpose of exploring alternative approaches for dealing with Scientists opposing.... blah blah. (If that's ok with you, I'll use language a bit more carefully than I have done here in this note.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

PS I think a good section title would be "Polling other page advocates, (A) why do we care (B) are there other ways to do it?" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a topic worth looking at more closely. Copying it would be fine with a note that it was done so.

The proposed section heading sounds inappropriate. See WP:TALK, especially WP:TALKNEW. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'll do my own thing; If you want to reiterate your good ideas, or propose a different heading, those ideas will be welcome. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Gerson Therapy

Dear Ronz,

You sent me a message stating that I was using "disruptive editing" on the Gerson Therapy entry on Wikipedia. Would you please elaborate? I have made a sincere effort to edit out the negative, biased, and incomplete & misleading statements on that page and replace them with factual, fair and balanced information that is well cited. Each time someone removes my edits. Additionally, I was told I could not use a YouTube link in the Reference section so I entered it without any link, only mentioning the fact that there is a documentary out there about Gerson Therapy, listing the year and director (no link), and yet, someone removed even that!

I am new to Wikipedia as an editor and am dumbfounded as to how difficult it is to use and communicate with other parties -- this seems like quite a chaotic environment. How can anyone take the entries here seriously if they are not peer reviewed, or when sincere efforts to replace misleading language are overturned by . . . who? Anyone who signs up? Seriously? I am wanting to like this site and to be more involved as I think I have a lot to offer.

RoiArtu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roiartu (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I've responded on your talk page.--Ronz (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does it matter, policies aside?

Hi Ronz, I'm writing about List of Scientists... et cetera. You comments are sort of like some of the legal briefs I've written: lots of arguments, based on lots of theories. However, once I arrive to a settlement conference, the most progress usually happens when people stop talking about the arguable legal theories, and instead just talk like real people about the real issue. Once they start talking on that level often a way forward appears. In that spirit, I'd like to ask what motivates you on that page? Are you arguing wiki principles for wiki's sake (not a bad thing!) or are you arguing because you think the article/list/thingie simply gives too much prominence to the statements of the various persons listed, or something else? All policy citations aside, what's the single biggest personal motivator that brings you back to the page? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. It matters because of WP:HERE.

I'm trying to get past the discussion to focus on the motives for the article. I hope the discussion is fruitful.

Wikipedia is not law. See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.

While I think your intentions are good, personalizing discussions and concentrating on the editors involved is inappropriate. See WP:FOC and WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to get past the discussion to focus on the motives for the article.

This is a surprise to me, since your posts are policy-heavy/lawyer-heavy. If you want to discuss motives, why don't you just start talking/asking/listening about motives? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See the links above. Articles don't have motives. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We're not communicating well. If you want to talk/ask/listen to people discuss people-stuff like motives, how does "Articles do not have motives" explain your focus on policy applied to the inanimate article/list - which we both agree does not have the qualities (motives) you want to discuss? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"If you want to talk/ask/listen to people discuss people-stuff like motives" I don't. You do. You brought up "motives." I've pointed out that focusing on editors' motives violates WP:FOC and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've tried to turn the discussion back to the article, using "motives" in a different sense.

I want to discuss the premise of the article, the purpose of the article: why the article exists. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In this thread, you used "motives" first. For awhile, I thought you and I together might break the logjam on that article. But I want to talk people, and you apparently want to be a prosecuting attorney, so nevermind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"In that spirit, I'd like to ask what motivates you on that page?" - NewsAndEventsGuy (22:49, 27 August 2012) Yes, I used that form of the word first. So what? Now you're giving up?! --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess I did use some grammatical form of the word first, though I don't really think that changes anything. You want to know the motives for the article. Sorry, I used some form of the word first, no this doesn't change anything I've written here and I am not giving up. I have come to the personal possibly erroneous conclusion that you are assailing the good faith of other editors under a barrage of policy citations but are unwilling to say so. Fine, I can live with that now that I have formed an informed possibly erroneous opinion. I thought you and I might actually be able to make a positive difference if we could come to terms, but it appears that will not be possible. It now appears to me that you jumped in with a made up mind and were not really looking for solutions to improve the article short of deletion. If you have solutions to suggest instead of prosecutions to deliver I'm still waiting to here them.... please post any specifics to the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel that way. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

123people

Hi Ronz,

I saw you have edited the 123people Wikipedia entry in the past. Perhaps you can help me out. I am an official representative of the company (although working freelance) and I have been in a dispute online with one of our users. As a result, this user has edited the 123people wikipedia entry with false statements that can be labelled as an attack.

Now I have undone his changes, but I don't know if that was the right thing to do. To be honest, to me all the rules are overwhelming - but I do want to stay transparant. From my perspective though, the help pages specifically state that if you find factual information that is unnecessary, you should edit it yourself.

