User talk:Hipal/Archive 43

I don't know what is going on with this article but it is claiming that non-Celiac's gluten sensitivity (NCGS) doesn't exist according to clinical research and cites a study that actually gives evidence to the contrary. The article cited for the claim (Biesiekierski et al., 2012) said that gluten symptoms of NCGS improved on a FODMAPs diet but got worse when exposed to gluten. I edited the article and cited peer-reviewed, scientific studies that demonstrated symptoms of gluten sensitivity for non-Celiac's, how NCGS is diagnosed, and a review of literature confirming that NCGS is a genuine syndrome but it was all removed. I could have easily added 30 more studies to prove that NCGS has been recognized as a genuine, "evidenced-based" syndrome since 2012 ^[1]. But what would be the use? My 20 scientific studies are no match for a misinterpreted study? I can try contact some of the researchers involved in the original citation if that will resolve this issue but if the rest of the literature is ignored what else can I do? Thanks for your time.

The section needs a rewrite to accurately summarize Non-celiac gluten sensitivity, while emphasizing aspects relevant to a gluten free diet. Sorry I didn't make that clear with my edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz, I chanced to see one of your comments on a user talk page on my watchlist, and I thought it would be interesting to hear from you what you think some of the important sourcing issues are in Wikipedia articles. I see from your talk page here that you often discuss those issues with other editors. I'm trying to be very meticulous about sourcing some frequently edit-warred articles, and I'd like to do my best to get them right. Any comments you have would be greatly appreciated. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I can try, but I mostly police articles for spam. Looking at what you've written about your editing goals, I'm not sure I have anything new for you. Maybe you could point out specific articles or policies/guidelines?

User:Ronz#NPOV+BLP is my summary, focusing on BLPs. Basically, I don't think an editor can go far wrong in the choice of references that are reliable, independent, and secondary or tertiary. In the all too rare cases where the dispute actually rests on such sources, then the sources should be evaluated on level of scholarship. I find that editors rarely will examine the reliability of sources very closely and that time is better spent finding consensus in NPOV issues: what information to include and at what detail. When a dispute moves along that far, and there are multiple editors involved, I try to move on to other articles...

Is that at all helpful? Do you have specific questions? --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's helpful. I'm with you in thinking that editors here will have to learn more about evaluating sources for quality. I've found that a bunch of articles that I watch have had content inserted to make disparaging WP:BLP statements that source only to an author who runs his own publishing house--in other words, a guy who basically runs a dead-tree blog. It took me a while to figure out that there are reliable secondary sources, in turn, that point that out about that author's writing career. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad to help.

BLPs should be easy given that, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In my experience, it often takes a discussion at BLPN despite the strong wording of the policy. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So you are trying to circumvent consensus-making by going to ANI? WP:DTS. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

John (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Bah. I wish I had remembered the special sanctions. As I mention on your talk, we need a alternative as what we have now is simple obstruction that prevents us from applying broader consensus. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Watch out for number 12 ;-) Seriously though, the comment did kind of come across as unnecessary piling on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked this account for 31 hours for twice violating the restrictions. Referring to "censorship" is unhelpful and is specifically forbidden under the restrictions. --John (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@John:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Hipal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I upset an editor by bringing up WP:CENSOR and using the words "censor" and "censorship" without better context or explanation and continued to do so after the editor claimed it was a personal attack made in bad faith. I referred to "censorship" without initially identifying the specific policy I was referring to and why, not knowing it was on a list of banned words to use in the special restrictions for the article. It's a good lesson to learn with editors that assume bad faith in others as the editor did. I should have explained clearly and focused on deescalating the situation instead of pushing as I did. As I mentioned earlier, I cannot remember which articles (in the over 5,000 items from my watchlist) are under special restrictions and what they might be. The article is off my watch list. I won't participate in editing or discussions there for at least a month other than to identify I'm doing so. I doubt I'll be interested in editing it at all while the special restrictions are in place. I'll apologise to the editor and, if the editor is interested, explain my point of view on the editor's talk page. Ronz (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Fair enough. Talking about censorship isn't helpful as others may find it offensive, which is why I listed it (along with "quack") as an example of a word to avoid in the restrictions. I have read the exchange below and in my judgement this block is no longer necessary to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, so I undo it. John (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm focusing on the actual situation rather than the special sanctions.

Diffs: Special restriction. While I didn't use it for name-calling purposes, I should have backed off when the editor assumed bad faith and that I was making a personal attack.

WP:CENSOR starts, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." In my opinion, the editor (and other editors) is calling on social norms to be applied in such a way as to censor significant point of view (including categorization, identification, and labeling) from the article. That the topic is religious in nature is also repeatedly being brought up as rationale as well.--Ronz (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No one is suggesting censoring anything. Asking for context in not censorship. Since Kww brought up the religious aspect perhaps you'd like to discuss the religious points with him. My position and I do consider your and Kww cmts personal attacks, is that Ayurveda may have religious elements but is not religious, and at no time do I indicate this position has any bearing on the label pseudoscience. My cmt about religion is a rebutt of KWW suggestion that Ayurveda a health care system is religious rather than contains religious elements. I have to say that I am a little tired of being attacked for things I didn't say and especially that personal attacks are not the best way to deal with points under discussion anyway. Sheesh.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

My apologies. As I said, I should have focused on deescalating the situation as soon as you identified that you felt you were the target of personal attacks. From my perspective, that is a priority. We shouldn't expect collaboration if editors feel attacked. We must take the time to ensure we have a collaborative editing environment. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps one shouldn't expect collaboration but continued collaboration is what I am giving that discussion as long as I stay on that article. Thanks for your apology. I appreciate it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz :-) actually I think that it was not neutral and correct before, because the references and conclusion were outdated - excavations in visocica hill started in 2005 and criticism comes from 2006, while now in 2015 there is a lot of evidence and I think that wikipedia readers should be able to read about early criticism as well as about recent evidence. Especially "following a news-media campaign promoting the false idea" doesn't seem neutral to me. Few months ago I personally concluded that Bosnian Pyramids are completely hoax because I read these two wiki pages. Few months later, I heard from someone else and searched some new and additional info and found out that these two wiki pages are outdated and "hoax" conclusion might be wrong. Thank you for your re-consideration. Please, what can I do to make it neutral? -- Rihadavid (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.66.91 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is actually understating the reliable sources. Do look over the article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's just keep the earth flat :-) -- Rihadavid (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the pyramid foundation claiming that too? --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI. In my experience, most of the time when an editor says they'll get to something "next week", they are expressing a desire to make the time, but probably won't actually. However, I think that's as close to an apology as you'll get and may give you some relief from the feeling of being attacked. I can see why someone, like I did, would have assumed the article was more unfair than it was actually, being that a particularly negative article is NPOV in this particular case.

If you ever want me to look at something in the future, feel free to ping me. There are quite a number of cases where having an un-involved editor come in can help diffuse an otherwise combative situation. CorporateM (Talk) 18:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Archived already. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

There is a new essay on the subject of COI that I recently nominated for deletion. There is a lot of back and forth going on as you might imagine, and I thought it might be helpful to ask some editors with a historical interest in the area to give their input.

Just to be clear, you are not being canvassed based on my perceptions of what your views are. I am asking for input from the top 10 contributors to the COI Noticeboard, expecting that some expertise and interest might be found here.

Thanks in advance for your input, if you feel able and willing to participate. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 23:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As I recently wrote at COIN, if there's no evidence, then it's inappropriate to bring up. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Talking about arbcom and dealing with COIN.... i wanted to lay out my thinking, and get your feedback.

Two key cases are:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione

In my view the TimidGuy appeal and Wifione case together make it really clear what the wrong way to handle COI concerns are, and what the right way is. There are three levels to this - the focus of the case, the behavior of the ones bringing it, and the choice of venue There is also a strong likelihood (in my view) that cases of longterm paid editing will continue to end up at Arbcom. I also want to note that i didn't live through the Will BeBack case and I know that case upset a lot of people that i respect; if i say something wrong or stupid about it, i apologize in advance and would like to be corrected so i understand it better.

