User talk:Hipal/Archive 40

edits in the OpenCourseWare page
Hi Ronz, many thanks for your greetings and for your edits. However, I would like to refer Veduca, which is a Brazilian start-up in education that aggregates OCW content and puts subtitles in Portuguese in them. I didn't understand why you have deleted my referal :(
 * Thanks for following up on this. Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Neil Strauss
I found the picture of his kittian passport. Is it reliable? Ssspera (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strange thing to find. It's a primary source. If I recall correctly, I've seen editors at WP:BLPN reject passports as sources for biographies. Worth bringing up on the article talk page and checking BLNP archives. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Occupational health psychology
Hi ronz. Asked people to simply discuss, (On my talk page if you like) before blanketing my good faith entry! No sources required for my entry by the way. If you think they are needed discuss with me first! You are not an administrator. You don't have the right. There is a similar inclusion on the industrial and organizational psychology article, by the way, for your interest. Anyway discuss with me on my talk page if you like. Up to you. But hands off my valid, good faith entry. We may need to get dispute resolution otherwise? I'm open to discuss my good faith entry but not open to people blindly deleting it! thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way. You might want to take some time to learn your way around Wikipedia. I'd started a discussion on the matter on the article's talk page, which should have been done long ago. Please join the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. As a non administrator please refrain from placing false assumptions and warnings which don't apply, on my talk page. If you checked the edit history, I was forced to carefully re-write my last 'good faith' addition, because it was blindly deleted without any discussion, despite me being open to discussion as you can now see. I'm new to Wikipedia. But not that new. Thanks but please check histories first before pointing your finger at other good faith editors. Also check the page please and let me know if the same editor blindly deletes my good faith addition/improvement again without discussing it with me first. It is a good addition and improvement to the article and benefit to readers. We may need to get dispute resolution involved.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to learn your way around Wikipedia fast before you're blocked for edit-warring once again.
 * It certainly doesn't appear you are open to discussion in a manner that follows our policies and guidelines. I looked at the situation, made an edit, gave a descriptive edit-summary and discussed it on the talk page. You removed it with the edit summary, "re-wrote my good faith entry after vandal deletion," without addressing my concerns. That's edit-warring. It also appears typical of your editing history.
 * You're at a huge disadvantage when it comes to identifying proper editing and behavior. Best to stop commenting on others', focus on your own, and learn your way around Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I don't want to be involved in an edit war. I say that on my talk page. Mrm7171 can't put unsourced material on occupational health psychology's relation to i/o psychology. OHP is not a subdiscipline of i/o psychology although i/o psychology, health psychology, and occupational health have contributed to the founding of OHP, a fact that is sourced in paragraph 1 of the OHP entry. Health psychology descends from clinical psychology but it is not a subdiscipline of clinical psychology. I/o psychology is related to social psychology and psychometric psychology but i/o psychology is not a subdiscipline of the latter two disciplines.

What you observed is Mrm7171 working around the edges with the paragraph he dropped on the bottom of the OHP entry, the paragraph about i/o psychology and work stress, that you, because you have been a good Wikipedia citizen, took it upon yourself to edit for brevity. The paragraph is not necessary. Yes, a small number of i/o psychologists have studied job stress. Read Psyc12's comments on how research on work and health had been outside of i/o psychology. I conduct research in OHP but I trained in developmental psychology (Ph.D.) and epidemiology (post-doc). OHP has come into its own. It has its journals, organizations, and research programs. The paragraph that Mrm7171 dropped at the bottom of the OHP entry should be deleted. Moreover, it remains unsourced.Iss246 (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing links to graduate programs
Hi Ronz:

I am new to this so forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand why you removed the list of graduate programs at the bottom of the Occupational Health Psychology article. The list has been there for quite some time, I only updated it for completeness. Can you explain why it isn't appropriate? Thanks. Psyc12 (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The general guideline is WP:EL. The policy is WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTLINK, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A list of external links only indirectly related to the topic of the article is considered a linkfarm, and is inappropriate for any article. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. The section in the OHP article page you deleted with links about courses has now been reinstated by iss246, without discussion. In the interests of consensus and civility over this, and rather than another editor just reverting it again, can you have a look when you can, given you deleted it, and already explained why you did it. Also maybe iss246 can be encouraged by more experienced editors than me to discuss such controversial changes before doing them. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Thanks for your recent contributions and editing guidance to the occupational health psychology page. I have just made a new entry, based on previous work. I genuinely believe it is necessary to leave in. But I am open to further discussion. The entry is also discussed in detail on the article talk page and the range of reasons I believe it should be included. It is also now heavily sourced as advised. Again in the interests of civility and consensus, I am letting you know and to be involved, as you contributing to the numerous edits prior to the entries final form. I also do not wish to enter into any deleting with other editors like iss246, who has never discussed this entry with me on the article talk page. Thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Ronz, I just added a detailed explanation of this minor edit on my talk page. Could you please read my comments and provide your opinion as to this inclusion. I really want to move forward from here and get some resolution to these issues in a civil way, without further conflict. Your help and experience would be appreciated. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: edit on Crowdfunding has been reverted
In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crowdfunding&oldid=563885304&diff=prev Grow VC have had a significant role in the history and development of the equity crowdfunding on the global scale as such they should be included in the list.

For few sources please see: http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/15/grow-vc-launches-aiming-to-become-the-kiva-for-tech-startups/ http://www.c2ivc.com/news/growvcc2iventureslaunchnationalfundingnetworkforchina http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cmpnewsdisp.cms?companyid=4152&newsid=406793

Some more recent: http://www.pehub.com/2013/07/08/grow-vc-group-buys-crowdfunding-platform-kapipal/ http://crowdfundconference.org/presenters/ http://www.wtcdenver.org/events?eventId=704986&EventViewMode=EventDetails — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vc20 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up with me. Responding on you talk to clarify the comments already there. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Graffiti on personal training section
Hey there, You seem to be pretty plugged in to the personal training page. I have added a lot in the past but don't check it often. If you wouldn't mind, can you keep an eye out for vandalism on the American certification study? People keep adding their certifications and I don't notice it right away. The findings of the study were limited to NSCA and ACSM. ISSA and many of these others that keep getting added were not in the positive category. - winspiff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.170 (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it up. I'll keep an eye out. Is it covered anywhere else besides Personal trainer? --Ronz (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Vastu shastra


8 Crore People using Parasara Vastu Ganitham to construct buildings in India. Formulas have taken from famous Sanskrit book and developed application  useful to world. It it free. There is no trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtsreddy (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a means for distributing your java applications. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

cookwareappliances.com
Hi Ronz,

Thanks! Will read the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dranyam88 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding links as you've been doing. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing
Hi Ronz I am picking a few random names from editors who have helped me in the past, hoping that one or more might be around for a quick reply. I seem to have read somewhere that it is against policy to solicit others to join an action. At the same time I have often seen notifications of the type "because you have been involved with this article, we would like to let you know that ..." or something along those lines. Specifically, is it ok/ not ok to solicit others to go vote on a deletion vote? Much appreciated, regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Replying on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sledgehammer

 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank
Hi, Ronz. Thank you for put a subject, now I see that I forgot it.