Would you be so kind to assist me, have a look at the edits and see if I have done the right thing?

Thank you so much for your help.

Remco Janssen 13:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Good job on the edits and asking for someone to review them.

The part about spam was outright vandalism. I've left a note with the ip.

The extensions seem superfluous, so I've removed them as well.

I've left a great deal of information on your talk page about Wikipedia and editing. It should help you in defending the interests of your company here on Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Great. I was really hoping to do the right thing. Thank you again so much for your help. Perhaps now I'm going to find a way to have some minor details changed. For instance, above the logo the old company name (123people Internetservice GmbH) is still there. It has changed to yelster digital gmbh. I will go over your information and see if I can do that or I have to ask for help.

Ciao, Remco Janssen 14:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rempajanssen (talk • contribs)

Glad to help! --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing citations

Hi Ronz,

The two citations I corrected were dead links, and so I found where the text was and replaced the broken link. I'm not advertising a service. I see on the personal trainer page you entirely removed the citation that was there even before I edited it. However, I do see you found a better version of the insolvency article.

With regards to the citation you removed, since you're clearly more experienced, to maintain Wikipedia is it best to completely remove a citation if the original is a dead link (and the original was effectively an advert, in this case for an NSCA certification)?

Annapaastinash (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.

My concern was that your first two edits were to add citations from promotional websites that are not reliable sources. Thanks for your explanation.

You ask a good question about removing citations. Usually they should not be removed. If possible, update the citation with a working link from the same source or a reliable copy of the linked article (as I did with the with the insolvency article). If no live link can be found, keep the citation without the link, filling in whatever reference information that is available (publication date, author, publisher, etc).

I removed the dead link because there is another reference there from the same source, NSCA, hoping that it was redundant. I didn't note in my edit summary that I'm also concerned that the NSCA site is heavily focused on promotion as well.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hope this clarifies the situation and answers your question. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Annapaastinash (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help further. The welcome message on your talk page provides a great deal of information, but can be a bit overwhelming. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Ronz, FYI, I just used my rollback powers on myself, because I stupidly deleted some of your text which I have since restored. Just wanted to say I didn't mean to waste that! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012 - Sandra Lee

Hi Ronz,

Can you give me some specific feedback on what changes were "less than neutral" on the Sandra Lee page so that I can make the appropriate changes?

Thank you,

ElkinTT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkintt (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. I'll do so on your talk page. Thanks for responding. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Steven Greer

Hello Ronz I have been carefully expanding on the Steven Greer page, adding information that is well documented, but you have just deleted hours of work. I do not understand how my adding that he is an author and lecturer is making the content less neutral, or how providing information about the various projects that he has developed is also not neutral. The language was carefully chosen and did not imply that his point of view was correct. Please explain your choice to delete everything that I wrote. The original article is very vague and not particularly useful. Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taratwilight (talk • contribs) 16:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've already commented on this on your talk page, elaborating on my edit summary of "major expansion of a BLP based upon self-published and primary sources". Have you looked at my comments on your talk page yet? --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In case you missed it... (List of scientists...)

In case you overlooked it, regarding

• "List of....(etc)" and
• "important enough" (also known as subject notability)

please answer the question I posed in this comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. It should be under it's own discussion heading so it is not missed. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You have my blessing to cut and paste as you wish. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please remove or strikeout your inappropriate comments in [9]. Given that it was your very next edit after starting this discussion here, and was made before I had responded here, it could be taken as assuming bad faith and harassing.

Similarly, I've no idea what "and indent your response in accordance with the talk page guidelines" [10] refers to. I can't say that it helps the discussion along at all.

That said, I've made it clear that WP:N is not my primary concern, so I'm in no hurry to respond to the discussion on it. Maybe when someone tries to make a clear case with sources on how the article is notable. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I decline and instead am asking you pursuant to WP:ETIQUETTE to admit your attack on the basis of WP:NOTABILITY, which for unknown reasons you call "importance", has been resolved even though you are still pressing forward with a challenge on the basis of your view of POVFORKing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I decline, and disagree with your summary of the situation. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, apparently. Did you or did you not:

(A) Assert that the article should be deleted because it or its premise or its subject or something was not "notable" (or other derivative of that word)

(B) Assert that the article should be deleted because it or its premise or its subject or something was not "important" (or other derivative of that word)

Also please tell me whether you think A and B are synonymous, and if not, please explain how they are different. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"The point of view is the topic and premise of the article: "It is important to note that a number of scientists oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming." We have absolutely no sources to support this viewpoint (or at least none have been identified yet), nor is the article written from those sources. Instead, editors have assumed it is important, then decided how to proceed to support that position in an article."

I've tried to clarify the above statement. We have made some minor progress in looking at the issue, but it's pretty much lost in the discussions.

I'll work on clarifying it further, and to note the progress we have made.