• Focus. In the TimidGuy appeal, the focus on COI alone, especially with no/little evidence of paid editing per se in-WP, gets nowhere. In the Wifione case, the concerns about paid editing were mentioned, but if you look at the evidence page, it overwhelmingly focused on NPOV editing behavior.
• Behavior. obviously the outcomes were different. WBB (the white knight) was site banned for harassment; Wifione was desysopped and banned. Now part of that is the atmosphere, politics, and a lot of bad feelings following the WBB case, but the behavior was different. From what I can gather (and again i apologize if i got this wrong) WBB found used off-wiki material (mostly bringing it in the various off-wiki systems of communications here), and was aggressive in pursuing TImidGuy in a lot of forums here in WP. In the wifione case, while Vejvančický did bring things up in several places, but was much less aggressive about it, it did finally end up in the proper forum and Vejvančický was not even dinged for harassment. I asked Vejvančický about where he tried to bring this to the community here and my take on his reply was that he was a bit scared, and also very uncertain about where to bring to it, but he posted it several places - none of them where it could be acted on. And I said "yep". You have to bring things in a forum where people can act, otherwise it is a waste of time and approaches harassment. But bottom line here - if you approach this wrong, you may end up on the wrong side of the case. You have to keep your nose clean when you are pursuing something like this. As you know, Arbcom is infamous for rolling heads all around. Whether the venue is ANI or arbcom, you don't want to create a distraction with your own behavior, nor give them an excuse to sanction you. Nose clean.
• Venue. Both arbcom cases are characterized by a lot of floundering and making of accusations (often the wrong ones) in the wrong places. Wifione was brought to COIN, but wasn't followed up on by folks there. And COIN has not been a real focus of community attention. As a final venue after COIN, I do think that arbcom may be the best place to do it, actually. It is much more controlled than ANI, where you get all kinds of random input, partisans who jump in either "side" and write frankly stupid things with their own agendas, and things are generally very easily derailed. Arbcom won't take a case unless it has been addressed elsewhere first. I don't think there has been a case yet where something was first, and unsuccessfully, addressed at COIN alone. I am interested in adding a process - editor Talk page to COIN to Arbcom - to the model that Vejvančický and the others who brought the Wifione case, created the last step of. We now have the model for the last step, which is great. We have to build out the model for how to get there. Those three steps are, in the ways of Wikipedia, a very clear and sound path, in my view. My thinking there may not reflect what the community and Arbcom are willing and able to do, but that is my thinking now.

There is someone i am 80% sure is a fairly longterm paid editor whom i have been watching for a while and have not approached under regular COI procedures yet. I am going to do that soon, and my sense is that the person is going to deny, and I think (am not sure yet) that this is going to be my test case for bringing a COI case to the community under NPOV. If the editor denies my initial approach on their Talk page, I will bring that to COIN and will try to get a resolution there. If I cannot (there are vanishingly few admins who pay attention there) I will bring that either to Arbcom or ANI. But when I bring it, it will be very clean - with no harassment or uncivil behavior on my side, and a very clear set of diffs showing a long term pattern of NPOV violations. Clean and straight. I need to wait a while to do this, as i have had too much drama at ANI lately.

Anyway, what do you think of all that? Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. COIN if there's strong evidence of a coi and of violating WP:COI's editing restrictions. Otherwise BLP, NPOV, and other content noticeboards.

It all comes down to content-editing behavior. Granted there are different behavioral requirements if there is a coi, but if there's no very strong evidence of an undisclosed coi then editors should simply follow our other policies.

COIN needs to become a more effective venue, given how important it is.

I find ANI to be unreliable for the application of policy. Bad faith assumptions run rampant there at times, sometimes to the point where content problems are completely ignored.

(I should respond more when I have then time...) --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

thx, sounds like same page. would love love to have more experienced hands at COIN. follow up is so important there, and having patient conversations. in the meantime as always we make do with what we have. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Due to a mistyping, I forgot to add a summary to my recent reversion. I was going to say "Regardless of what the reference says, inclusion of "New Age" here is POV and not permissible. The term "mumbo jumbo" alone makes the point." Wahrmund (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand how this context could be a problem, only it's removal. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz. Thanks for the note about my contributions to Wikipedia, though you weren't clear on where I might have violated COI. I'd love to know, in order to avoid the error in the future.

Thanks Leximaven (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I wrote, "See also WP:COI in case it might apply." If it doesn't apply, don't worry about it. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I made several updates today to a number of pages, which I thought were well referenced and objective. My aim was to improve and update these pages, which seemed a little out of date, particularly in reference to more recent literature on the subjects in question. Please can you reconsider withdrawing the edits I made? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmj2love (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. I think we should start with the comments on your talk page here. Did you see them? --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I have spent a great deal of time trying to put together some meaningful and relevant content on the 'product design' and 'industrial design' pages, which brings it more up-to-date and includes the context of environmental sustainability. The debates on product lifespans, articulated through the theory of emotionally durable design tickly important here. Professor Chapman's work in this area therefore provides an excellent example of how to deal with sustainability issues, through the disciplines of product design and industrial design, and it's importanthis work is featured on these page. Perhaps remove reference to him, but leave all references to the theory of emotionally durable design, and the supporting contextual statement? Thanks Mmj2love (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I already gave you advice on how to proceed in a manner. I'll repeat:

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

See also WP:COI in case it might apply. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

After looking over all your edits closer: I'd be surprised if you did not have a conflict of interest regarding Chapman and his work, so do look carefully over WP:COI and decide if it applies and how you want to address it.

As for highlighting Chapman's work: If you can find sources that are both reliable (shouldn't be a problem in academia) and independent, especially ones that provide a historical context, then take them to an article talk page and discuss the matter.

As for highlighting broader theories and ideas like design thinking, the same applies, but should be simpler to do given the amount written on those topics. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have any questions. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Thanks for the clarification and advice. There is no WP:COI from my point of view, but i will rework parts of the 'Jonathan Chapman (academic)' page with a wider range of neutral and independent sources. I hope this will mean that this will satisfy the 'notability guideline for biographies'. Please can you check later on, to see if you are happy with it? I'll be revising the page this morning Mmj2love (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I have now updated the page 'Jonathan Chapman (academic)' with a wider range of neutral and independent sources. I hope you will be satisfied with it. If so, please can you remove the banner at the top of the page suggesting that the article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies? I'm confident it does. Thanks for all your help Mmj2love (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice to be working with you. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to continue this discussion on the article's talk page. I most likely will not have much time in the next to address all the issues I see, so let's see if we can get others to help. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ronz - When I was editing on Wikipedia, for example the case study for how to merge brands online, I only tried to help users as this is something many users, CEO's, SEO's and Owners of companies especially, don't know. The case study I used as a source was extremely helpful and I did not include it for promotional reasons ect. Also on Wiki I am constantly learning as I go. Thank you for the reminders and tips. I did not mean to promote anything, I just tried to help. Branding and mergers are tricky, especially online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto30 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 April 2015‎

Glad to hear you're interested in learning how Wikipedia works. You've already been instructed on what to avoid, but haven't yet done so. I suggest working on grammar, layout, cleaning up stray test edits and vandalism. Please avoid any edits remotely like what you've done in the past. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Took out two lines from Bates article that showed your opinion/analysis of factual info. The article was good otherwise so I don't understand why you deleted it. The Bates vision method is interesting and needs to be in Wikipedia. Sorry if my edit discouraged you. Primofacts (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It wasn't anything I meant to keep. It was a very old version of the article that I was using to figure out accumulative changes made by others. --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Ronz,

Having deleted the citations we referenced, based on them being promotional, i have the following points to raise.

References 8 onwards could all be deemed promotional, as they are to manufacturers websites, and 19 is to a distributor of these components (an online shop).

The point that was referenced was clearly mentioned on our webpage.

It would be near impossible to reference such specific points without it being to a source that is actively involved in said activities.

I would ask that you reinstate the citation.

92.17.78.165 (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So you have a conflict of interest. Did you read the note I left on your talk page? I've added more details on our conflict of interest policy as well.

