User talk:Gnurob

Conflict of interest policy
Hello, Gnurob. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
 * instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the template);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't feel very welcome as a new user. I contributed to this page--without the personal benefit you loosely accuse of me--to help the community. This link you removed is exactly what I hope to find on Wikipedia. Are you being too aggressive with link removal? Gnurob (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Here we have the reality of the troubles new editors have joining the Wikimedia community. At one time, 40% of new editors would still be active a year later. Recently, this number has dropped to 12% or so. There is no doubt that these people are finding it difficult to meet the impossible standards of the existing community (now experts, but new once themselves). These experienced editors are blinded by a deletionist attitude and obsessed with minor rules without valuing new contributors. It is terribly frustrating to navigate the maze of Wikipedia rules and user interface, only to be accused of ulterior motives. AND, if you read the comments above, only the remote possibility was sufficient. Wikipedia Editor Trends Study - Between 2005 and 2007 Gnurob (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * HI Gnurob. Yes there is a learning curve.  Part of that is learning about our conflict of interest guideline.  It is no big deal - many people come here and want to cite themselves or write about themselves.   Self-interest makes the world go round, as they say.   But in Wikipedia it is a problem, especially when it is not disclosed.  (please read WP:COI if you haven't yet.)


 * In your two edits to articles, you added links to the website robertmiller.ca.   Ronz's note was entirely polite and appropriate, and you haven't answered on point yet  So I will ask you more plainly and directly - do you have a relationship with that website, and if so what?   Again this is not a big deal - any such relationship just needs to be disclosed.  Once you have answered we can talk about editing WP more generally, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

An extended welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Could you please address the conflict of interest concerns so we can get that out of the way. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ronz, this has been address numerous times in the Talk page. You have not responded and appear not to have read this information. No COI exist.
 * No coi then. Thanks. Note that you are at risk of being blocked for your edit-warring.      --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed all the guidelines you have provided, responded on the Talk page, and--until now--your only response was to delete my message to you, and revert edits. The same applies to you sir.
 * Yes it does. If other editors come along and revert you, can we assume you'll leave it be? --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page for discussion, rather than including commentary in the article itself. Adding the link seems to make it clear that you're more interested in having the link in the article than improving the article.

Further, your comment makes it sound as if you are the author of articles at robertmiller.ca. I hope it was a mistake on your part. Please explain at Talk:Building_code. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with disrupting editors
I have encountered an editor that appears to be using aggressive tactics. At times it felt more like subtle threats, not a collaborative discourse towards a consensus. Most of the tactics appeared to be the same as those used [|Problem on BLP noticeboard] dating back to 2010. Generally, guidelines were interpreted with a heavy bias, and cases where exceptions are acceptable to Wikipedia were ignored. I feel a genuine attempt to contribute to this community was ruthlessly squashed by this bad behaviour that--with extensive experience--plays very close to the line while avoiding punitive actions. What can I do?
 * Hey there Gnurob! First of all, please remember to always sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes (~) at the end of your message. A few comments on the situation. First, don't take the cold shoulder the wrong way. Many editors are quiet, a bit brusque, and can even come off as rude sometimes. They likely do not mean it. Secondly, you can always discuss this with the "problem" editor. Again, many times, rude behavior from an experienced editor is not intended. Talking to them about it by leaving a comment on their talk page may help. In more extreme cases, you can consider posting at WP:ANI, which is a noticeboard where you can get attention from un-involved editors. However, please consider either talking to the user, or giving them a warning about their behavior. I would love to give some better advice, but without knowing the specifics of the situation, I can't offer much more than what I have already said. --allthefoxes (Talk) 00:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Hey again. After looking into what I could find, it seems as if your comments may be directed at the user . After looking through some edits and talk pages, I personally am not seeing much disruptive behavior. The user is being brusque, and may be slightly frustrated, but it does not seem their intention is to be disruptive or rude. We are all here to build an encyclopedia. Sometimes there will be clashes and butts of heads, and it is best to move on. --allthefoxes (Talk) 00:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Allthefoxes. I was in the process of adding a few more examples, and noticed I didn't sign my first message. Sorry! I tried leaving a message on their Talk page, but they deleted it. Then I added an explanation to the Article talk page, referred to it in the undo comment, and it was reverted without comment. Since then, the editor has made some comments on the Article talk page, and has mostly incorrectly applied the WP guidelines to suit their argument. I appreciate your advice and will go through it one more time. Rob (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, here are some of the others: [|More edit warring], [|Wikiquette assistance], [|bullying and baiting], and [|page protection and edit warring]. Rob (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - ISsues from 2009 or 2007 have absolutely no weight. Again, it seems like there was just a headbutting, and there is likely no reason to carry this any further. Dropping it an moving on would very likely be the best for all editors involved. Otherwise, you can consider following my advice in the post above. --allthefoxes (Talk) 01:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)