I encourage you to work on demonstrating the notability of the topic, but I'll repeat that even if it is demonstrated notable it does not resolve the CFORK problems. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Tea

Undecipherable? What do you mean? The work is an excellent graphics-based introduction to the various claims and facts about tea. I know the author's language was poor but it is obvious English is not the author's mother tongue, but I would ask you to reconsider your reversion. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I opened the link and couldn't make out the information in the page displayed. I tried a couple more times, but no luck. I'll look at it more closely to see what the problem is.

Looks like they made a big mistake Japanese with English printed at a 90 degree angle to identify the meanings of the colors.

Having the image and the descriptions on separate pages is also problematic.

Finally and most importantly, these are visualizations of claimed benefits that are pretty much meaningless, like "purify blood" and without references on who claims such benefits. I'd guess they come some sort of traditional medicine, but that is unknown and not addressed in the article. --Ronz (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RFP Guide

Hey Ronz,

Apparently you cut my link to my offered contribution - A digital RFP Guide. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Request_for_proposal&action=history

If you take a closer look (http://tonykinard.net/digital-rfp-guide/ ) you will see that it is a very well-written, unbiased, non-profiting labor of good will. How is it that you would cut that and not the others? The resource is a quality, non-commercialized, non-profiting, and generally very well liked resource tool for those in need of it. It would be nice not to be snubbed for the hard work and good will, especially considering what you let pass by comparison.

Tony Kinard (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at your talk page? --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I have - and I read the guidelines (which by the way was about as enjoyable a time to decipher as it might be to stand in line for a root canal). I thought the material fell in line just fine when I comparatively reviewed against the majority of other Wikipedia entries - save for the one fact that I put up the link myself, instead of encouraging "a friend of a friend" to pose as another "friend" to login and do something as simple as contribute some unbiased and helpful material to Wikipedia. Makes me wonder how much other great material Wikipedia could have acquired for the cause, but lost out because of nitpicking a minor technicality - meanwhile, people who could have used the information quickly find it's better to just look elsewhere than Wikipedia.

I appreciate the strict rules, but Wikipedia should worry at least a little about overlooking relevant and quality content - because of a loss of focus, due to getting lost in a quagmire of bureaucratic technicalities. People naturally need and look for something that still exhibits some humanizing factor (even if it's barely a hint). All content, even encyclopedias, will always need to exhibit some minor bias... otherwise it's just data and humans won't prefer to read it. Why do you think social networks and Q&A sites like Quora are so popular? Wikipedia is losing it's way.

- Nothing against you. Just thinking out loud. ;) Tony Kinard (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following up.

It's an external link, subject to WP:EL. The conflict of interest only adds to the problem. Sorry you got frustrated with the quagmire of the relevant policies and guidelines. As far as the link goes, simply bring up the topic on the article talk page as suggested by WP:COI, "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding adoption

Hi Ronz. I notice you've put a "request for adoption" template on your userpage. Given the number of users starting on the encyclopedia each day and the number who look for adoption, there can often be a backlog when just displaying the request. You are much more likely to find an adopter if you are pro-active about it, perhaps asking an editor or two from the list of adopters if they would consider adopting you? Good luck in finding someone to help out. Worm^TT(talk) 10:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that years ago. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, moved on.

I would still like to find someone with more time, but I've been advised that I've done more than enough. A large number of editors here simply like drama and scapegoating. I've done my time, continue to change my behavior, and moved on. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Lee

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for reviewing my changes on the Sandra Lee wiki. Can you please tell me why you thought my sources were poor for the Philanthropic Work section? Also what is the mention tied to local politics?

I appreciate your help.

ElkinElkintt (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. While it's better than the previous changes, it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:BLP and WP:NPOV that I mentioned on your talk page.

The third source, the NYTimes article, is by far the best, but the context is as much or more about Cuomo's budget plan at the time. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Coworking

Hello Ronz, I just posted this question to the Talk page of the Coworking article, but I wasn't sure if you'd see it. My question is below.

Question: I noticed that the company I work for (PARISOMA) is already listed as an example of a coworking space, which makes sense since it was one of the first and remains one of the most active in San Francisco. Would it be appropriate to add external links for this company and the other two that are mentioned? I don't want to self-promote but since it was already there I thought I might ask.--Msingularian (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msingularian (talk • contribs)

Thanks for letting me know. I've answered there. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Soliciting Feedback on Educational Assignment

Hello,

My name is Javier Campanini. I'm a student at Cornell University working on a class project for an Online Communities course. Our task is to contribute an article to Wikipedia. There are a total of 3 people on the team and so far, we've started to gather the information and create sections for the article.

The subject of the article is Incentive-Centered Design. The current page (a work in progress) can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmc242/incentive-centered_design

We would really appreciate any feedback or comments you could provide on our progress so far.