Yes the article needs a great deal of work. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I noticed this edit just now and I was confused by your edit summary. The relevant section of EL in this case would be WP:ELOFFICIAL and would support retaining the links, but they do seem to be outdated (i.e. they link to the main Webby site instead of to the 1998-specific section of it). So were you suggesting that they should be replaced by more precise external links? If so I agree. Removal without replacement would be a bad idea, though. -Thibbs (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Now as soon as I've said that I suddenly realize you were probably talking about the ELs in the body of the article rather than in this section only. I'm inclined to say that the ELs in the body of the article are OK too, but I'll have to think about that a bit more... -Thibbs (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

OK I've been thinking a bit more. So as you may already know the Webby Awards is an award ceremony for websites. Since the articles on the individual ceremonies cover the nominees and winners, I do think it would be more harmful than helpful to readers to remove the official links to the websites that were considered for awards on the given year. I don't see anything specific that covers this unusual usage directly in any of WP:EL's subsections. The topic of the article is the ceremony so ELOFFICIAL isn't really on point. Some of the websites are commercial in nature (implicating ELNO), but they are the specific subjects of the award ceremony so we would really have to jump through hoops to avoid providing their URLs and I'm not sure that would be helpful to readers interested in the topic. At present the external links point to the current version of the URL that was under consideration as well as a historical version of the URL (via archive.org) so that readers can see what the website looked like when it was being reviewed by the Webby committee. The 1998 article is in a bit of a disrepair and doesn't show this as well as something like the 2000 Webby Awards article. But anyway I'm pretty sure the archived links would be completely fine since at worst they only represent links to commercial products which were available in the past (in some cases more than a decade ago). But this is an interesting question. What are your thoughts? Should we bring it to Wikipedia talk:External links and try to find a consensus? -Thibbs (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate working with editors like yourself that look into the relevant policies and issues. Given that all the Webby award articles have the same use of external links, WP:ELN would be a good place to work from, noting it on at least the most recent article. If there has been any discussion, it should be noted there as well. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Links_in_Webby_award_lists. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I just added my comment there. Hopefully we'll see some responses. -Thibbs (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

DO IT I CAN CREATE MORE ACCOUNTS Sonictheheghog21 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I've requested you be blocked . --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Really sorry about that, I didn't even notice so thank you for undoing (and restoring my comment too). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It happens. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Do you know if anything can be done about the British National Party page, the membership figures? I'm very new to Wikipedia, so I don't know all the ins and out and the exact procedures.

Chrisdbarnett (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure where the figures are coming from or which should be considered reliable. Sorry. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ronz. Someone has either undone or written over the BNP Membership. User just cited his opinion that the Independent is more "reliable". Yet has not explained why...and has not used the BNP talk page to outline his argument.

Also, his user ID is "ToryBoy1998" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory - Hardly someone who is politically passive or neutral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToryBoy1998 - If you look at his talk page, he's getting a rep for bad edits to rival political party pages.

Chrisdbarnett (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist, so I should notice them in the future. --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick thank-you for being objective and doing the right thing...most of the time! Back on that British National Party talk page, I still dispute the links/cites/sources to the Independent. I'm trying to get everyone to go through this step by step logically. The first step being to link to an article on the Independent website that even discusses BNP membership figures. The note/link/cite about the BNP membership figures, just links to the Independent homepage...surely it needs to go to somewhere better, so the quality of the article can be debated / talked about a lot better. Also...the resistance on that talk page..isn't neutral..of course they can "talk" about the article...but they should not be editing it, if they are politically active in the UK. For example another one is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snowded - If you look at "Talk about at dinner" section of his webpage - it's obvious that he's politically active in the UK and would be diametrically opposed to the BNP. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I want to just get everyone discussing it first. If there will soon be new numbers from the BNP, so much the better. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Would you be so kind as to have a look at that membership section on British National Party talk? I hope you can understand the thrust of my argument, I'll have another go here! A political group which aggressively campaigns against the British National Party called "Hope Not Hate" (As is the right to do) has produced some kind of report which is only available to their donors. It is this so called report that has been handed to a Scottish Green Party activist (Who stood as a candidate for them in 2012) (All Green parties campaign against the BNP) and he then in turn has written an article which promotes his beloved Green party, but then attacks the BNP only mentioning the "Hope not Hate" report and that the report (Which no one other Hope not Hate donors and political allies can get hold of, believes the BNP membership to be 500. So "Hope Not Hate" (Anti BNP campaign group) >> Green Party Activist / Political Rival (Sends press release to) >> Left Wing Newspaper..left wing newspaper happily prints propaganda. BNP can't complain to press complaints commission as Independent is reporting the views of Green Activist. BNP can't sue Green activist (or anyone else) because under Common English law, you cannot liable a political part. For example. If I said "The Conservative party is awash with paedophiles and is eating children and night, with random kidnapping and executions of citizens.." - being the fantasy that it is, so one could sue me. When Wikipedia made it's rules about the mainstream media reporting, it would have been reasonable to assume that if the mainstream media gets it wrong, the wounded party could sue them. Unfortunately with political parties, that's not the way it works - we have NO recourse unless we are talking about the libel of an individual rather than the political party as an organization. In the meantime, a lie has been propagated and it took me a long time before I could work out where it came from, because everyone involved in the manufacture of the lie has been vague about source of the lie. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to provide you with an explanation why I removed a quote in the references of the article Reiki. WP presents the content of sources in a paraphrased form in the body of the article. In general I consider quotes in references clutter and redundant to adequate and accurate paraphrasing. I prefer references that are as clean, tight and uniformly formatted as possible. For many who consult WP, the references are the part of the article where they click through to find "the straight dope", keeping it clean and clear is of value.

Only an explanation not something I edit war over or feel so strongly as to bring objection on article talk pages often. I just wanted to share my opinion, as you had said in an edit summary you had no idea why it was removed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. In general, I agree. In a controversial alt-med article where the topic of the quote is a point of conflict, I think it would be better to keep. --Ronz (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I see the value in keeping in a controversial article. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Does this look like a fit for the chess servers page?

Thanks, JD

checkersorchess.com is a redlink, so no, unless I'm missing something. --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

what exactly did you find irrelevant or uncited in the changes I made? Everything is documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electronicsguy (talk • contribs) 07:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, You recently threatened to block me from editing Wikipedia due to edits I made to the Nia page. Can you please advise which sources are not acceptable for the edits I made and perhaps specify which passage(s) you consider "soapboxing"? It is difficult to proceed with better edits when the criticism is vague. Many thanks, Delcydrew (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Answering on your talk so it can be more visible to others. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, You reverted my link as "link spam". Why? Please explain. Thanks. Froid (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That's my quick assessment. It fails WP:EL and appears to be a WP:SOAP violation as well. Further, I wasn't able to determine the copyright status. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Ronz, I have read the wiki guidelines on COI, and as per the requirements, stated my relationship with the Nia organization. Since this ultimately places me in a position of conflict with regards to editing the article, I would like to propose a few edits. Would it be best to make these suggestions on the Nia Talk page, or to you directly, since you seem to be following this article quite closely?

Also, just as an aside, it seems a bit contradictory that wiki on the one hand requests that relationships with organizations be divulged on user or talk pages prior to editing, yet then strongly discourages any editing by said parties...

Looking forward to your thoughts, Delcydrew (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page so it's easier for others to help.

Sorry, but where did you state your relationship? Did you do it earlier and I overlooked it or had forgotten? --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Three months ago you questioned the external links in Crimean War. I tried to reduce the links, but I was reverted by another user, who apparently wants to keep them all. Your input here would be valuable. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 19:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't follow up sooner. Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, I noticed recently that you had reverted all the notable people of Spanish American decent that I had added as I felt there needed to be added but within reason and not overly do it... I didn't do an image spamming at all. I researched them and all had Spanish ancestry. The research took me quite a long time. I just wondered if you could tell me why as I can't re add any of them now. Kind regards Puertorico1 (talk)

I think we have enough examples. Photos of celebrities gives really no insight into the topic of the article. More photos just looks like promotion. --Ronz (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice that there's a comment in the source, "Do not change this list without first discussing it in the Talk page". I guess you didn't notice it either. --Ronz (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

You have asked me if this site greatestmovies.org is reliable. Actually, I can't tell you that it's 100% reliable, but I think that it contains many useful and interesting information. I have checked the information provided and it's true. So, I hope that this site will be ok.

Sincerely, Daisy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy 595 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for your message. Sorry I do not reply directly to it, but I cannot find how to do it.

I understand why you undid my edits, but the link I added to the coworking article is fully relevant to the subject and in line with other book references in the same section. The coworking handbook is currently the only book that explains how to open and run a coworking space. It is the only reference that entrepreneurs and people working in coworking spaces can use to help them do their job.

Cheers

Sorry, but linking to an advertising page is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I would like to add this reference to the Nia page, as it seems legitimate and relevant. I'd like your guidance on how best to do this, as my previous attempts came across as biased. Here it is:

Nia’s "Moving To Heal" program was incorporated into the Edmond J. Safra Parkinson's Wellness Program, a partnership between New York University Langone Medical Center and the Jewish Community Center (JCC) Manhattan.^[1]

Looking forward to your thoughts, Delcydrew (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Better to bring up such requests on the article talk page so it's easier for others to help.