Best regards, Billiboom (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Bikini article main image replacement then reversion minor scolding of new editor, thanks!
Ron - no idea who you are or how you happened to find your way to the talk page of User:Kentongreening, but I appreciate your comment in support of my suggestion to them that they engage in discussion and seek consensus before making such a significant edit to an article like bikini as changing the main image from one of a set (of which was previously judged a "featured" pic!) to a personal photo they took of a relevant but inappropriate-for-the-lead new upload. It's really a pleasant surprise to find such unexpected and civil support! BTW: if you have any feedback on bikini it would certainly be welcome (especially on photo selection and layout). Cheers! Azx2 22:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. I don't expect anyone with dispute your changes and comments, but I'll comment if someone does. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Likewise, if there's ever something you need help with, lmk! Cheers. Azx2 03:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

BD
Ronz -- I appreciate your interest in improving the article, and want to work to make it genuinely NPOV. It would be helpful if you would take a more active role in this, finding new sources and improving the use of existing ones. hgilbert (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That is my intention. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. I'm looking forward to seeing this happen! hgilbert (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry this doesn't seem to be making progress. I'm curious, though: if you didn't want Lorand's work, which you had critiqued as a possibly unreliable source, removed from the article, what did you want to happen? I clearly misread your intention--would you prefer that I put the citation back in? hgilbert (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "the solution is not to remove the sources completely" was misread to mean that the source should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Medical Tourism in Malaysia
Hi Ronz. I just spent few hours trying to edit the article to rectify the information with more accurate information from a reliable sources. but it has been undone by you on the account that the edited version is highly promotional. Appreciate if you can advise which section is highly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayieng (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me about this. Let's discuss on the article's talk page, since there have been many, similar problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
you were right. i added that since i was really angry that the submitter of the plot did not credit the latex package documentation where this plot is featured. after a bit of digging it turned out the pic in the package documentation was reproduced to be in the style of wiki, and was thus not actually lifted from there. sorry.

Darko.veberic (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 
 * Not a problem. Thanks for the explanation. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

org listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Org. Since you had some involvement with the org redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Widefox ; talk 13:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramids Labels
Ok Ronz I shall reiterate my message, taking in to consideration your delicate nature in grasping meaning. My issue is with the use of words 'pseudoarcheology' 'Hoax' 'pseudoscience' and other such defamatory labelling regarding the Bosnian pyramids wiki article. Since as the verdict is not yet out on whether this is the real thing or not, such misleading categorization only serves to highlight the editors of this article as being highly bias and small minded. The source for information on this subject is open. Not in the hands of ready unquestioning editors who toe the line of any band of 'official archeologists' who are ready to reject as'hoax' any information they see as incongruent with the general conception of history.

Please, in the name of fairness and objective enquiry (titles I assume wikipedia is founded on);

Remove These Labels, until it is proven beyond all doubt to be untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickneachtain (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the information is all verifiable by independent and reliable sources, following the relevant policies, especially WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have already written you a message in reply to your last one, it looking like its not been posted.. Did you read it?

You say you couldn't understand my previous statement, putting it down to my use of the language, well allow me to restate the issue for your delicate nature in taking meaning from words. Regarding the Bosnian Pyrimad Findings, I am calling for misleading categorizations on the relative wikipedia article namely 'Hoax', 'pseudoscience' and 'psuedoarcheology' to be removed immediately.

I came to this subject with an open mind and would like an open source report of the event to be unbiased. As it is not known yet definitively if the site is the real thing or not, it is far from wikipedia editors to make a call on it, brandishing the whole discovery for the rest of us. Encountering the word 'Hoax' straight away from wikipedia in google search results, was indeed shocking! ..Is wikipedia not supposed to be a fair and objective information source for people. Seemingly not.

I have read much reporting for and against, and the information to say that it may possibly be the real thing is just as, if not more convincing in places. Although some of the editors here are only too ready to agree with official archeological statements about the authenticity of the site, I believe that there authority on the issue should also be brought into the debate, and with that - the commonly held assumptions of today's understanding of pre-history and its relevance in the current era.

It's seems like I am not alone in this call for fairness. Please remove these labels as a first step as they do a disservice to the wikipedia open source image, and then we can discuss here about follow ups.

Niall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickneachtain (talk • contribs) 08:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See previous response. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about why my edit on the "personal trainer' page was deleted.
Hey Ronz,

I edited the 'personal trainer' page yesterday. The page explains different certifications that are accepted to qualified as a personal trainer. I have been working as a personal trainer for years and one of the common misconceptions is that the only way to become a personal trainer is to become certified through an accredited certification like NASM, ACSM or NSCA. The edit I left explains that you can become a personal trainer if you have a four year degree in exercise science. Most fitness clubs prefer that you do have a four year degree because the knowledge obtained from it is much more valuable that any certification can offer. I was not trying to sound bias towards a degree vs a certification I was simply stating that a certification is not necessary to become a CPT if you hold a degree according to the largest corporate gyms in America. No where in the article does it mention that. And I resourced a great article that discusses the difference between the two and how it relates to becoming a personal trainer.

Maybe I edited the wrong section of the article. I put that information in the section 'accreditation' when actually I think it should have its own category. Like 'Qualifications needed to become a personal trainer' in which 'accreditation' could be a sub category within that. I am new to wikipedia and do not know to much about editing it. I do have tons of knowledge about the topic and think there can be tons of information added to the page 'personal trainer'. I am not bias at all, in fact I am also certified through two different agencies as well as hold a B.A. in kinesiology. Again, I was just trying to inform the public that there are more ways that to become qualified as a personal trainer other that obtaining an accredited certification. This is based on the hiring criteria from multiple different health club facilities I have worked in over the past ten years. If you have any tips on how I can get started on the right foot here on wikipedia so that I can contribute that would be great!:) Thanks for listening!

-Tyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerHRead (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the comment I left on your talk page if you've not already done so. I'll respond further there. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ronz,
I got your message on my page but I do not know how to respond to it. Should I respond by just posting another message on your page? Thanks for replying to my questions. I would like to hear more about what you think I should do whenever you have time. Thanks again. -Tyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.104.52 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Responding on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads up on Pakistani-related socks
Hey Ronz, yeah I had noticed all sorts of problems with these articles. It's not an area that I'm actually interested in editing but sometimes I get sucked into these things. I wasn't aware of the sock issues but it's clear there are some long term problems at work. I'll do what I can to help. Is there a range of articles being affected? Is it possible to semi-protect them for extended periods? SQGibbon (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here: I only encountered this because I have a few articles on my watch list that are regularly affected, and I noticed that one of the problematic accounts was blocked. At this point, I'm trying to spread the word in the hope that I'll find someone that's written up a report somewhere. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Raw milk


ronz, what is neutral about saying that 200 people got sick from consuming raw milk? all i'm doing is posting facts. if you think those facts are not "neutral" then you are biased against raw milk.

facts are just that, facts. there's nothing biased about facts. the only bias is your deleting factual material.

if you are not biased, then you need to delete anything that is biased against raw milk.

gary cox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.76.248 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me about this. I hope you're interested in learning about the relevant Wikipedia policies that apply: WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEDRS. You'll also need to follow WP:COI which appears to apply to your editing.
 * This discussion should continue on the article's talk page, where you'll note I had already started a discussion about the new references you've provided. --Ronz (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * one and the same. and yes, i am neutral.  i am merely posting fda's own data.  that hardly constitutes bias.  it's just the facts.  hiding those facts from the public's view is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.76.248 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I doubt anyone familiar with Wikipedia's policies will agree with you. We'll have to get others involved before you get yourself blocked. Further response on your talk so others' can find it easier. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

not sure i know what i'm doing on this "talk" page. not sure how to engage in a discussion. or what "coin" means or those other acronyms you put out. i'm a newbie at wikipedia stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.76.248 (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't help that Wikipedia is testing an alternative editing method. Instructions to your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