Thank you, Javier Campanini Jmc242 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sonam Kapoor

Hi this is GrewalJ and I didn't really understand what you meant when you left me a message! Because when I put up that picture I thought that it was just a picture of her! I understand that it wasn't just her face but it was a much more clear image of her face than the previous one. Also, I saw that you had changed the image to another picture of hers however that picture is quite old as it of 2 1/2 years ago and it is also quite small! As of now, I will be changing the image back to the old one but if you have any objections I think the best option we have is to go with the previous image of hers before both of us had edited it as it was a larger image of her (the one of her walking the ramp). Thank You! :) -- GrewalJ (talk) 7 October 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The note I left you directed you to the relevant Wikipedia guideline. The image you prefer is not clearer in the context of the article where both images are reduced in size to the point where they both look blurry. Also, the lighting is uneven. I've started a discussion on the talk and pointed out a better image that I found but may not meet Wikipedia's licensing criteria. At least it gives us an idea of what an appropriate image is. The paparazzi images are poor, and I've noticed a number of editors like yourself haphazardly replacing images without concern for what is appropriate for these encyclopedia articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with Dysautonomia International links that were rejected

Hi Ronz,

I recently attempted to add an external link to an educational non-profit organization that provides in depth free information to patients and physicians on autonomic disorders. The information provided on the non-profit website is far too in-depth to add to every wiki page dealing with an autonomic disorder. I received comments from you and one other editor indicating that I should stop spamming, etc. While I truly appreciate the efforts to keep Wikipedia neat and orderly and spam free, I think there is a misunderstanding about the content or my purposes in adding the external link. I have reviewed all of the policies cited and I believe this in-depth educational non-profit website is a prime example of a good external link to add. Moreover, there are a few external links on these pages to similar non-profits, several of which are no longer in business and some of which provide terribly outdated and inaccurate information. The one I was trying to add the link to is the largest of the dysautonomia related non-profits (www.dysautonomiainternational.org) and they have proper medical journal citations for the information on their website.

Please let me know how I can add links to the Dysautonomia International website on the wiki pages related to autonomic disorders. I think it would be a tremendous benefit to the patients and physicians looking up these disorders to be able to find more in-depth information. Forgive me if have not formatted my request properly. I am not a Wiki expert like you.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.202.255 (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. If you've read the policies and guidelines, why bring up the fact that other poor links exist? --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Blucora Corrections

Hi Ronz,

I understand the need for an objective Wiki page, but I don't understand how you can have limited information on our Wiki page. The last time I created a new Blucora page when we changed our name last June, it was rejected. The information you have posted now is limited and based on news articles, as opposed to the references I've used, including SEC filed documents and company website links. Please let me know what you recommend if you've declined all of the material I submitted.

Thank you, Melanie Apostol Blucora melanie.apostol@blucora.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blucora (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to help you. First, take care of your username so you can continue to edit.

Second, I've not removed any of the information you added. Overall I think it's an improvement, but it still needs a great deal of work.

Third, start using the article talk page extensively to avoid conflict of interest problems and to get more experienced editors to help you.

Fourth, this is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promotion. Information should be limited (see WP:NPOV), especially from the perspective of all the press that the company itself puts out.

Finally, the article has had a long history of problematic editing by editors, usually with obvious conflicts of interest, trying to whitewash the article. Follow WP:COI and work with other editors so we can avoid past problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You went ahead and edited the article further without addressing any of the concerns, resulting in your account being blocked. I hope you'll create a new account with an appropriate username then help us with the article while respecting our conflict-of-interest policy. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard

Your name has been mentioned in a discussion concerning User: Agadant and the Web Sheriff article at the Administrator's Noticeboard. You can join the discussion by clicking here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarifcation

You wrote "I'm certainly interested in learning how to better improve these situations. However, no one is offering to discuss the matter." but when someone did try or offer to raise the matter of how to improve your behaviour here you just deleted it [11] removing the comments by another admin trying to explain why your behaviour was unhelpful, without discussing them. Lets assume good faith and say that was an error, in view of your declaration. Would you like to reinstate his comment? I agree that this is the right place to offer to discuss such things. --BozMo talk 18:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're incorrect once again. I've tried to discuss the matter and got no where, both here and on your own talk page [12]. You do realize that this works both ways don't you? --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

So let me continue the discussion. Besides my objections to DTTR made to Stephan Schulz, and those I've made on the essay's talk page, let's look at WP:WL: It lists four practices. I think that DTRR fits all but the first if we overlook the fact that DTTR is an essay rather than a policy/guideline.