As a press release, it is highly promotional and of questionable encyclopedic value. Without an independent, secondary source we've now way to determine if it merits any mention at all. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz - I just checked the edits. I understand why you removed them now. Thanks, Diamante55— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamante55 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi Ronz, I hope this message finds you well. I'm reaching out because I noticed you recently removed an edit made to the Interactive Video article. It was regarding WIREWAX - the technology used to create the shoppable music video referenced under the "V-Commerce" section. I hoping you could clarify your reasoning for deleting this information from the article. Thank you in advance! Sincerely, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgobo (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It was blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not a venue for such promotion. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that Wikipedia is not a venue for such promotion, but disagree that the edit was advertising. The section on V-Commerce is written on the topic of a world first shoppable music video, created using a specific technology. I don't see how the addition is any different than mentioning the retailer or artists who were featured. Would you reconsider? Michaelgobo (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The article may have other, similar problems. The link to the company's website simply doesn't belong. Whether or not the company should be mentioned at all should be decided based upon the quality of sources offered. If you have any, bring them up on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The page on Dr. Philips mentions that he was declared persona non grata in Germany in 2011. I managed to get a copy of the German court order, dated November 2013, that overturned that decision and an appeal to that decision was also rejected by the court with costs. The edit I made doesn't show on Dr. Philips page. How do I make that correction?

Allah Jane^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allah Jane (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You're referring to Bilal Philips. When in doubt, discuss it on the article talk page. I'm not clear whether you've already tried to make the edit or not. If you have, point out as well. Whether or not it is included will depend upon what sources can be verified. --Ronz (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ron, my first name is Naveed and the second part of my username is Sukuk, which is a public word and refers to a industry, not a company, Please see Sukuk.com or read the Wiki for Sukuk. It basically means certificates. Naveed.sukuk (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Naveed.sukuk

Three things:

Your editing is focused on sukuk, which is part of your username. Hence my concerns.

You've not addressed the concern that you have a coi. That is fine if you indeed do not.

Finally, your edits to date have a host of problems, detailed in our COI policy, that apply whether or not you actually have a conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ronz,

I mentioned you in a dispute resolution request (here) about the disagreement between Jytdog and me over the life extension page. I just thought that I should tell you.

Regards,

Haptic-feedback (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the dispute resolution is moving forward. Our volunteer moderator is asking for statements from us on their analysis, if you are still interested in working things out. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you appear to be in a rush. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Ronz: Don't worry – there's no rush. I'm sorry if you feel pressured. I just want to be proactive in improving the page.

Thanks for participating in the resolution process, by the way. I'm sure that we can make to a good decision together about the content if we all make an effort. :)

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I edited the section of "Descendants" on the Wiki page of "Lahiri Mahasaya". I included new information about which practically nobody has any information at all. I also include as a reference a link to a page about "Banmali Lahiri," the descendant in question, which I have authored. The fact of the matter is that there is (correct me if I'm wrong) practically no information available about this person in the public domain, and I have recently decided to rectify this situation and the fact that I seem to be practically the only person with such information should not preclude my right to publish it in an encyclopedic site such as yours. I have also written a book with this person as a character, and it was originally to be a "roman-a-clef" but my editor suggested that I simply use the original character just as I have used someone else. I clearly distinguish the fictitious from the factual in my section of "Sources". Thus, I am probably the *only* reliable source of information about this person, and claim that it is not a conflict of interest, however it may be analyzed as such, and am willing to change the presentation to be more neutral, and as for your help in this.

As for the other sources of information about Lahiri Mahasaya in the Wiki article, they are anything but neutral, are highly biased and some are of doubtful reliability. I wish to balance this article by including more points of view, with references, which I will be doing in the near future.

Respectfully yours,

Remi Peter Baronas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remibaronas (talk • contribs) 16:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes the articles have problems.

Please review WP:COI more carefully. The appropriate action to take is to start discussions on the article talk pages. If you disagree, you might want to start a discussion at WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi Ronz,

I checked & found that the listed below sections/content have been removed by you. Could you please specify the reason? Instead of only removing the content, it would be better if you specify the reason as well.

1.) Why the tags used to get photo of CEO & Founder has been removed from Naukri wiki page. I don't think this is promotional. If it is then how Flipkart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flipkart is doing the same.

2.) Why these section are removed: Section "===The First Hari Sadu Ad===" AND "====Hari Sadu - Name selection for Fictional character====" AND "====Ad Controversy====".

I'm just curious as to what I can do to make the content less promotional. I believe that all these content would be important for consumers to know.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankush4577 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The article is about Naukri, the people are not notable themselves, and the article is not an extension of Naukri's promotional campaigns.

Yes, there are other articles as bad or worse.

I removed the other sections because they were redundant with material in the article. I assume you added the initial material and are reading the article much more carefully than I, so you noticed the redundancy too. Given the sources, I think that making the bulk of the article about an ad is rather encyclopedic and undue. The details appear to be trivia. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Edit at WT:WPSPAM ... Technically, the old username no longer exists on Wikipedia (the account history was moved, all old edits are attached to the new username, and the old name is listed as not registered), so the old name should just be removed from the report, as it's no longer relevant. The main purpose of the templates is to provide easier reference to research edits - and with no account attached to the old name, the template for it no longer serves a purpose. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I was quite confused there. I expect most others would be too. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz - New at this, trying to climb the learning curve, patience plz. Case in point: my first edit to an entry had one source - me. This has now been rectified, please notice. There is a *heavy* bias to the Lahiri M. entry which I have begun to edit, and though my edit could be construed as a COI because of my websites/book, my purpose is not to sell my book or divert attention to my website on B. Lahiri, but to bring different sets of perspectives regarding the life and legacy of Lahiri M., and there are several, of which I cite two in my latest edit, neither of which is mine. If there are several points of view with respective valid sources, should they not be allowed to co-exist side-by-side? If you carefully read the Lahiri M. entry, there's a *heavy* bias from only one offshoot of the intricate web of his legacy. Shouldn't more views be presented? Shouldn all? Isn't Wikipedia trying to be an objective platform of knowledge and isn't bias the very antithesis of objectivity? Remibaronas (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)remibaronas

As I said, I'm concerned that your conflict of interest could very strongly interfere with your editing.

That said, I'm in no rush, and I hope you aren't either.

(More to follow when I have time). --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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

I would like to point out that there is a strong COI in the entry of "Lahiri Mahasaya." If COI is an issue in Wikipedia and it claims to be an objective source of knowledge and inrformation, this should be dealt with. I am going to write a non-Wikipedia bio of Lahiri M., from all my sources that are not referenced in the current Wikipedia article. Maybe then you could have a look at it and compare. Are you involved in any way with the organization in question? Remibaronas (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)remibaronas

I wouldn't be surprised, but why do you think so? --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I'm still learning Wikipedia and admittedly do not understand all the guidelines and policies yet. Yes, I work for Intelius and have updated our company page to reflect the major news that our company was acquired by H.I.G. Capital last week. As a result of the transaction, the company name changed back to Intelius, Naveen Jain left the company, and Prakash Kondepudi became CEO. I properly cited this information on our page. I'm sorry if getting the page moved to the new name was not proper procedure, but it was the best way I could figure out how. Considering that all the edits I've made thus far are fact, and properly cited with news sources, I don't believe I was in error.

So you're aware, I do plan to continue updating information on this page because a lot of the information about our products/services/policies is outdated. While I don't plan to remove sweeping sections of the History and Controversies sections of the page, I do plan to introduce information that will mitigate the negative content that was part of Intelius' past. The company has come a long way since then and I think it's time to display content that reflects that fact. If you have questions/concerns, feel free to reach out to me here.

Ksylvester (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Ksylvester

Thanks. Nice to have you here. I'll respond on your talk page so others can find the discussions easily. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

So, per the Arbcom case and the ANI, I am looking for feedback on my COI-related work. If you have some time, is there any feedback you think it would be useful for me to hear? If you don't have time or are not interested, I would understand. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Guess I haven't been paying attention. Let me look at what's going on. --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for that - I am just asking for feedback on your impressions of my work, that's all. My intention wasn't that you go comment anywhere else. Just feedback. Thanks. .... Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd responded on your talk. To add: Your work is fine. You just run into a lot WP:NOTHERE situations, and Wikipedia is still doing a poor job of enforcing WP:NOT. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking the time! Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ronz,

There's no conflict of interest here (unless its on your side of things)... not at all sure why you'd destroy a good deal of useful work added to this wiki page (more than once at that), all of which is verifiable by 3rd party open access, and peer reviewed academic research. You can place it elsewhere (ie lower down) if that's your preference... I have no preference in that respect, rather from my perspective it just makes sense to put it there, since it gives people some form of readily organized thinking about the phenomenon. Further, the writing doesn't claim to be definitive (hence 'theoretical perspectives'), rather its a faithful rendering of work that is accepted as useful in the academic domain (ie through citations, journal publications etc). Further there are many other research works that can and will be added to the theoretical aspects section, though we can't expect those to arrive until we actually have a section there, now can we... I don't have any relationship with the works in question other than the fact that I have read them. I disagree about your view of encyclopedia articles, peer-reviewed academic research, is a much better source than the journalism (or books) that currently comprises the majority of the content. No one argues this, given that science is the gold standard for knowledge. Also, much of what it already on the page is "theory" that comes from the likes of Brabham and Iperiotis, Aitamurto and many others...so not sure why you have particular issue with these works... Also, if you have any particular issue with any particular words in the sections in questions, feel free to edit those to be improved, but you, nor anyone else can deny the fact that there's almost a decade of research now that has been providing theory and empirical research in the domain... all I'm trying to do is to update the wiki page to begin to reflect this real world reality.