OHP
Hi ronz, Could you please add some input to the OHP talk? I have added a very well sourced diplomatic edit. I think another editors input is necesaary to achieve some civil consensus here before it goes any further. Your input would be appreciated. I also thought that self published newsletter sources could not be used? ThanksMrm7171 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to it in a day or so... --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Might also put this to the wider community for help particularly on topic of self-published newsletter type sources used as references.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Are you still interested in assisting with the OHP article? You have had significant input. Iss246 has continued with a one way edit war, again blindly deleteing and reverting others edits to 'his' versions. I have not reverted. My editing remains civil. But this article needs dispute resolution and possible arbitration. Also can iss246 be reported for edit warring? Will wait a bit longer before initiating dispute resolution request in the name of civility and consensus. Thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been a bit busy...
 * I find it helpful to identify on the talk page specific sources under dispute... --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Ronz. I am not blindly adding or deleting. A good deal of thought goes into my edits.Iss246 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I add that I think Mrm7171 is using all his energy to undermine OHP. First he claimed that OHP was a province of i/o psychology. Now he claims OHP is allied to nursing. I think it is time for him to stop.Iss246 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Angel Investors


Dear Ronz, You have recently deleted my post challenging the fact that Angel Investors follow an industry pattern when investing but rather do it on a "gut feeling" aspect. The source I have quoted is from a secondary source. here is a link to yet another respected secondary source proving my point http://www.growingbusiness.co.uk/investments-made-on-gut-instinct-say-angels.html. The thing is the fact that Angel investor use gut feeling is a known fact, however the only source to quantify this knowledge is Angels den. I mean, yes the survey was done by Angels Den which happens to be Europe and Asia's largest Angel network (which is rather convenient I think to investigate on Angel Investors' Habits), but the point remains valid. Moreover, most surveys are ordered by Companies does that discredit their findings ?

What do you think?

Kind Regards --Rhamusker (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope that Angels Den commissions the research from someone that could do a half-decent job. Even then, is information on such investing so bad that such research is notable?
 * At least you've found a better source. Good job. Add it back with the new source and trim make the introduction a bit more informative. Something like: "A 2010 survey found that 70% of angel investors mainly relied on their gut filling when investing in a start-up company." I'd expect there's far better research on the topic available, but it's a start at having something on the topic. --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know how they work to be fair. But I assume that they do. There has been PhD and MBA thesis on the subject, but the problem is that Angel Investor are almost impossible to approach. (I know because I tried !)  In order to get a proper survey  you need to have a big enough sample. And Angel networks rarely let anyone approach their networks. That is why Angels Den's survey is rather unique. I will do no worries! --Rhamusker (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waqar Zaka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VJ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

newsletter PDF links
Hi Ronz. Given you have experience with external links etc. can you advise on the occupational health psychology article. There are PDF links to an external newsletter which can only be accessed by a small number of members from that group. Is this a reliable source? Also there are serious security issues for Wikipedia readers downloading a dubious PDF acrobat, newsletter source, as the only way to view the reference? I am concerned that if readers download newsletters PDFs viruses, worms etc are a direct threat to be downloaded onto the reader's computer.

This is an important security issue to Wikipedia users without proper antivirus software. Can you or someone else maybe an administrator look at this. There have also been several 404 errors as you were aware from when you looked at the page, that were deleted because the PDF links used as actual references, were not working. Iss246says he/she has talked to the newsletter person who uploads their newsletters and these are now reportedly active again? I have also suggested that better sources than newsletters could be found? maybe textbooks or journals? but that is just my opinion? What do you think?

The security issues are serious risks to readers downloading foreign newsletters as the only way to view a reference, as readers are not members of the club who get sent the newsletters.Thanks Ronz. Please refer this to an administrator if you have not got time to look at it. Appreciate your expertise on this matter.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Chicken and waffles maintenance tag
It's great that you're working on it, but why ? The span template indicates citations are needed for the entire paragraph. Using a single CN tag implies only the last clause is in need of citation. Ibadibam (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tag as you like. I just wanted to the content in to work on it. I just reverted to the version that I was working from.
 * I don't recall seeing info tagged that way before. Seems a bit strange in general, and I'm unclear why that specific information should be tagged differently. Tag as you like. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't have a guideline as to where the standard or span template is more appropriate, although we could stand to have one. The span template is handy in that in obviates the need to insert a CN tag after every sentence, which is visually disruptive. The red highlighting also makes it clearer to the reader what parts of the article aren't backed up by sources. I can understand why you would be inclined to switch to the "vanilla" tag, if you weren't familiar with the span form. Thanks for doing that research, by the way. Ibadibam (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OHP
Hi Ronz. Thanks for your recent help with the OHP article. I followed your advice regarding discussion of points of contention. Took the time. Please read my recent posts and other editors posts. Anyway, just logged in to see complete mayhem from these 2 editors working as a 'tag team'. Not sure if thats how Wiki should work but anyway, its the integrity of this psychology article I am concerned about. Complete overriding Wikipedia protocol from these other 2 editors while I'm respecting the rules here, because I appreciate Wikipedia as a great resource. I really have tried with this article, just to get something of high value to readers. Anyway I am going to request mediation. The two editors are obviously members of this same OHP club, society or whatever, and 'ganging up' and they cannot be bothered with how Wikipedia works, or the fact that it is an encyclopedia, not a private website. If you could maybe you could lend a hand, final advice here in the name of civility it would be appreciated. If not, that's cool, I understand this is all voluntary and will try for formal mediation. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ronz, it is not mayhem. My goal is to have an informative and readable encyclopedia entry. I earned a Ph.D. in psychology, and I have published extensively. Mrm7171 and I have disputed a number of points. I will concentrate on one right here, the definition of OHP.


 * 1. I am not double-teaming him with Psyc12. In fact, Psyc12 upended the definition of OHP that I wrote. My feelings weren't hurt. I found that the new definition was superior to the one I wrote. I did not dispute the new definition. I recognized that the new definition was an improvement. My goal, like the goal of many other contributors to Wikipedia, is to have a clear, informative, and readable encyclopedia entry. Because Psyc12 did a better job than I did with the definition, I accepted that change.


 * 2. That definition comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is a reputable organization. A major division of the CDC, NIOSH, conducts a great deal of OHP-related research. As a result, the CDC has a great deal of experience with OHP. As an OHP researcher, I recognize that the CDC definition is very good. It overlaps with many extant definitions. The CDC is an excellent source.


 * 3. There are dozens of books on social psychology (you can select another branch of psychology). There is overlap and there are differences in how writers define social psychology (or another branch of psychology). The definition of social psychology (the psychology definition of social psychology; there is also a sociology-oriented social psychology I am not addressing) in Wikipedia comes from an edited book published in 1985. The writer who was sourced, Gordon Allport, was dead almost 20 years before the reprint of the paper was published. There may be other definitions with which Allport's definition differs somewhat. There is overlap too. But Allport's definition adequately serves its purpose. It would only confuse readers, especially readers new to psychology, to pile up multiple definitions of social psychology. Similarly the CDC definition serves its purpose reasonably well.