Of course, there's WP:EWs. "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down." But that's what I did, correct? [13]? --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I've discussed it and am more that willing to discuss it further. Seems the others are not so interested. So let's assume good faith and say that the claims that I wasn't interested in discussing the matter were simple errors. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Alicia Silverstone

Please see and reply to my comments to your edits at Talk:Alicia_Silverstone --Jeanpetr (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the policy concerns with the actual content! --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing it, though I would like to be enlighted on how it's original research and a BLP violation. Please help me in that regard. Jeanpetr (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is a WP:OR problem concerning Silverstone, then it is a BLP problem as well. So let's move on.

Of your addition to Premastication, the first sentence is nearly identical to what you added to Alicia Silverstone. That material added to Alicia Silverstone was found to fail verification and be original research. Likewise goes what you added to Premastication. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems changing the text to what is on the Silverstone page now. I am simply curious to know which specific parts you see being original research and a BLP violation. Jeanpetr (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Same reason as previously: the parts that are not verified by the sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The proper way to do things is to KEEP what is there until I have had the chance to respond. Jeanpetr (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the proper thing to do would have been to remove it immediately without discussion, then notifying you, per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your "proper" way is surprisingly close to your own personal views. Jeanpetr (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying that my views match the relevant policies and guidelines, thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

MOOC link farm

I'm sure that you were acting according to policy when removing that link farm, but I just have to say, I think the article is much better with it. I'm not planning to edit, but I hope you reconsider on pragmatic grounds.

My goal for the article would be to have more explaination about why the instituions offering MOOCs aren't awarding credit for them: What needs to be done to make that happen, and the barriers to overcome for it.

Also, I guess it needs a {prose} tag for the lists. Paum89 (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not following. What does a list of external links to related organizations have to do with "why the instituions offering MOOCs aren't awarding credit for them...?" --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the latter is what I am interested in. It's more difficult for me to try to figure it out without the list of examples. I think the answer is either security or dilution of the value of an institution's degrees when orders of magnitude more can be offered, and I was hoping to do something like a survey. I can use the list in history. Would a good compromise be to move the list to the talk page? Paum89 (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll copy it to the talk page. It could be useful for finding references as well. However, it will be eventually archived. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Lifelong learning

Thank you for your email feedback. I am requesting a clarification on coi on my submission in Lifelong learning. I made my submission as part of a class emerging technologies - learning to use them! I submitted a link to Canadian Council for Learning and a comment. I tried to provide a reference for that publication but could not get it to format right. Would a reference have made it ok or did it need some form of permission?? I would appreciate your input so that I have a better understanding of how to make a submission and what is deemed acceptable - I tried to read the info on policies etc. but did not feel like I was any wiser when done. Thanks again for your help. Joeystella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeystella (talk • contribs) 06:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Sounds like you are a student taking classes at/through University of Manitoba, CACE? If so, then may be little or no conflict of interest problem.

Still, the information you added was unsuitable for the article:

Canada is not left out of the discussion on lifelong learning. The Canadian Council for Learning (CCL) reports on Canadian learning from the early years throughout adult stages, looking at formal and non-formal learning. CCL encourags discussion on the economic and social importance of lifelong learning. Discussion can be found in Taking Stock of Lifelong Learning in Canada (2005-2010): Progress or Complacency?.

What you added isn't about lifelong learning directly but rather just the ongoing work from one specific source. Perhaps instead you could add to the article findings from the actual report that have been discussed in other reliable and independent sources? --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Exteral Links on Ford Capri page

Dear Ronz,

I ask that you please stop removing all but one of the external links on the Ford Capri wiki page. The links on there conform to the Wikipedia guidelines and provide a useful source of information for anyone seeking information above and beyond that available in the Wikipedia article. There are not so many links as to dwarf the article and all links are dedicated to the subject of the Ford Capri.

The only link you have been leaving on the page, the DMOZ page for Mercury Capri, is by far the least useful of all the links. It is specific to the Mercury Capri, rather than the Ford Capri which indicates it covers only the North American version of the vehicle, which was a significantly smaller market than Europe in this instance. For the links contained on the DMOZ page, 2 of them are dead, 3 of them are personal pages for about owner's cars and the other one hasn't been updated for 3 years.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caprirally (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You'll need to make a case on the article talk page. Given you have no history editing Wikipedia whatsoever, you'll probably want to cite the relevant policies and guidelines specifically and how they relate to each link. I've gone ahead and started a discussion.

Should we remove the dmoz link as well? In general it's useful link - I didn't even bother to look at the contents of the linked page, but as you point out it is not very helpful in this situation. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed content without explanation - Bates method

If you're referring to the content on the Bates page, I replaced it, I wouldn't call it removing it. Also I did explain why on the Talk page, but since I'm not registered maybe you didn't connect my comment with my edit.

The Bates (vision therapy) page is a biased travesty. William Bates was the greatest ophthalmologist of all time, and -- whether or not you accept that -- a page about such an important person should focus primarily on his work, his theories, and the follow-up work by his followers, not start almost immediately by denouncing him and then filling up the page with snarky attacks.

