User talk:Hipal/Archive 41

removing list of college programs in EA page

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 There had been a section on University programs there earlier with out of date information and I removed it since the list of programs was sufficient.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

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

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

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

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

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

Ananta Jalil

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

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

Craney's 2014 book

Dear Ronz,

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

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

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

Recent Edits on Razorfish

Greetings Ronz,

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

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

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

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

Malik & Bhatt

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

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

Meera

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

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

Thanks and apologies

Hello Ronz,

Thanks for letting me know.

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

Official links

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

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

I am well aware of the applicable Guidelines:

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

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

Links to be considered

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

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

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

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

You'll note that I restored the DMOZ link [2]. Sorry that my attempts to do the same for FreedomWorks didn't work and I didn't notice. It's in now [3].

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

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

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

Performance_indicator

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

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

piper Cheyenne flight simulator

hello,

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

very thanks

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

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Randy_Gage

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

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

Soda Stream

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

AE Notice

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

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

Ballotpedia

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

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

Walsh

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

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

Third opinion or article talk page?

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

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

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

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

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

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

NutritionFacts.org / Dr. McDougall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was aware the Ornish video was deleted.

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

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

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

You find "nealhendrickson.com is not a reliable source [4]"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cinsensus

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

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

Keith Loris

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

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

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

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

Emerald

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fab lab links

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

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

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

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

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

List of scientists... revert

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

Obviously, we have a difference of opinion.

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

"it didn't have consensus" Howso?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biodynamic agriculture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.ME page

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

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

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

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

Bar Refaeli et al

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

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

Explained on your talk page:[5] [6].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP violation to point out manufactured denial?

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

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

Whirlwind Recordings page

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

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

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

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

New editor

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

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

hallsofreiki.com as a source and Naravi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Sweetoriole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University Canada west

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

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

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

Hello Ronz,

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

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

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

ANI notice

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

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

Ravi Shankar References

Dear Ronz,

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

Could you please undo your changes. Thanks in advance.

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

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

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

Artificial photosynthesis

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

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

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

Cosmic rays

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

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

Response to photomedicine revision

Ronz,

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

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

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

Simulation library Aivika

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

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

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

Ronz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, David

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

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

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

[4] http://fprog.ru

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

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

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

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

BLP violation - List of scientists...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Job Scheduling software

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

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

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

WP:Notability.

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

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

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

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

You solved the problem with your username. Thanks!

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

FreeMedForms not being notable.

Hello!

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

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

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

• http://www.framasoft.net/article5132.html
• http://comparatif-logiciels-medicaux.fr/logiciels-bureau/f-h/freemedforms
• http://www.ohloh.net/p/freemedforms
• http://www.medlibre.fr/index.php/post/2013/09/28/Nouvelle-version-0-9-0-de-FreeMedForms
• http://www.openhealthnews.com/content/freemedforms
• http://www.huiledecode.org/index.php?cID=logiciel-medical-libre-et-open-source-freemedforms
• http://www.goomedic.com/freemedforms-free-and-opensource-emr.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medecinelibre (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your help.

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

Thanks for following up with me.

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

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

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

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

OER inquiry

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

EL link removal

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

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

The edit is here.

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

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

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

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

A cheeseburger for you!

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

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

Starchild skull

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

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

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

Sorry about my confusion there.

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

Multi-level marketing

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

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

I didn't remove your edits.

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

About the social media wikipedia page, deletion of media ideology

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

Hi Ronz,

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

Thanks for following up with me on this.

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

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

May 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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

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

beginning of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

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

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

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

Voip-info.org spam links

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

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

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

Fix the issues on Silex page

Hello

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

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

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

Thanks for contacting me about this.

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

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

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

BLPTALK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Ronz - Thank you for the advise!

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

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

Sprained ankle

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

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

Consensus - DMOZ links again

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

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

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

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

Why you removed my references to greybmusings.wordpress.com

Hey Ronz,

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

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

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

Thanks Ronz.

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

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

Special Request

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

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

Theory Of Constraints External Links

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pyramid Scheme article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination of CLEAR framework for deletion

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

About Open Kanban

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

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

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

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

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

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

Veena Malik films

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

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

Personality test article

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

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

Key Performance Parameters

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

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

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

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

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

disruption?

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

Thanks for contacting me about this.

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

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

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

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

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

Question about Beachbody Page

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

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

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

Hi Ronz - Sandeep Khurana

Hi Ronz

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

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

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

O'Connor 2014 refs

Hi Ronz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ashley Morris' uploads to Scribd

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

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

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

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

Regards

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

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

Turkish blog

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

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

Hi Ronz - Wiki - Sandeep Khurana References fixed and verified

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

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

Ananta Jalil education and description

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

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

References

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

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

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

Your deletions of external links in "Lists of Playmates"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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