 * 4. There is no benefit to do what Mrm7171 would like to do, and show multiple definitions of OHP when there exists a highly satisfactory definition from a reputable source. Using multiple definitions of OHP would sow confusion. Think about the confusion multiple definitions of OHP will cause in the general reader of Wikipedia, particularly the reader who may not be that familiar with psychology.Iss246 (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, from my skimming the discussions, I think Mrm7171 needs to better focus on following WP:DR, and I said as much. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Ronz. I joined wiki in June to help with the OHP article after Iss246 put out a call to a group of leading OHP scholars to help with this article. The entire time I've accomplished not much more than help clarify the definition because every time I made even the smallest change, Mrm7171 would change or delete it, and then argue with me about it on the talk page. After he/she was suspended a while back, we were able to finish the definition, and for a while things were fine. Then suddenly a week or so ago, Mrm7171 decided to delete the definition and replace it with something that was confusing and incorrect. So again we are wasting time in a vain attempt to convince Mrm that he/she has things confused, and he/she just keeps arguing and complaining that until he/she agrees with us, we are not allowed to do anything to the article. Almost no progress has been made in the time I've been involved. Iss7171 and I are both very experienced scholars with hundreds of publications between us. We are volunteering our expertise to try to make this article as good as possible. We are certainly open to good ideas from anyone, as we certainly don't have all the answers, but Mrm is not making a positive contribution and is just in the way. I wouldn't mind if it were just discussion on the talk page, but he/she keeps undoing and changing what we do on the article, and is preventing any progress. Psyc12 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

10% Rule of Preventive Maintenance - Rickysmithcmrp
Ron,

Thank you for your question. The 10% Rule of Preventive Maintenance has been used by some of the best industrial plants in the world along with many of today's militaries. It is not confidential or owned by anyone. I believe information like this should be shared with others so they have the chance to be successful by using a process such as this.

I hope this helps.

Ricky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.230.138 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern is that you're adding your own work as references and links, in violation of our conflict of interest policy and other policies as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Rob Kardashian
Apologies, I assumed that somebody had just chosen the wrong Rob Kardashian from the Californian State Records and added the about.com source were it's listed with his sisters. Although, I'll add I did provide an explanation - it was to correct his middle name (which I considered to be wrong from that source). Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 21:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hancinema link in My Girl (2005 TV series)
please stop revome Hancinema of My Girl is database of Korean movies and dramas by --Sunuraju (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I noted, the information seemed redundant, so it doesn't belong per WP:EL. Please address these concerns, perhaps on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

fiza ali edit
Mr Ronz....i hv Edited according to an interview of fiza ali which was publiched in her early career times .at that time she was saying that she born on 1980 plus told about her sisters & brothers. next about subh ki fiza i entered is from news. about bangladesh,she is from their she told this in many interviews and even she can speak bangali. SHe married to fawad farooq and she is in lahore now i edited all this so that her wiki could be more accurate .if my edit could n't accepted its ok bt its full accurate bt i hv no single sourse u can hv her interviews and specially previous interview on jung magazine in maybe 2002 or 2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverMind 22 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble understanding your meaning. My concern is that the edit was made without indicating any sources. Given WP:BLP, we need sources for such changes. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Superfood
Dear Ronz, I kindly invite you to talk about the Superfood subject. I am simply replacing a statement that refers to commercial journal with another that is backed up by many scientific studies. If there is a point I am missing, please let me know; otherwise please reconsider my changes as I believe they are true. With best regards Candlelight2 (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "that is backed up by many scientific studies." I'm sorry, but the description you provide here doesn't match what you're keep trying to change. If you have far better sources, discuss them on the article talk page. If not, then it's probably best to move on. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar page
Dude!

Thanks for pointing out. After reading thru the zee article again, it does look like a press release.

However, the other reports from DNA and Times of India dont look like press-releases to me. How did you find out that they were press-releases?

Thx, Traintogain (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A warmed-over press release is a press release. As you know, it is regular and ongoing problem with the article for editors to try to make it into a soapbox for the company's press and pov, rather than an article about the person. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx. I'm aware of some weird edits on that page. Will be more careful. Any other way I can contribute better?Traintogain (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't your fault. You're doing fine. Working on such articles can be frustrating. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So you're not an admin, you reverted my changes, huh?
I don't know how to label an article as not a neutral article, but that one is definitely not neutral. The changes I made were to the Gary Null article, and they were to:

1. Create a Criticism section to collect the criticism in one area.

2. Add publicly known information such as his books, dvds, and social activism videos. The sources were Amazon.com, and youtube. I didn't quote sources becase first, it's a huge pain, and second, then you'd have complained that I was selling his products. Damned if I do, or don't. So I simply named his most current books, and people could go look them up in a library if they want.

3. I added his credential, nutritionist in the state of New York, which is widely known, and even his critics don't dispute that one. I added a sentence characterising his usual subjects of interest that were omitted from the article, organic farming, healthy living, etc.

All you did by undoing it, is make the article negative again and frustrate somebody who was trying to help. I'm not editing again, it's not worth my time or effort. Far as I care, you guys can suffocate on your ignorance. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

− I don't know how to label an article as not a neutral article, but that one is definitely not neutral. The changes I made were to the Gary Null article, and they were to: −   − 1.  Create a Criticism section to collect the criticism in one area. −   − 2.  Add publicly known information such as his books, dvds, and social activism videos. The sources were Amazon.com, and youtube. I didn't quote sources becase first, it's a huge pain, and second, then you'd have complained that I was selling his products. Damned if I do, or don't. So I simply named his most current books, and people could go look them up in a library if they want. −   − 3.  I added his credential, nutritionist in the state of New York, which is widely known, and even his critics don't dispute that one. I added a sentence characterising his usual subjects of interest that were omitted from the article, organic farming, healthy living, etc. −   − All you did by undoing it, is make the article negative again and frustrate somebody who was trying to help. I'm not editing again, it's not worth my time or effort. Far as I care, you guys can suffocate on your ignorance. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're referring to. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

timesofbook.com
why you are mentioned timesofbook.com is a spam blog? this blog provides valuable information to users. its totally irritating me and disappointment me. please give the way to new one boss...

Do you think timesofbook is a spam blog? Please revert back all links which is removed by you. the traffic of timesofbook may help some orphans as like me. try to understand Ronz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.182.254.33 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 September 2013
 * It is a blog.
 * It was spammed.
 * You'll note that I'm not the only editor that thinks so, as all your additions of the link have been reverted.
 * Discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

shivaconnect.com
Thank you- just trying to provide accurate and detailed information- Sharon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonrosen (talk • contribs) 16:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Simple trying to provide accurate information to people who want to learn about Jewish Bereavement and/or sitting shiva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonrosen (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't add it again. It would be helpful for you to acknowledge that you understand the message on your talk page and WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

4goodnessgrape and ForGoodnessGrape
Hi Ronz,

My name is Lisa List and I am an artisan and the single owner of ForGoodnessGrape. I am also known as The Lip Balm Queen. I have the largest online boutique of handmade lip balms on the internet. I'm also a nominee in the Martha Stewart American Made Awards. You can see this here http://www.marthastewart.com/americanmade/nominee/81129?=EML_AM_2013_CONFIRMATION. ForGoodnessGrape has been reviewed by many online reputable websites which I intend to reference here as well. ForGoodnessGrape is a trendsetter and I feel that since ForGoodnessGrape was started in 2010 and has such a large international following that it only seems right that it be included in Wikipedia. My works are original copyrighted pieces owned by me personally for which no one else has rights to. I'm certain there are entries in Wikipedia for other artists as well. Perhaps I should write the page about myself and then share story of ForGoodnessGrape.

Please let me know what you think would work best.