Also the claim that virtually all researchers in the field believe he was wrong is a flat-out lie. His theories are in the minority, but many medical theories that eventually became orthodoxy started that way.

The page as it stands is pure propaganda and unbelievably biased, and you are helping to keep it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.20.125 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw that you commented on the article talk page and responded there. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nitin Gadkari

Hi,

I observe that you are removing contributions from wikipedia pages without giving any explanations for the same. Request you to please introduce yourself and in what authority are you making those changes.

- AKS, MH, INDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksnisha827 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean Nitin Gadkari, where we've both recently edited. There I explained in both my edit summary and on the article talk page. Where you referring to something else? If so, I've no idea what you're talking about. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for explaining your undo of my own linkedin group. I will respect and abide by your methodology. I also appreciated your references to help me make better future decisions on this wiki. RonFredericks (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ultimate Arena Paintball League

I hit random article and landed on the Ultimate Arena Paintball League where I found a comment from you on the talk page. I agree that the league doesn't appear to exist anymore and the only information I could find on it came from a heavily commercial website. Also, the league's old website had been bought by an adult entertainment company so I removed the link to it. I noticed you seem to be an experienced editor and thought this would be a good time to ask how to approach article deletion and whether that particular article is a candidate. I hope I am not bothering you with this random question, I am quite new and can only devour so many Wikiquette articles in a few months time hehe. Thank you for reading and for any guidance. -Wieldthespade (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me on this, and good catch! It's hard to find stale articles like this that likely don't belong on Wikipedia. I think a WP:PROD should be fine. I wonder what WP:DEL says on matters like this... --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking over WP:DEL, I think a PROD is still the best way to go. I don't think it meets speedy deletion criteria, but I also don't expect anyone will come up with any reason to keep it. --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the answer, the helpful policy links, and for tagging the article. I am now one step closer to knowing what the heck I'm doing around here. :) Have a good day Ronz! -Wieldthespade (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Keep up the good work! --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Multi-stage fitness test

Dear Ronz,

In regards to the Wiki, Multi-stage Fitness Test page, I have undone your edit due to vandalism by unknown users and this revision including irrelevant embedded links to commercial References within the text, in an effort for Search Engine Optimisation. There were also various typos and incorrect information about Digital Audio in the version.

As with the other External Links such as TopEndSports.com, the link to PFTests is for a free Bleep Test Training Program, Bleep Test information Booklet and a Bleep Test information Blog, which is relevant to the Wiki Multi-stage Fitness Test page. PFTests is registered with the UK Fitness Industry Association (FIA) and the Register of Exercise Professionals.

If you’d like to discuss the changes please do not hesitate to email me back.

Kind regards,

PFTests (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

PFTests

I'm afraid you don't understand the situation. You're edits are breaking internal and external links, so you need to stop. I've already started a discussion on the "beep" vs "bleep" terminology, so please join it. If you have problems with other content, please discuss your concerns on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ronz,

PSB the embedded links and the areas which I am trying to update:

1. The multi-stage fitness test, also known as the bleep test, beep test, pacer test, Leger-test or 20-m shuttle run test, is used by sports coaches and trainers to estimate an athlete's VO2 max (maximum oxygen uptake). The test is especially useful for players of sports like rugby, soccer, Australian rules football, hockey, netball, handball, tennis, squash and fitness testing at schools and colleges plus many other sports; employed by many international sporting teams as an accurate test of Cardiovascular fitness, one of the all-important "Components of Fitness". This test is also part of the FITNESSGRAM - Commercial Link, incorrect and unrelated to the Multi-stage Fitness Test physical fitness test to measure cardiorespiratory - Typo fitness. The test was created by Luc Leger, University of Montreal[1] published in 1983, "A Maximal Multistage 20m Shuttle Run Test to predict VO2 Max", and was re-published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology (vol 49 pp 1–12) in 1988 in its present form with 1 min stages under the name "Multistage 20-m shuttle run test for aerobic fitness".[2] Result equivalences between slightly modified versions are well explained by Tomkinson et al. in 2003.[3] The beep test world record is 19.2, held by Håkan Mild.[4][unreliable source?] - Embedded Commercial Link LAZYRUNNER added as Reference

2. The Multi-stage Fitness Test is know as both the beep test and bleep test, the broken links for the beep article are irrelevant to the content of the Multi-stage Fitness Test article as it discusses both.

I look forward to hearing from you via PM.

Kind regards,

PFTests (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

PFTests

University Canada West

Hi Ronz, I do not think every single one of my edits were a less than neutral POV, and I feel you just took a brief summary of my edits and did not read through all of them. Although a few edits may have been a bit biased, there were some that made the article more neutral than biased. Do you think you could look through all of the edits instead of just removing the entire thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.9.208 (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the article talk page. Please join that discussion.