Thanks!

Ps. I feel the images also help out the overall look and usefulness of the page. I'll add other content and probably images too, into the sections once I get some time over the next little while.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CrowdsofCrowds (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're unfamilar with any authors beyond the one, then you'll just have to accept that you have a bias to the one individual you cite. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And so now whats the problem...? I don't think that two days is enough time for anyone to contribute to the theory section...! It's fine at the bottom of the page. --CrowdsofCrowds (talk

I'm sorry, but so far all I see is a desire to promote the author without any effort to understand our policies and how to follow them, nor any attempt to make the content anything beyond a mix of references and buzzwords without any context or indication of noteworthiness. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, you're the one that edited that section and then put it at the bottom of the page, and also then removed content from that section to fit your desires, which is fine by me given that my only desire is to begin such a necessary and useful section... and now you don't even agree with yourself. Not sure why this is such a big issue given that its a manifest reality that theoretical perspectives exist in the Crowdsourcing research (some of which ie Brabham, are already on the page, and essentially define the entire thing)... At this point it's very noteworthy (and a gaping hole in the quality of the wikipedia article) that there are no explicit theoretical perspectives on the page. If you want some indication about the depth of what I am talking about simply enter "crowdsourcing theory" as your search term at either google or google scholar. Or better yet enter any of the works cited as a start, and find out that they are useful, and who cites them etc. Those aren't buzzwords, they're well defined constructs (see Hayek for example) that have existed in the research for decades coming from Nobel winning researchers. There's no more solid science than that. --CrowdsofCrowds (talk — Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather than making assertions, provide some sources independent of the single author. --Ronz (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like you to reconsider your reversion of my edit to the lede of that article. I won't do any further work here until you or somebody else does. I imagine that you think that cell immortality or artificially immortalized cell lines are not relevant and this is what I want you to reconsider. I didn't put this to argue the point with you and am good with the situation as it stands right now, so you needn't respond if you're not going to replace the text in some form. Lycurgus (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Who says it is relevant? Why add it to the lede? --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to contest your deletion. In the west a lot of people don't know much about who's who in "Islamic economics and finance". And I assure you the source I used is NOT promoting Islamic economics and finance. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

So you want a list of non-notable institutions there? Start a discussion on the talk page. Is it possible to get a better source? --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the goal is notable not non-notable. What's wrong with the source? It's fairly academic and no-nonsense. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

So we're finally moving to the article talk page then? Great. --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:06, 22 July 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank) Ronz (talk | contribs) (→‎Informational: per EL - see RSPAM discussion)

I don't know what either is and can't find them in Help. Try searching there for RSPAM. deisenbe (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. WP:RSPAM, specifically Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#yiddishbookcenter.org. There's a huge amount of spamming, so I'm trying to go through it as quick as I can while minimizing the situations like this.

Give that the link is to information about his work, rather than the person itself, it doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I AM Crystal Smith and the edits I made are true and correct. Please restore them. Crystal Smith

Thanks for responding. I've left you a brief summary of our conflict of interest policy on your talk page.

While I don't doubt you are Smith, we cannot assume your contributions about yourself are correct without proper sourcing per our biographies of living persons policy. This is not only to ensure that the contents of Wikipedia articles are verifiable and accurate, but to protect people such as yourself from having inappropriate and even defamatory information written about them on Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw your comment about conflict of interest - we were getting a lot of questions about the Coolest cooler so I put up a page on it. Pebble Watch has a page - I looked at it and tried to be neutral in the contribution on the Coolest cooler. If you think there is any bias please advise. I do work for the business but have also contributed to other wikipedia entries over the years and have worked in 3D printing and other areas...

Based on the public interest, the questions we get from students and other interested parties, press, product designers, entrepreneurs, businesses, conferences etc. it seemed appropriate for the Coolest to have a page. If you think there's a specific edit that could / should be made, please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scmtowers (talk • contribs) 02:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Responding on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. The reason I added that link was 'Workplace bullying' is a serious topic and that gentleman wrote an awesome article on it. At the moment you'll find tons of information of bullying not specifically workplace bullying. Love to hear your thoughts on this. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.145.7.166 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a self-published article. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Got it Ronz! Thanks for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profthomascrown88 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Committed molecules (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This has been closed now. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 16:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I think I understand. On the Virtual Maintenance Training page, the space HAS advanced significantly though and I did attempt to capture that appropriately. For the other sites, they weren't as extensively researched, but were subjects I know quite a bit about. I was seeking to edit additional pages so I could add images to items I update too. I shouldn't have rushed it, apologies. Would it make sense to offer a revision here of VMT instead of directly on the page? I certainly do not aim to break any rules, just add to the wealth of knowledge. Thanks for any advice! Conservbrarian (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Conservbrarian

It's always best to discuss such things on article talk pages. My concerns were that it looked like promotion of websites that are not reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for notifying me of the content you removed from pages that I post on to the other day. I was trying to abide by the wiki policy of by maintaining a neutral point of view. My question is were my posts deleted over the content or because it was linked to thefolklorist.newtv.org? For example, the wording of what I was posting was along the lines of "In 2014, NewTV's Original Program The Folklorist produced a segmented titled The Tale of Nikola Tesla," which I argue is no different to the post two lines above it stating "In a segment of the HBO series Funny Or Die, called "Drunk History", Duncan Trussell while intoxicated tells a story of Nikola Tesla's life and his encounters with Thomas Edison."

If you could please clarify whether these posts were deleted for content or links, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldridgea9 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. This is definitely a case where it is best not to follow the examples of others. Most "In popular culture" sections need huge amounts of work to make the material in them encyclopedic and properly integrated into their respective articles per MOS:POPCULT. Generally, if no independent sources are available, it probably doesn't belong in the article at all.

The format you and the others have been following falls into WP:SOAP as well, given the emphasis on the source of the information over the importance to the overall article topic. Overall, the additions appear to be WP:REFSPAM as well.

Have you looked at WP:COI? --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand why my edit was reverted. What do you mean "the references notes it at the top for all to easily see"? What reference says what thing at the top of where? The article cited is a critique followed by a rebuttal and a final counterpoint (have you read it?). I don't think it's fair to state that the article is critical but remove any other relevant details about what the article states. In fact, one sentence with one flimsy reference shouldn't even be its own section and needs to be expanded or merged into another section. The mention in the lead seems more than adequate for how little information exists on the subject. And if the article as it stands is written by two authors, one for and one against, it makes it a flimsy citation in the first place (it's really an op-ed piece in a 'scientific' magazine). That and the article is really poorly done. It's one long straw man argument that goes to great lengths to present Dean Ornish's arguments inaccurately (hence why Dean rebutted and scientific american published his response). If the magazine thinks Dean's rebuttal is important enough to include, then why don't we?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Copying to article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you left a message on my page saying that you'd removed a link to the Lab Tests Online website. This is a non-commercial website written on a voluntary basis by medical laboratory experts. Many countries have their own national version of the site, often coordinated by national professional organisations, and everyone who works in lab testing internationally knows that it is the most reliable and up to date source of basic information on lab tests. I have no connection with the site other than the fact I work in lab testing (in the UK) and I get very frustrated by the poor referencing/citations in Wikipedia lab test articles. It's obvious that most editors don't actually work in the field (I suspect many are medical doctors), so I thought it would be useful to point editors and readers to some accurate information. I'd like to spend more time editing the pages myself, but I don't have the spare time. Hope that helps. Arripay (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I will try to improve WCH and GOD articles with enough sources in the comings days or weeks.Kailasher (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, I hope you are well. I am wondering whether you could take a look at the Hridayananda Dasa Goswami page and help me to keep it neutral. One editor seems to want to make it a silly fan page, but not even by including references. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Such problems seem to be the norm when it comes to yoga-related articles. --Ronz (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I never said I would withdraw from the discussion and neither is my involvement problematic. I said I would withdraw from commenting on that specific proposal at that specific fime. What happened later was that you edited the article space without so much as any form of consensus-endorsement. Neither did I find that those sections were in any way independent of the old discussion. You are simply moving the discussion to a new forum to waste the time of others who again will have to point out why WP:ELBURDEN is completely irrelevant. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the extent of your withdrawal. You've not constrained yourself as you describe, but that's besides the point. You've not withdrawn from the discussions. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

"neither is my involvement problematic" Others disagree. I disagree. You're party to an ArbCom that includes complaints about identical behavioral problems.