Thanks! Lisa List

Here are other artists I've found on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handmade_%28Hindi_Zahra_album%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shea_Yeleen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Juice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Heebner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gordon_%28photographer%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Rankin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Leavitt_%28artist%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4goodnessgrape (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Lisa. Thanks for following up with me.
 * It looks like you're in the process of changing your username. Great!
 * You'll almost certainly need help creating a new article about your own company because of WP:COI. If you start out with this in mind, it should go much easier.
 * We'll need references that meet WP:CORP - at least one reference from an independent, secondary source that meets our reliable sources criteria and discusses the company in depth. I did a quick google search for such sources and didn't find any, so your knowledge about what has been written about your company will be very valuable.
 * It looks like you're already working on the article. I see you're very good at promoting yourself and your company. However, an encyclopedia article on your company will need a very different tone, presentation, and content that what you have so far. If you write the article based mostly on independent and reliable sources, then you can't go too far wrong. Primary sources such as your own press should be used with caution to provide additional details on subjects already mentioned in the main sources.
 * I'll place a welcome message on your talk page with more resources for you. --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Bowen
Your accusation that I am editing from my own personal viewpoint ignores the content of the edit but also diverts from your insistent misplaced removal of valid material. A secondary source is a source which discusses a primary source and as such has the right to be included in information relevant to a subject. By signing in using my own name and email address to edit, I am clearly stating my interests, it would be easy to create an identity and secrete my IP. It is no secret that I am one of the world's foremost experts on the subject of Bowen and an author of two books on the subject, hence my username clearly being displayed in edits.

The fact remains that a secondary source is persistently, mischievously and incorrectly being edited by you who have no knowledge of either the subject or indeed it seems the definition of a primary source. Please desist in accusatory and ignorant remarks as well as edits which breach the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. The public have a right to relevant and up to date information and I am beginning to question your neutrality. Joolsbaker (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way. You're mistaken. Shall we continue the discussion, or are you just venting your anger? --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the article doesn't present a picture which will be useful or factual to members of the public seeking information, but instead seeks to suggest that there is no basis for any efficacy. The systematic review has been mis-quoted by you. If you'd read the whole review, it's clear that the authors are wildly supportive of Bowen, yet the selective quote suggests otherwise. In either instance, the review criticised the research methodology whilst suggesting that Bowen has an important role to play. Why should this be omitted? If you really believe as you say, that the public have a right to relevant information then the broader approach of the SR should be addressed.

Another relevant reference in the article discusses the difficulty of CAM therapies conforming to and gives a reference to another article discussing this. It's an interesting topic.

What comes across from your edits is that you just want to trash Bowen for reasons known best to you. The Quackwatch link specifies NST a therapy which has used the Bowen name to promote itself, but which has raised some serious safety concerns and has been the subject of a trading standards enquiry. Again this reference needs to be clarified.

If I am mistaken then I look forward to a more detailed examination of the systematic review, which by the way did not criticise any specific research article in particular, but rated certain studies as higher than others Joolsbaker (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your attempts to discuss the sources, I think we need to put that aside and deal with the bigger problems.
 * You're the one with the conflict of interest here. You are searching for others to battle and searching for opposing viewpoints to your own. This attitude is misplaced and disruptive.
 * We've gone over what you need to do - just look at your talk page. You're creating all the same problems you did earlier, as if all the comments on your talk page simply aren't there. You [appear to be on a crusade]. This will get you blocked. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am on a crusade to bring a balanced and truthful article on something I know an awful about and which is woefully and consistently misrepresented in Wikipedia. It appears that you and one other in particular are editing from the perspective of a sceptic. This is not a neutral position but one which starts from a negative. I am trying to discuss the content of the article. The systematic review was very balanced and drew several conclusions. You in the past have removed everything which shows the Bowen Technique in any other light than questionable at best. This is not helpful for the public and certainly not balanced or factual. Why will you not allow the SR to be reflected accurately. Why will you not put NST as the QT from Quackwatch? From both a scientific and journalistic construct this is immoral and flawed. I

I get that you think I'm edit warring, I get all the warnings, threats of blocks and so forth, but I am suggesting that the article needs more balance and you are refusing to consider this and instead want to talk about my attitude? This here is me doing what I have been asked to do, discuss the content and reach some consensus. Your turn. Joolsbaker (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Steven M. Greer
Ronz, there is now a second source for the alleged blocking / locking of doors and accosting of women at event. Second source report begins about halfway down the page, though it is asserted that the manhandling of the attendee happened during another speaker's (Wilcock's) segment. Whether it was still Greer's bodyguards in place is not clear. Something to keep an eye on if more reports emerge, because it is definitely qualifies as Controversy. Kdevans (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent removals from System Administrator
Hello,

Thanks for leaving me the note on my page. I understand that there may be the appearance of COI. I'm now a Board member of the organization in question (although there are other professions, such as architects, which have a link to their professional association). That being said, LOPSA does have its own entry, and it's referenced under the See Also section.

I fail to see why the Body of Knowledge of system administration isn't relevant to the article, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StandaloneSA (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

StandaloneSA (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm mixed about the Body of Knowledge link, and haven't seen discussions on such links elsewhere. Bring it up on the article talk page.
 * The professional association external link is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Images of Persian Rugs Removed
Hello - you removed a series of high-quality, relevant images of Persian rugs that I added to the Persian Rugs page, claiming the following: "promotion of collection - images are not representative of subtopic - looks like spamming of images rather than proper additions and replacements." I cannot fathom why you would claim such a thing. I have been working with rugs, carpets, kilims, tapestries, and textiles for a very long time. I made a relevant edit on a page that concerns an area about which I am particularly knowledgeable. I was motivated to make this edit because I believe that Persian rugs are a beautiful art form, and that, given the appropriate exposure to the best examples, most people would agree. Effectively, I made this edit for the good of Wikipedia, and for the good of the community that values Persian and other Oriental rugs as works of art.

I have to say, your removal of the images that I uploaded strikes me as being out of line and inappropriate. While all of the images that I uploaded were from the same source, this is because that source has a very impressive amount of high quality images of rugs - something relatively difficult to find, even on the Internet. I contacted this source, got the appropriate permissions, and uploaded the images to the page (which, for the record, I feel was - and now is - lacking in high-resolution graphical depictions of the subject matter, thus making it difficult for laypeople to fully appreciate what is being communicated by terms like "octofoil medallion," and the like). The removal of these page-appropriate images seems to me to indicate a desire on the part of this user to censor content that need not be censored. I would like this discussed and addressed.

Your casual, almost dismissive message on my Talk page (which looks like it is something that you more or less just copy and paste) was insulting. I am an art historian who uploaded some art to a page about art for the benefit of this entire community. From what I gather, you are not an administrator. Reading your talk page, it looks like you are something of self-appointed Wikipedia police officer, using your arbitrary discussion to censor people. While I understand (and believe in) the practice of keeping Wikipedia objective, informative, and useful, I do not believe your way of going about this is helpful to the community, I do not believe that it is academically or scholarly informed, and I do not think your proclivity toward censorship has any place somewhere where the free exchange of ideas and information is the very foundation. I shall kindly await your response before uploading the images again.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Catanzariti (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel this way. Looks like you need time to vent your anger. Afterwards we can discuss the relevant policies/guidelines and how they apply to the specific changes you're proposing. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

While an objective party might look at your response to my issue and see it as a patronizing non-answer, I don't care to belabor that point. Rather, I would just like to state for the record that I am not "angry," and neither do I have to "vent." I was just articulating my issue with what you did: you removed images that I uploaded because you "felt" that they could potentially be seen as an advertisement. I explained how and why this was not the case, and also took the time to express my frustration with your need to censor relevant content.