I'm not sure what edits you are referring to. Please, on the article talk page, make it clear what changes you want made, why you want those changes made, and indicate sources that support your changes. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Xgraph

Xgraph article was the first I wrote in Wikipedia. I got confused between References and External Links. My mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethinker123456 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There were a few more mistakes: it's not a reliable source and it appears to be your personal blog. --Ronz (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of Internet Relay Chat daemons

Hello, just letting you know I removed the prod from the above article as it was previously listed at articles for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 20:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Rada Cutlery images

You have now taken down a lot of the images I have posted on different pages. I have seen your reasoning but yet those images added value and was better images than most of the ones that are on some pages. Furthermore, how can some images have names on them and ones I post cannot? I am just trying to gain an understanding about how to post items, if you could help that would be greatly appreciated.

Knightia13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightia13 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I'm not clear that you do understand why the images and other edits were removed:

They promoted radacutlery.com

The images were of poor or significantly poorer quality than what was already being used. See WP:IRELEV. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving discussion

Re my recent section question re application of MEDRS standards to psych and alt med, considering your comment, I now think it best belongs at the MEDRS talk page. I defer to your much greater experience-based knowledge as to what is the proper forum for Please let me know if you agree, and I will move the discussion. I put it on the article talk page in response to editors at Wikiproject Medicine objecting to another editor having started a talk page section there, not at the article talk page. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the MEDRS talk page would be a good place to discuss the matter. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Re reversion

Re this reversion[14], on redundancy grounds. Your redundancy argument would also argue for removal of "treatment", if it is based on Diagnosis being contained in the link to the lede first sentence of medicine. If not, some areas of psychiatry cannot claim "treatment" per MEDRS, for example Freudian analysis. Please consistently explain why you want "tretment" and not "diagnosis", which "redundancy" does not address. ParkSehJik (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are not making much sense in light of the relevant policies and guidelines. Seems you're trying to inject your own point of view and original research into something that should simply summarize what medical definitions state, along with what is covered in the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

response. ParkSehJik (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it just looks like you're frustrated. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Medical Tourism References

Hey Ronz.

Not long ago i added 3 references which you decided to remove. I appreciate the work you do but we believe that those links are great value to user, informative and helpful.

We will appreciate your further inspection regarding those articles since it is important for our business.

Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_tourism Article: http://www.medical-tourism.com/article/costs-of-fertility-treatments-and-why-go-abroad.html

Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_tourism Article: http://www.medical-tourism.com/article/dental-tourism-insurance-questions-answers.html

Thank you, Eran, Medical-Tourism.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allrelated (talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you'd like them there for your business, but that is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia.

Have you yet looked at WP:EL which I brought up on your talk page? --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Indented line

$13

I just ordered this in ebook form from Barnes & Noble for $13 - Mania: A Short History of Bipolar Disorderby David Healy. If you are going to be editing on these pages in the future, which I believe you will since as yo see, the topic itself is addicting, then I recommend it so far. It is also on point to your point about RS or some indicator for measuring WEIGHT, especially re Criticism. The reason is that this author is perceived, outside of psychiatry, as the biggest critic of bipolar and much of psychiatry, yet Johns Hopkins, one of the BIG 5 in medicine, chose him to represent the mental health topic in their highly respected series. The reason is that unlike anti-science alternative medicine practitioners, who try to hide inadequacies such as being fictions, psychiatrists think of themselves as science based, and science progresses by highlighting criticisms as much as possible. So the biggest critics of psychiatry are thereby recognized within the field as the best in the field. When something in psychiatry, like the "prevention" just added, leads to medicating 2 year olds for bipolar, psychiatrists do not hide that there is a problem. But the famous case-study 2 year old I am thinking of did not get taken off the meds, because there is not a better known alternative, just a recognition that there is a criticism that points to a problem with the field to be addressed. ParkSehJik (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.

Actually, I avoid these articles - the pop psychology and sensationalist news makes them very difficult to work on.

Are you familiar with Evidence-based medicine? The problem with psychiatry isn't that it is not science, but that it's so difficult to improve the evidence-base. --Ronz (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know about EBM, and I work in the field. you are exactly right. There is a fundamental problem shared in all medicine, that each person is unique, so there is no evidence at all regarding the things that make them unique. There is just evidence about what they share with others who were in the controlled studies. The more a medical problem pertains to the unique features of that person, the less evidence there is. And the uniquenss aspect (case study aspect) is most prominent in psychiatry. What counts as an evidence base for the unique mind of the patient. Worse, what allows someone outside a person to declare what is best for that person over the person's objections. There is also big and widespread debate as to whether the broadening of the concept of disease leads to everything being a disease. This edit points to the beginning of a solution as well as to the beginning of a problem, the ever broadening categories. This edit looks to most Wikipedians like WP:BATTLE, but most psychiatrists would respond , "yes, we all know that. But how exactly do you suggest improving things." The lack of an answer lies in the lack of an evidence base and other things in that criticism proposal I put up for sourcing, and modifying. ParkSehJik (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

List of breweries in Pennsylvania

Ronz, I want to understand why you removed all the external links from the List of breweries in Pennsylvania page. Are the links violating some Wikipedia guideline that I should be aware of?Calxaverian (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I was hoping you might still be interested in maintaining the article.