I'm sorry, but your assertions about consensus don't appear to be derived from any basis in WP:CON or related policies/guidelines. Same for ELBURDEN. If I'm missing something, please summarize or provide diffs so we can move on. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Ronz:! I proposed a new draft for a potential History section on the University Canada West talk page. Do you think you could take a look and let me know your views? I’m interested in working with the community to improve the quality of the article as a whole, so I kept it brief and factual. Your feedback will be very much appreciated. Thanks! BrandDude (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For proactively addressing factual and neutrality issues in University Canada West. LavaBaron (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but that should be yours. I'm just trying to help you out. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ronz -

Thanks for allowing me to discuss this External Link further. I'd like to add this link (to Prager University) because I find it very helpful in the "context" of this section of his wiki page.

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link:

Is the site content accessible to the reader? YES Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? YES, Prager University is very closely related to Dennis Prager -- he created it. Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional? YES, no issues with it not functional.

Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors.

Additionally, I'd like to add his www.DennisPrager.com website to the right side bar. How do I edit / add this?

Thank you!

-P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.24.175.110 (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

I hope you don't mind me copying this to the article talk page here. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I don't know what you're concerned about in the Chopra lede re: weight (I think the revision you undid makes the medical point more strongly), but please suggest a way to merge the duplicated last sentence. It is redundant to the end of the first sentence, in both content and cite.

– SJ + 01:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If you'll read my comment about it, I tried what you suggest, and came to the conclusion that it is best left alone. --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ronz,

I just want to know why you think that the link (that you removed) is promotional. It's pointing to a whitepaper that have a detailed discussion on how cloud computing can help in green environment and is one of emerging green computing approach.

Looking for your reconsideration,

Thank you, Aditi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditityagi90 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

They are not reliable sources. They are self published and promotional by nature. The repeated insertion of these same unreliable sources appears promotional as well. --Ronz (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Hope you are well. I'm Wassim Zlitni, digital marketing Manager at exo platform and Nour-hm is also working with me in the marketing departement. We have switched recently all our pages to the https, such wikipedia did in July, to improve security level on our website. This migration involves an update of all our internal and external links in order to be taken in consideration by search engines and our partners and it's the subject of our last updates in exo Platform's page. So, i will be grateful if you take in consideration our last modifictions.

Best regards Wassim Zlitni Zlitni Wassim (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me. I've been trying to figure out what the general consensus is in this case (discussion here)

I think it is fine to change existing links that are used as proper external links per WP:EL or appropriate references. Go ahead.

Please do not add any additional links, and review WP:COI for more details on editing under a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Energy Catalyzer. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I could not figure out how to reply directly to your other message regarding a change of username. This username is my internet pseudonym. I have had the domain zanthro.com since 2003 and I use it to blog about my professional experiences. I am a user experience designer by trade and I am writing a lengthy article on the differences between different wire framing software.

Thank you.

Thanks for changing your username so quickly. I hope you took a good look at our conflict of interest policy. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I am the one who put up the info on the velvet antler page last night.

Please restore the info that was taken directly from the book Velvet Antler so that I may continue to update this garbage page with references. Heck the picture that comes up on google is incorrect for velvet antler and is being pulled from a supplement site...

The Kamen book sites 100's of references including this one concerning the information quoted and supplied- suttie, JM,: Haines, SR "evaluation of New Zealand velvet antler efficacy and diagnostic testing." New Zealand: VARNz Ltd,. 1996 which is found here http://www.sciquest.org.nz/node/37972, but that one source does not cover all the info that I supplied on the wiki page so it is best to use Kamen's work.

Thank you for your compliance so that I may continue the appropriate work to develop this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzix (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The book is not a reliable source for encyclopedic material. If you didn't notice my comments on it, the publisher is simply an entity for Kamen to publish.

I do not have access to the research you mention, Evaluation of New Zealand velvet antler efficacy and diagnostic testing, but it looks to be a suitable source for a great deal.

If you disagree, we should take this discussion to the article talk page, and follow the dispute resolution policy. Since no one else is involved, a third opinion would be a good next step. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay as you have not read the book you may begin dispute to remove content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzix (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going start on your talk page with your conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated several articles at TAFI. Some of them could need one more input and review to reach its three-threshold. If you find time for it please take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting project. Thanks for letting me know about it. I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, Thank you for your concern. I was in no means trying to create conflict, we just wanted to make sure the information (and more importantly, name of the company!) is correct and up-to-date. Are the changes now made ok? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richter1926 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Responding on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove my definition for biomodelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul D'Urso (talk • contribs) 06:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Biomodelling has been precisely defined by D'Urso "as the process of using radiant energy to capture morphological data on a biological structure and the processing of such data by a computer to generate the code required to manufacture the structure by a rapid prototyping apparatus." A biomodel is the product of this process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul D'Urso (talk • contribs) 07:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Ahyeek (talk · contribs) is you? --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I have a message that you have removed one of my links. Can you let me know what and where, please? I'd like to see if I put wrong description of the link or what. I try to improve wikipedia and link some interesting resources from time to time.

Best, Marcin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.158.194 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. All your edits have been reverted for spamming as described in my earlier message. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree some of the wiki that wrote about abdur raheem green, my name is safa, 36yo from indonesia, my email is: safarinanp@live.com

There is so much great characteristic of him more than just him as you said as an antisematic, please tell me if he is anti sematic by watching his lecture in 2011 and google this: //youtu.be/DyfdqocEKfQ

If you mind watching the whole video, just try the first 20minutes. Please get to know your source really really well before you wrote anything that will pass any negative judgement towards anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.166.99 (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but whatever problems there are with Abdur Raheem Green, they should be discussed on the article talk page. Start a discussion there, and I'll try to find some time to look into it, now that I've added it to my watchlist. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What are you trying to say in your messages on my talk page? I find them oblique and you don't even respond to my very direct questions. I'm finding it onerous and bothersome. SageRad (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, you asked me at SageRad's talk to elaborate. What I meant is that it is typical when notifying an editor of DS on their talk page to simply put a notice there, that the DS exist, so that there is a record that the editor was informed of it. You did not necessarily need to go into the fact that you actually have concerns that he might be violating them. That way, you are not instigating further conflict. Alternatively, you could have briefly stated that you also have concerns, and invited SageRad to ask you if he has questions about what those concerns are. That said, I pretty much agree with you about the content at the page, so please just understand what I am saying as friendly advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated. So the strikeout I made was on the right track. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm endeavoring to correct information regarding LLoyd Pye and his research, there is strong evince to support the changes I've made, which reflect the actual truth, the starchild skull is real, and not from a human male. If you take the time to watch his presentation on youtube "everything you know is wrong" and the starchild skull presentation, you will see what I mean. the information as it is on his page is incorrect and it invalidates his research, thus I have take it upon myself to correct this. The skull was also not deformed due to hydrocephalus, he clearly explains why and shows the difference between hydrocephalus skulls and the starchild skull.

Peace 86.97.72.255 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to continue with this, and avoid being blocked in the process, you'll need to get others to agree with you on the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

So, where is this talk page you speak of? my colleagues and I are ready to present our views and evidence sir.

You're no longer allowed to edit the article because of your continued edit-warring. Now you look for the talk page?! It's here. You've done yourself a great disservice by not going there sooner. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, i am concerned about your tone and your approach here on a talk page.

In the dialogue, there was an aspersion directed at me that i was making an ad hominem fallacy, which i take very seriously. I was not arguing on an ad hominem basis, so i took the time to point that out, and used an example that would illustrate it. I believe that this is acceptable on the talk page there, in responding to an aspersion to explain why it's not so.

Then you took the position that my very response illustrated that i am wrong, which is a sort of fallacy in itself, which is also one that would silence me, because it poisons the well against any further response by me.

Of course i understand that the talk pages are for talking about the article content. That is what i was originally doing, and other editors raised the aspersions and the allegation that my commenting about the sources and their authors was inherently an "attack" on the authors, whereas i was simply characterizing the authors in regard to point of view, for the good of the article. We must be able to talk about sources in article talk pages, and we must be able to discuss potential bias in sources, without it being assumed that it's an "attack".

So, i bring this comment here, so not to clutter the talk page anymore, but to express that i think your characterization of me as not dropping the stick is off the mark, and is also chilling and silencing in the dialogue there. Please reconsider that position. Thanks for your time.