This matter was addressed on my Talk Page by Haploidavey, who edited his own comment twenty-seven minutes after writing it, when he realized that, in fact, I am abiding completely by the rules:

... If you were willing to unconditionally release the images to Wikipedia for free use under license, with no form of linkage to the commercial site, they might be usable in articles - though I see now that they're already released; so it's down to how they're used, and how they're credited in the text. I'm sure this can all be worked out, given time and careful attention to matters of policy. Haploidavey (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your removal of my images, which I am sure was done for the right reason in your own opinion, was not justified. These images are appropriate, applicable, and make the page stronger. I would kindly ask that, if you do take the time to respond to this, you don't write off my opinions, my reading of the terms, and my approach to this site and try to cast me as combative and angry. I am neither. I am moderately intellectually offended, but that is not the nuts and bolts of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catanzariti (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC.
 * As I said, "Afterwards we can discuss the relevant policies/guidelines and how they apply to the specific changes you're proposing." --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well. Let's say for the sake of the discussion that I have adequately "vented my anger" and that we have now moved on to the "afterwards" to which you referred. Let's discuss the relevant policies/guidelines and how they apply to the specific changes I am proposing. I shall again quote Haploidavey, as his post on my talk page is the most up to date and clear information I have received about your edit (you have provided me with no such information):

... If you were willing to unconditionally release the images to Wikipedia for free use under license, with no form of linkage to the commercial site, they might be usable in articles - though I see now that they're already released; so it's down to how they're used, and how they're credited in the text. I'm sure this can all be worked out, given time and careful attention to matters of policy. Haploidavey (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So, since I have done as Haploidavey said (and, in fact, had already done it before he said I should do it), it would appear to me that we need to just work out "how the images are used and how they're credited in the text." Perhaps you took issue with the subheadings under which I placed the images? Perhaps you took issue with giving the Gallery from which I got the images credit in the image description? I am speculating because you never said. You just vaguely said that Wikipedia not a soapbox. Granted, agreed 100%. How do you feel I can best use these images to enhance the overall quality of the Persian rugs page without tacitly and subversively advertising for this particular Gallery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catanzariti (talk • contribs) 13:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the image captions were inappropriate. All the crediting information is available with the image itself. Image captions should be brief, descriptive, and strongly relevant. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well. Should I interpret this to mean that if I upload the images again but do not credit the source in the caption that I will be in accordance with your reading of the policies? As this is literally the first and only constructive thing that you've said throughout this entire process, I am inclined to believe that it must be the most important issue at hand. For future reference, this entire process would haven been inestimably pleasanter had you just said that this was the issue from the very beginning, rather than playing snide games and hiding behind a false sense of authority. I'd have said, "Ok, no problem," and uploaded the images without crediting the source in the caption." And that'd have been that.

Normally I do not proffer unsolicited advise, but you did so for me, and I am inclined to return the favor: Do not presume that just because you have more immediately demonstrable experience with something than someone else that you are somehow above even communicating like a human being with that other person. If you're going to be a Wikipedian, do it right.

See how obnoxious, off-putting, and non-constructive that is? No need for it, no need whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catanzariti (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do look over WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLE, and WP:FOC when you have a chance.
 * You brought up the image captions, I stated that they were inappropriate. That's the productive conversation so far. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of reference from Attachment parenting
Replying to: '' Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)''
 * As you already aware, I did not remove any references in Attachment parenting. You deliberately wrote in false accusations for your edits in your the edit summary. I removed an external link which violates MOS and explained this in the edit summary specifically. You put that link back as a ref to attempt to make it appear as though I had removed a ref. Strictly speaking this ref is inappropriate as it is a primary source but I won't delve into that for now.
 * I have no quarrel with you so please stop whatever this is.
 * -- MC
 * It never dawned on you that it was a reference and that I thought it was one when I wrote "seems useful til better ref is found"? Best not to revert edits if you're not going to take the time to get some perspective. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit of Bishop Cleemis
Check the link in the article and also Baselios Cleemis. The actual name is not Clemis its Cleemis and hence the correction.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeambat (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're referring to, nor why you're notifying me. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Message received. Didn't realize. It wont happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acremades (talk • contribs) 00:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

References for articles
Hi Ronz, My intention was not to promote anything, but to include valuable reference material for the S. N. Goenka and U Ba Khin articles which are a bit bare. I guess the right thing to do is to add some sentences to the articles, based on these books, and then reference them? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millercdusa (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Use references to improve the article content. You might want to look for information currently in the articles that needs to be verified, as well as adding new information.
 * Please note that links to online stores are almost always inappropriate. Editors who add them find themselves blocked rather quickly.
 * I've placed a welcome message on your talk page full of information on how to get started with Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

RL
Ronz, I need your help. I'm the executive director of Reverse Logistics Association, www.rla.org I want to understand how learn more on how Wikipedia works, is there a site I can go to? Can you help me? 510-364-7631, Gailen@rla.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.233.181 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try. I'm not clear what you mean, "how Wikipedia works." Could you explain? Some context of what you want to do or see changed should help.
 * Introduction, Wikipedia, and WP:TMM provide general information that might help. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Jay Conrad Levinson
I run in the same circles as Jay. It's on his family's facebook pages. And on Seth Godin's blog. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/10/thank-you-jay.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick24601 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have something that passes WP:BLP as a reliable source, use it. Otherwise it will be removed. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Abayomi Rotimi Mighty
Hello Ronz... the intention of editing the stuff was not advertising. It was solely for proper definition of history. I want to use this opportunity to ask for your audience to study about Abayomi Rotimi Mighty. You will be so shocked at how a great legend has been forgotten. I do hope you understand my reasons for the edit. I appreciate your efforts in doing what you feel is right. Please accept my regards dear Ronz. I do hope to continue this conversation with you for as long as possible. Regards once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CREATIVEARMA (talk • contribs) 22:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you understand why the edits are inappropriate? --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

short-biography.com
Peace Be Upon With You, I've got your message on my page. As far as i know the external i've added is surely reliable. Perhaps it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. And i've mistakenly added the link. Anyway, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samazgor (talk • contribs) 10:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Please make a sound case for the link, because I think it needs to be blacklisted from Wikipedia completely. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Biofilter, Septic Tank
Hi Ronz, thanks for your concerns.

I do not view the addition of scientific, published research articles as references to claims to be advertising. These are not advertisements but results of research conducted in the onsite wastewater field by a reputable company that has worked in the industry for over 20 years. They were added to provide supporting evidence for existing claims in the articles, many of which were previously presented as bald fact without support.

Your reason for reversion is puzzling in light of the fact that some of the changes you reverted were the removal of content that clearly is advertorial in nature, notably this phrase:

"Biofiltration technologies dedicated to decentralized domestic wastewater treatment, such as the Ecoflo Biofilter from Premier Tech1, have been commercialized worldwide."

In addition, you reverted a change that I made removing an external (and by the way now dead) link to a promotional design manual that does not contribute to a reader's understanding of the topic.

As an actual expert in the wastewater field I feel that I can contribute to these articles in a valuable way. Many of the changes I had made to the article improved both the content and flow of the articles and were done piecemeal to provide clarity of my work. I have reverted your reversions and in the future would appreciate it if rather than wholesale reverting of the sum of my work you take the time to go through the changes individually on their own merits.

I however do not appreciate the fact that you searched for and removed related references that no one has seen as an issue for over 6 years (shipping container architecture). This was the one reference that, had you argued it, I would have conceded as being 'advertorial' in nature, and I have replaced it with a scientific article backing up the claim that alternative uses of shipping containers include wastewater treatment systems.