Yes, there are a few policies/guidelines that the article is violating. I started two discussions on the article talk page about problems with the article. See Talk:List_of_breweries_in_San_Diego_County,_California for more details. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Blood Type Diet

Hey Ronz, Just wondering why did you undo what I contributed to the Blood Type Diet? I'm did a paper on it, and just wanted to add additional things because the page is somewhat lacking. Thanks =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melindahua (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 December 2012‎

The sources were not reliable (it was unclear how one could be used as a source at all) and the rewrite basically ignored WP:MOS and WP:LEDE.

You're doing this as part of a school assignment? If that's the case, I would suspect there are introductions to Wikipedia for editors such as yourself. I suggest searching thoroughly until you find a few such introductions.

My advise for new, non-students who want to edit articles like Blood type diet is simply to avoid such articles due to the complexity of the policies that apply and the need to enforce those policies rather strictly, which is the exception to how Wikipedia works overall.

I can explain more, but I'd like to first understand what you're trying to accomplish so I'm not just giving you hypotheticals. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hatting talk page comments

This [15] as you know is a controversial edit, so should not have been marked as minor. I thought I'd let you know about your error, because I know how keen you are on policy and all William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, if it is a controversial edit (I don't think it is, but acknowledge that it was still a mistake to remove it as I did), then it should be discussed rather than edit-warred over, correct? --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

William Connelly WP:AN/EW

In case you haven't already, please read my warning to you in the report you filed at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I responded on your talk as you were writing this. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it time to blow over while we discuss it on your talk page. I'm also interested in seeing how Guettarda responds. --Ronz (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Does this respond? (Talk:Psychiatry)

Is this what you meant I need to learn re that a response to claims of WP:UNDUE needs sourcing, not just an assertion from out of my own head? "This is also an effort to respond to Ronz's request (in another section above) for sourcing of claims of "prominent" controversy, as sources would be needed to counter WP:UNDUE claims". If not, please give me futher guidance. ParkSehJik (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for contacting me and welcome back. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Explanation

Anthonycole wrote on my talk page - "We've had a long-term problem here with people harrying the psychiatry pages out of personal grievance or religious (Scientology) zeal. No one here appreciates new editors making many significant controversial changes to many articles in a short time, because it takes time to check ". This explains alot as to what appeared to me to be a bizarre and hostile response, by numerous editors, to what seemed to me to be entirely noncontroversial edits I made. In such a context, I need to give editors enough time to actually read what may be new sources to them, before I pile stuff into the article based on 20 or so technical academic publications. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I pointed this out to you Nov 27-28.

I'm still concerned that you don't understand the relevant policies/guidelines enough to work on these controversial topics in a manner that is going to be fruitful. Again, with non-controversial articles and topics, the editing environment is extremely casual and editors have plenty of time to learn Wikipedia. You're choosing to edit where the environment is anything but casual, and where you'll be required to either become familiar with the relevant policies/guidelines right away or learn to defer to others that do. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

MindManager

Talk:MindManager#Seeking_help_for_revisions_to_this_article --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ronz, just wanted to let you know that I've replied to your comments over at Talk:MindManager. Thanks again for helping out with this! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to help evaluate ConsumerLab.com as a source

Since you recently participated in discussions on Talk:ConsumerLab.com, you might be interested in joining another discussion about ConsumerLab.com on the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Theresa Spence

Hi Ronz. I've just rolled back your revert of the Theresa Spence section of the Hunger Strike article. A substantial stub has been created for her now. I certainly agree with the policy you mentioned in the revert, WP:WTAF but the article now exists, so it meets the criteria. Her hunger strike has generated quite a bit of press. Let me know if you have any other concerns about this issue. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 05:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant to drop you a note. Glad you started a stub. However, the material simply doesn't belong in Hunger Strike. See its talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really agree with your assessment of the inclusion criteria. I've started a new section on the talk page Talk:Hunger_strike#Theresa_Spence.27s_hunger_strike and included some of what you wrote on my talk page to continue the discussion. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 20:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Theresa Spence by ip

Hello, did you just revert my sourced edits back? You may change them if necessary, but please do not simply delete sourced information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Leave it be before you're blocked for for repeatedly misrepresenting sources in a manner that violates WP:BLP as well. --Ronz (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)