SageRad (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't seem to understand. I suggest you get a mentor or someone else who you will listen to and can work with, because the many comments you've received on the topic seem to have had little positive effect to date. --Ronz (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Could you please have a look at Derose? Someone moved the page and the talkpage, but someone reverted the talkpage move. I was about to revert the page move, but am not sure if it needs to be reverted further back to ensure the two get back into sync. Thanks. (Pity not to see your name here) Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and confidence. Let's see what we can do. -Ronz (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You wrote:

Hello, I'm Ronz. I noticed that you made a comment concerning content related to a living person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, and this policy applies to article talk pages as well as articles themselves. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Tell me what I did wrong? Irna is writing against the project anonymously (!) against project, and she does not give any information about her/him self. What is the reason behind it? Can you explain this to me?

While you are so concerned that I pushed some buttons on the Irna discussion, then why are you not concerned when the Wikipedia article is slamming so much negativity on Dr. Osmanagich? I have even seen the talk page on the article and someone were calling Dr. Osmanagich very negative things, and I can't see that you reacted that they did that. Why so? Dr. Osmanagich is a living person too, and not someone that is writing anonymously behind a screen against the project, without saying who she/he is. The Wikipedia article has not neutrality or objectivity. That is not how an enclycopedia should be written! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBIHLover (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 December 2015‎

Your comments about Irna are defamatory. Please refrain from continuing to make such comments. --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Same with Dr. Osmanagich. You are not reacting when the people attack Dr. Osmanagich, but you do with Irna? --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please bring up the specific instances you feel violate WP:BLP on the article talk page. Do remember that properly sourced statements about an individual do not violate BLP. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There are still people on the talk page that are calling Dr. Osmanagich bad names and does not have any sources. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ask them if there are sources to support their comments. I expect there are such sources, and they're being used in the article. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please take the discussion to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

In what way do I have a conflict of interest? Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I just wanted to be sure you were aware of the policy given how you've been editing. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm completely aware, thank you. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Deepak Chopra page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned you here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

How's this looking now? Think there's still work to do, but reckon it's getting there... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Much better. Good job.

I've been looking for better sources with no luck so far. The topic came up in a conversation I was part of some time ago. It turned out that the person that brought it up was a professor that teaches a course in nutritional anthropology. Wish I got his name. He perspective appeared to be that the raw food and paleo diets were based upon ignorance of history, nutrition, the human digestive system, plant biology, the dna evidence of human adaptation for food sources, etc. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I don't understand why you deleted my link in the References section. It wasn't spam. The link leads to the downloadable Open Access ebook that is quoted in the References. The link would make it easier for readers to access the quoted Reference directly. Can you please explain why this is inappropriate?

Kind regards, Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulsKeller (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll expand upon the message I left you on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz, for your information about my edit submissions on the page for the Alexander Technique. I don't have any "external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia." I have been a teacher of the Alexander Technique for over 40 years and have trained with a number of the teachers of the Technique who trained with Mr. Alexander himself. In the early 1970s I also worked closely with the late Dr. Frank Pierce Jones who did research studies at the Tufts University Institute for Psychological Research. And since that time I have written and published fairly extensively on the subject of the Alexander Technique. There were many points I found unclear, inaccurate, and even misleading on the Wikepedia page, and I only submitted my edits in order to help the text to be a better representation of the fullest scope of the Alexander Technique.

I'm not sure if what I have just said can be of any use to you at this point, but I thought I should at least make a stab at explaining why I chose to offer the particular edits that I did.

Sincerely,

bostonflute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonflute (talk • contribs) 05:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Nice to have someone with your expertise and experience helping. I'll respond further on your talk page for easy reference. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronz.

I looked over the Conflict of Interest guidelines, and I don't see that I actually have a conflict of interest, since I am retired from teaching the Alexander Technique and do not seek to promote myself for acquiring students. I also am no longer a member of either the Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique in London or the American Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique here in the U.S. I am only interested in accuracy in representing the Alexander Technique and its underlying concepts, which are often misrepresented by people who are not very experienced in it.

But maybe you see some other reason why I would have a conflict of interest. If so, I would be very interested for you to tell me what it is.

Thanks for you care and attention.

Sincerely,

Bostonflute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.223.239 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific even before you mentioned you are retired: I don't think you need to restrict your editing much, just be careful. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I replied to your comment on my talk page but I'm not 100% sure if you'll get a notification that I replied as I don't have much experience with regards to how the Wiki system works so I'm going to copy and paste my reply here just to be sure it's been seen as I have asked a question in relation to what you consider to be inappropriate comments on the Bosnian pyramid claims talk page towards TheBIHLover:

″Understood, I only mentioned the YouTube fiasco to point out the tactics previously used and the fact that, as should be evident from TheBIHLover's videos, has a conflict of interest in the topic of the Bosnian Pyramid claims. If you'd be kind enough to highlight which parts of the messages I wrote are inapropriate that would be good as I'm not 100% sure, apart from 1 paragraph, which was probably a bit too directed at TheBIHLover, rather than the topic at hand. I trust my comments under ″suggestion 2″ are ok? I'm pretty sure that at no point I ″attacked him″ like he claimed, he/she uses that one on anyone who disagrees with them for an extended period of time, if however my comments where read in an undesirable tone then again I apologise, sometimes I lose a little tact when New-age followers go in circles, I won't do it again.-psyanide82.2.20.63 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, to fortify my comments about TheBIHLover having a subjective, bias viewpoint and conflict of interest I'd like to link their YouTube channel as proof of my concern, the titles of their videos will speak for themselves: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLtZpp5h1QOElWFD7RzKqjw . My comment about them blocking me was not on topic, I should not have commented that far into my previous experience with them, only the relevant conflict of interest, but again if there's anything else that I wrote that was inappropriate please, please, please let me know so I can make sure I don't make the mistake again. Currently reading WP:Battle.-Psyanide 82.2.20.63 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)″

Thanks for your time in advance Ronz.-Psyanide 82.2.20.63 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I notice you reverted my refactoring. I apologize if I messed up anything for you. I figured that, since you used an asterisk, you'd want it to be visible as a bullet, which is why I made the change. Now that you have restored your original version, the bullet is gone. You may as well just use colons. The left/right order of colons and asterisks makes a difference. It makes even more difference if a blank line gets inserted between lines and comments. Here are some samples:

Asterisk last:

• Bla

• Bla

• Bla

Asterisk first:

• Bla

  Bla (no bullet)

  Bla (no bullet)

Only asterisks:

• Bla
  • Bla
    • Bla

Only asterisks, but a blank line between lines (or comments):

• Bla

• • Bla

• • • Bla

If you remember to only use colons for the basic indentation(s), and only one asterisk at the right end for the bullet, you (and anyone who comments after you) won't encounter any problems, at least that's been my experience. If more than one asterisk is used for indenting (instead of using colons), then a blank line screws things up, regardless if it's your own comment or following comments. If one consistently uses colons for multiple indents, and one asterisk for the bullet, everything will look right.

What have you experienced? Maybe you have some other insights and experiences from which I could learn. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. I just can never remember how to get comments under a bullet to line up properly. I do use bulleted and numbered lists in discussions sometimes, but that wasn't the case in the Ayurveda discussion. As far as I know, it's only the numbered lists where it's necessary to use the combinations of symbols and colons:

1. First item

   Comment on first item

   Further comments

2. Second item

I often find myself changing numbered lists to bulleted ones when editors feel the need to add blank lines.

Happy holidays! --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool trick! I didn't know you could do that with numbered lists. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ronz: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks! Happy holidays! --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Ronz,

Thanks for your comments..

Can you please help me understand why certain references (e.g., for books, or products or courses) are considered to be legitimate, and why some of them are considered to be a promotion? How do I distinguish between the two? Why an article or book on Amazon can be referenced not as a promotion, and why an online course on Udemy would be a considered a promotion?

E.g., For example, see a reference [1] in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lean_Startup?

Many Thanks in advance, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkrc01 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Replying on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I feel I don't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with as a volunteer - I will redirect my efforts somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NulliusinverbaC4URSelf (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

	🍁 Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 🎄
	Enjoy the holiday season, gutes Heimkommen and thanks for everything you do to maintain, improve, and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Polentarion Talk 03:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And a happy Festivus! --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ronz:

Thank you for referring me to WP: What Wikipedia is not

I have printed out and reviewed the material. My concern having read it, is that for some people that have historically edited my bio it is a "battleground.' They see my bio as "a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda." My hope is that my bio will be a "reasonable perspective and represent a neutral point of view." However, some editors of the bio historically have "written purely to attack [my] reputation." They cut anything that demonstrates my credibility and give undue weight to anything negative whenever they can.