Thanks,

CocoaNutt (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)CocoaNutt
 * Thanks for responding. I'm glad that you understand that at least some of your editing was purely promotional in nature. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Timesofbook spam
Hi Ronz, I noticed that you initially filed the spam report for timesofbook. Just wanted to let you know that there has been attempts to circumvent the blacklist by using URL shortener. -SFK2 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks like everything has been handled. He's indef blocked and all the spamming was removed rather quickly. --Ronz (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still going on . Perhaps we need to add the URL shortener to the blacklist. -SFK2 (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've added further information to your report. Good job. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your message, I am starting to follow the reference pattern in the articles I am editing I hope I am doing well, not all the articles I references had doi is it OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjalyout (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just put in what information you can find. It looks like you have the formatting worked out. Take some time to go over MEDRS. One of your references has already been removed because of MEDRS and it was in a featured article. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Wiki on Dr. Steven Greer
Hi Ronz

I altered this page spesifically the one word in the sentence below (human to humanoid) : Genetic evidence showed later that it was a human child skeleton, only a few decades old, and the mother was most probably "an indigenous woman from the Chilean region of South America".[36][37]

This statement is false as it stands now October 2013. The genetic evedence matched 93% to human DNA and the other 7% is being decoded. As this is unknown an strand of DNA it will take 2-4 years to de-code with enough funding. The correct term at the moment is humanoid meaning two legs, two arms, two eyes walking up straight etc. The being found is 6 inches long and analysed as being 8 years old which has never been documented before. After examination of the body the scientist found that there were no signs of deformation or growth problems. The being also has 10 ribs as opposed to 12 of humans together with one bone in the leg as opposed to 2 bones in humans and also 1 bone in the arm as opposed to 2 bones in humans. The skull is also much bigger in proportion to the body.

Basically the research is ongoing but no-one as of yet has proven that this creature is human.

Many thanks for your time.

Best wishes

Yuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.142.70 (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up with me. Unfortunately, changing the title of an article to fit your original research and point of view is inappropriate. Bring it up on the talk page if you like, but you might want to review WP:OR and WP:NPOV first, and be prepared that you'll be unable to convince anyone. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Promotional contributions for Duolingo
Ronz,

My contributions were all accurate. You can search for Duolingo and see for yourself. In many cases where companies such as the Khan Academy or Coursera are mentioned, Duolingo should be mentioned as well. That's all.

Best, Gina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.102.57.83 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll rethink this after getting another notice about your editing. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Business Letter
Hey Ronz,

Just got your message. You had deleted a link I posted on this page. You thought it was spammy, probably because the name (businessletter.co). I recently changed it to mybusinessletter.com (so it didn't seem as spammy). But I didn't add it back.

Anyway, I kind of feel that an encyclopedia page should be about the subject, in this case "business letters." I think the page does an OK job with that. But it should also identify books and websites and other help for people who actually want to write a business letter.

So, I do think it needs a resources list…even if you feel uncomfortable having my site listed as one of those resources.

Thoughts?

Mhan7474 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me.
 * The relevant guideline is WP:EL. While I'm not certain what you mean by a "resources list" what the article (and related articles) needs are more and better references. External links are reserved for information that cannot be otherwise incorporated in the article. If you think your website fits WP:EL, then bring it up on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Feldenkrais
Hi Ronz, these are not primary sources, they are professional assessments of the Feldenkrais Method. They make no claim for efficacy. Span (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to "primary sources" as in WP:PSTS. I don't see how anyone can argue that they are something else. Further, one of the links was simply WP:LINKSPAM.
 * I see that others have started discussions with you about sources. I strongly advise reviewing the relevant policies and guidelines, then maybe ask for clarification on relevant talk pages or noticeboards. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled as to how the Feldenkrais Guild of the US or UK can be regarded as a primary source. Span (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should focus for a moment on the independence of the source instead? I hope we can agree that there's no independence whatsoever. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The material is also self-published.
 * I consider it primary because they are not removed from the events and directly involved. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

doubtful behavior of mine
Dear Ronz, thank you for your kind remarks, i am actually still new to Wikipedia editing. i an in the field of quantum mechanics and physics and also stock markets (Quant.). i will only seek increasing the knowledge of people by giving them freely available infos even when available from external sites that touches directly to the subject cited on the page. i understood your remark tho and do admit it looks like spammy or involving promotions of specific websites, but the links i added are directly related to the topics. in the future i will try to add content and images rather than just links - i was just too lazy to try to reformulate what s in the page :p i mean this needs lots of effort. from now on i ll try to avoid referencing to pages and rather add more contents to wikipedia. i thank wikipedia for the tremendous amount of infos i learned from it. and please keep watching my activities, i ll take you as my mentor for safely editing. Regards Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam lyon fr (talk • contribs) 08:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Yes, it takes a lot of effort and there's much to learn. I don't have the time to mentor you, and I don't do a great deal of article creation/expansion, so you might want to try WP:ADOPT. I can answer questions and point you to relevant policies/guidelines/etc. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

graph partitioning
I am sorry but I don't see why it should not be there. I am a professional researcher in the area of graph partitioning and all the things added are highly relevant to the topic and very valueable to a reader of this article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.schulz (talk • contribs) 10:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Take it up at WP:COIN before you're blocked. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I added it to the discussion of the article. I hope we can resolve the issue. If the references of the graph partitioning frameworks disturb you, we can remove them, sure. But this is the basis of the partitioning frameworks so why remove them? Are you saying that graph partitioning frameworks are not relevant to the topic? I did not only add our graph partitioning package but all of them (including their links). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.schulz (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saying all the edits are promotional, done against a conflict of interest. Blatant self-promotion like this will get anyone blocked rather quickly. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Web chat
Hi Ronz,

Hope things are good at your end. you have removed my contribution on page named " Web Chat". Can you please tell me why? and how should I revert It ? Stevelampard444 (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevelampard444 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up with me.
 * Have you found the comments on your talk page yet? You've been spamming links to solutioninn.com, and I noticed that your username appears to be that of an employee solutioninn.com, which means that you likely have a conflict of interest.
 * It would be best if you didn't try to add anything more related to solutioninn.com to any article until you've decided how WP:COI applies to you, and you shouldn't be adding links to any article when they fail our external links guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have no connection with solution Inn. I just used the name of one of thier employee. I just want to contribite for wikipedia, so selected Solution Inn because I have fair idea regarding operations of this company as I used to outsourced my work through Solution Inn. So kindly let me revert my link. See It is useful link. Such externel links can benefit readers.05:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevelampard444 (talk • contribs)
 * "I just used the name of one of thier employee." Your choice to use that name is evidence enough for me that you have a problematic bias.
 * Regardless, if you somehow feel that the link meets WP:EL, take it up at WP:ELN. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bubble Charts
Hello Ronz,

The sections and illustrations that you removed were written and displayed in a neutral style. They were factual and all links and references to software websites were removed by me, with the exception of the Microsoft link that you seemed to think was okay.

The section on three-dimensional bubble charts you removed is a legitimate section for that page, as they are unique and different from two-dimensional bubble charts. Having illustrations of 2D and 3D bubble charts on a page about bubble charts adds greatly to the page and they are content neutral. Allowing no illustrations on a page about a type of chart, or only the rudimentary ones at the top of the page, is a disservice to the encyclopedia reader.

I believe that after editing the page the second time, that all of my contributions are carefully written from a neutral point of view, as per Wikipedia policies. The illustrations I provided link to the Wikicommons and not to a commercial website.

Perhaps, as Wikipedia suggests, you could talk first with the author before you delete their contributions to a page, and I respectfully request that you restore the page to its previous state or discuss why you think that that bubble chart illustrations and the discussion about 3D bubble charts are not content neutral. Remember, Wikipedia does not prohibit people with expertise or interest in a subject matter from writing about that subject, it simply asks them to be extremely careful when they do.