I agree that "Wikipedia is not a place to "carry on ideological battles." At times at Wikipedia I have been insulted, harassed and/or intimidated by editors rather than calmly and civilly responded to intelligently through polite discussion.

Please understand that I never sought a Wikipedia entry and at various times requested that it be deleted because it was being abused. Some editors were banned due to the fact that they were proven to be sock puppets for groups called cults. One was a full-time employee of a certain "cult" who often edited my bio. The interest of these folks is directly due to the fact that the Cult Education Institute archives, which is an online library of historical information concerning controversial groups and movements, some that have been called cults, is a popular resource for research. And also because I am frequently quoted in the press, interviewed and now have a book out about cults. I have often consulted and/or testified in court cases concerning cults. All of this makes me a target for retaliation and Wikipedia has often been a place for various people to do just that.

FYI -- CEI is a nonprofit tax-exempted charity and the site is 20 years old. It is free to the public and has a public message board attached that allows former cult members and affected families to speak out anonymously. The message board has been up for more than a decade and has more than 120,000 entries. CEI has been the target of five lawsuits filed by groups seeking to purge information from the Web. CEI has won four and defeated NXIVM at the Supreme Court regarding a requested injunction. Pro bono work offered by law firms, Harvard University Birkman Center and Public Citizen of Washington D.C. made those wins possible.

I have printed out a stack of Wikipedia policies and read them carefully. Recently one editor encouraged me to do that as you have done. As time allows within my work schedule I am becoming more acquainted with Wikipedia policies and can see how, if they are applied as stated, issues at my bio can be resolved fairly.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan

This bio has many violations of Wikipedia policies such as use of primary sources, excessive self-promotion, "Peacock" statements, etc. It is very poorly sourced. If you look at this bio and compare it to mine you can begin to understand my frustration. That is, Wikipedia's policies are inconsistently applied between two bios of similar professionals. I am held to a much higher standard than Steve Hassan. I know that is not your fault or responsibility. But I think the policies of Wikipedia should be applied equally and consistently to all bios of living people.

Again, thank you for referring me to relevant policy material, which is now on my stack.

Happy HolidaysRick Alan Ross (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Regarding the following, Mr. Ross:

"...some people that have historically edited my bio it is a "battleground.' They see my bio as "a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda." ... some editors of the bio historically have "written purely to attack [my] reputation." They cut anything that demonstrates my credibility and give undue weight to anything negative whenever they can."

Keep in mind that assume good faith is also policy. To claim other editors here are out to get you and intentionally harm you via the article is a strong charge and definitely not assuming good faith. Not to mention it sounds a bit paranoid and self-focused by suggesting WP editors have a personal vendetta against you. Wikipedia editors, by and large, edit for the benefit of Wikipedia and do so by keeping within guidelines and policy. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that I have no personal feelings/vendetta in regard to you, nor an agenda other than keeping the article encyclopedic, beneficial to readers, and in compliance with policy. Please don't make such unfounded accusations again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I made no accusations. I simply am recounting the history of my bio at Wikipedia over the years. In fact an editor was banned from Wikipedia for conducting a vendetta. My bio was one of the places he edited for the purpose of attacking the reputation of perceived enemies of his group. Please study the background history of my bio. It has been a battleground. I understand the principle of good faith regarding editing, but I am also informed by the past editing history of my bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe WP:ARBSCI is what you're referring to. I was going to bring it up myself. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Ross, it would be helpful and preferable if you started referring to the article as "the bio" rather than "my bio". The article is Wikipedia's and is about you, but it is not yours. Have you read WP:OWN? While not specifically about BLPs and their article subjects, it does address editors who feel they have an ownership of the article. I'm not saying you feel that way (because I can't possibly know whether you do or not), however, every time you refer to the article as "my bio", the appearance of a feeling of ownership or special rights is there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

As a editor that has spent a great deal of time working with editors with conflicts of interest, I think this is inappropriate. We know what article he's referring to. I don't see any problems with how he refers to it, nor know of any general or local consensus on such matters. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(stalker) I concur with Ronz. Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis for raising WP:OWN on strength of the fact that Ross never edited the article. From what I glean of the Ross' edit history, he is simply trying to get WP:BLP enforced. That's something every good contributor does, and does obviously not justify abandoning WP:AGF. Paradoctor (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with you on this point, Ronz, based on behavioral evidence to the contrary. It looks like he feels that way, I didn't say he does feel that way. I also disagree with your use of "inappropriate" here. You can say you believe me to be incorrect, but if an editor who's been here long enough to also have "experience" with other editors (especially when it comes to spotting detrimental behaviors), it's actually quite appropriate to advise an editor devoid of Wikipedia editing experience and a minimal understanding of policy to advise them of policy and to advise them they need to look at making a change in a specific area. Please re-read what I wrote above to get the total gist of my comments: I was very careful to state I wasn't saying he did feel like the owner of the article, but that it could be perceived he did. If anything is inappropriate here, it is you chastising me over this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Paradoctor, Ross has had more than one account and has edited as an IP at the article. Looking at his editing history of his current account is deceiving when it comes to his history in Wikipedia, which goes back several years. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Please don't ping me, I watch where I edit. Should I ping you?

"behavioral evidence" A few diffs would be most helpful here, not everyone has your eagle eyes.

"more than one account" I had found five edits from 2008 for Rick A. Ross, which do not appear to be problematic, especially given that they are the first five for that account. Any other "deceiving" accounts with edits to the bio?

"careful to state I wasn't saying he did feel like the owner" That may be, but the gist of what you said is that you think Ross has an issue with ownership, fine print notwithstanding. Otherwise, why bring it up? Furthermore, your claim of having "behavioral evidence" contradicts your claim of "not saying you feel that way". I suggest you either provide evidence or drop it, anything else only serves to antagonize a contributor who prima facie acts well within the spirit of our policies. Paradoctor (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"Please don't ping me, I watch where I edit" Having never encountered you previously, I'm supposed to know what your personal "rules" and quirks are? Why wouldn't I ping you? It's a pretty common and standard practice on Wikipedia talk pages these days.

""behavioral evidence" A few diffs would be most helpful here, not everyone has your eagle eyes" I'm not interested in making a case here that I have to prove. I was only stating what I've observed from a behavioral standpoint. Besides, if another editor doesn't have an education in behavioral sciences or an intuition for it, providing such evidence is typically fruitless. I'm not going to take the time to dig things up for for someone who doesn't have the tools necessary to understand why I'm presenting certain evidence, only to have it completely misunderstood, not understood at all, and summarily dismissed. In other words, it would be a total waste of my time.

"Any other "deceiving" accounts with edits to the bio?" For cripes sake. I never said his accounts were deceiving. I said that looking only at his current account is deceiving from the standpoint of how many edits he has made over the course of his history here. Please don't assign different meanings to my comments -- especially if the meanings being assigned give a false, a non-AGF impression.

"the gist of what you said is that you think Ross has an issue with ownership" No, that's not the gist of what I said at all. I said what I said, nothing more and nothing less. If you want to read something else into it, that's your (misdirected and inappropriate) choice but it's certainly not what was said or intended.

"Otherwise, why bring it up?" Because of how it could look to others, how it could be perceived. Which is what I wrote (I guess you missed it?)

"your claim of having "behavioral evidence" contradicts your claim of "not saying you feel that way" Not if you read completely, and in context (not your between-the-lines context), what I wrote.

"anything else only serves to antagonize a contributor who prima facie acts well within the spirit of our policies" Mr. Ross is not a contributor, he's a single-purpose account with an agenda: to fashion the RAR article to be an online resume with nothing but positive aspects to it. Contributors don't never-endingly dictate what they want in a BLP about them to make their online image better, they contribute to Wikipedia through editing in order to make Wikipedia better. For more, see this section at the article talk page. Happy holidays. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"supposed to know what your personal "rules" and quirks are" Are you nuts? I politely request not to be pinged any further, and you get pissy?

Since you are apparently not in an AGF mood, I'll spare myself the aggravation of replying to the rest of your post. Just don't interpret my silence as conceding anything. I disagree with you quite thoroughly. Paradoctor (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not interested in making a case here that I have to prove." Then I suggest striking out the accusations and letting it go. --Ronz (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no doubt the article will always be at risk of being a battleground, if it is not currently. ArbCom sanctions gives us some extra restrictions to help keep problems in line. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Rick, thanks for the detailed comments. I may be slow in responding to it all. I'll do my best. Happy Holidays! --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to all. Time to enjoy and celebrate the season with friends and family.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Y'all have a great Christmas/Winter Solstice and a wonderful New Years -- samtar ^whisper 22:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)