Kind regards,

George

George Huhn (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. It might be best to take this straight to WP:COIN. I contacted you first. You made some attempt to make your contributions far less promotional. However, they're still promotional in nature and show a repeated disregard from the policies brought up on your user page.
 * Can I assume you're not disputing the removal of your contributions from Project management? --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

As another editor pointed out, there are lots of other charts used in Project Management so bubble charts shouldn't be singled out.

Regarding the bubble chart contributions, you say that they are "still promotional in nature and show a repeated disregard from the policies brought up on your user page" but you have not provided any specifics. I have read the policies and provided you with the specific as to why they are now in compliance with the policies. As I have stated above, the content that I added is relevant, written in a neutral language and there are no self-promoting links. Saying that I "show a repeated disregard from the policies brought up on your user page" is un-constructively accusatory when I have clearly made the edits necessary to bring them into compliance with the policies.

In regards to the "Crime in the U.S." page, which you also said was self-promotional: The charts illustrating crime in the U.S. versus Education and Poverty were on-topic, relevant, used non-biased verifiable sources, and were written in a neutral tone. After my edits, there were no links to my blog or my website or any other promotional text, so I don't understand why you deleted them again.

So I am happy to understand specifically why you think that my contributions are still "still promotional in nature and show a repeated disregard from the policies..." or what more I could do to make them acceptably non-promotional, in your judgement. I edited them in good faith to comply with the policies. In the meantime, I think that you should restore the page to as it was before you deleted my last edits. It seems odd to me in a situation in which there are no self-promoting links or self-promotion and the content is undeniably relevant that an anonymous person who chooses to delete the content should automatically have the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not they are in compliance with Wikipedia policies.

Kind regards,

George

George Huhn (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi George. Again, I recommend that this go to WP:COIN. In my opinion the editing we're discussing is a serious breech of Wikipedia policies that has you at risk for being blocked.
 * Editors that I've encountered under similar circumstances do one of two things to follow our policies: Either they work on articles completely unrelated to their coi, or they use their expertise to improve the sourcing and article content on articles where they have a coi while clearly avoiding the specific topics where they have a coi.
 * You appear to be looking for another option where you still benefit from self-promotion. Again, in my opinion, this will just lead to a block.
 * I think it would be best to get others involved in resolving this dispute. If not at WP:COIN, then some other venue as described in WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ronz,

Clearly Wikipedia prefers that these matters be discussed and settled in the "Talk" sections and not be elevated to WP:COIN unless there is an irreconcilable impasse. I would like to try to work it out here.

You offer opinions like "we're discussing is a serious breech of Wikipedia policies," but don't offer any specifics as to what those are. Wikipedia does not prohibit editors from writing in sections that they may have a COI; they do urge care and caution when doing so. In this situation, I believe that everything I included in my last edits on bubble charts and crime in the U.S. was neutral and there were no self-promoting links. By the way, "Crime in the U.S." is completely unrelated to my COI.

I am not a long-time Wikipedia editor and I am always willing to learn from my mistakes. However, accusing me of "a serious breech of Wikipedia policies" in my most recent edits without being at all specific is neither educational nor constructive. If you have something specific and constructive to point out about my current edits you think is self-promoting, then I wish you'd tell me so I could change it. Otherwise, it does not feel like you are engaging in this discussion in good faith.

I'd prefer that we resolve this here.

Kind regards,

George — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.151.237 (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you were to restore your original edits, you'd most likely be blocked, and most likely indefinitely blocked. That's what I mean.
 * I've given you two options that have worked well with others in your situation. I don't have the time to try to formulate a third, even if I thought it would be a productive exercise, which I don't.
 * Please take it up elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Social Innovation Page, blog link
Kapoorneeraj (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)hi, I added Your Well Wisher Program with the link http://yourwellwisherprogram.wordpress.com at Social Innovation page. This link should not be removed as this link is about social innovation. It is an attempt to solve commonly known problems with the strategy to bring clarity to well educated people. Can you check the about page and the other content on it. Designed Foot controlled hand wash that saves water and bring more hygiene on hand wash. This is not yet documented anywhere and invented by me. It will change the way we use water on hand wash. It is the first time that movie script based learning is introduced to articulate concept or innovation. There is no commercial aspect in the link. request you to revert it to be present there.Kapoorneeraj (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up with me.
 * It's a link to a blog entry, so is inappropriate per WP:ELNO #11.
 * You've also a conflict of interest with the subject. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your link deletion strategy
Hi Ronz. Thank you for tracing all the links I placed at different point of time to support and explain different subjects. I expect any wikipedia editor to understand the basic fact that one single person can not be associated with so many different links and there must be reason while someone is adding these links. You found a link against National Report and deleted all other related links in all different articles. But I want to ask you a simple question. Check the page Kolkata derby from where you removed the link of a website called http://www.CurrentScore.info which even Google returns at top when a East Bengal vs Mohun Bagan match is on. If you do not believe me search Google on November 24, 2013 at 4PM IST. Anyways, that is not my point. I found that though you removed the link of CurrentScore.info you did not touch the link just beside it, i.e. KolkataFootball.com. Why ? You think KolkataFootball.com is a reliable website whereas CurrentScore.info is NOT ? Can you please explain it in terms of Wikipedia reliable source ? This KolkataFootball.com has spreaded hundreads of links across Wikipedia. Will you take your time to find them out and remove them and act against the persons responsible for this ? Please reply or act. Thank you. --UpalC (talk) November 21, 2013 (IST)
 * Thanks for responding. However, you're ignoring the problems that have you at risk of being blocked and all the links being blacklisted from Wikipedia.
 * Shall all the KolkataFootball.com links be removed as well? Given that you didn't spam them all, I'm being more cautious. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response Ronz. I am NOT ignoring the problems, but questioning the way some wikipedia editors are deciding upon reliable source. You must maintain a standard for being a reliable source. If CNN BBC is the standard, then let it be so. Delete anything below that. And if KolkataFootball.com or SportsKeeda.com is the standard, then let CurrentScore.info stay as well. I am expecting impartial judgement for all sources. Thank you. --UpalC (talk) November 21, 2013 (IST)
 * As I understand it, you were the previous owner of the KolkataFootball.com domain, or something similar. Once you created CurrentScore.info and no longer had a relationship with KolkataFootball.com, you started replacing them.
 * Since you have a coi with this, I'll take it to RSN for you. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I was confusing your kolkatafootballs.com with kolkatafootball.com. Yours should be removed.
 * Looks like there are problems with kolkatafootball.com as well. Let me look closer. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're correct. It is not a reliable source. It should be removed too.
 * I bet there are new spammers as well... Yep.

Thank you Ronz for understanding my point. Let me tell you that, apart from adding content to Wikipedia, I put in links in 2 situations - i. When existing links are there of same standard. ii. When proper counter explanation is not found in any of the reliable sources, which happened for National Report. But, I DO NOT SPAM. Links are always related to the subject. --UpalC (talk) November 21, 2013 (IST)
 * Thanks for sticking with me.
 * I'm going to clean up these football links and look further. It will take time and I don't see any need to hurry.
 * Please look closely at WP:COI. You've been given a final warning. If you add any other link in a manner similar to what you've done in the past, you'll likely be blocked, and you'll be lucky if it is not an indefinite block.
 * If you want to learn in general more about what are and are not considered reliable sources, ask questions at WT:IRS.
 * For specific edits that I've made, go ahead and ask me. jolchobi.com is not a reliable source, and you have a coi with it. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems you have removed links of www.the-aiff.com, which I contradict. AIFF is the governing body of Indian football and their official website is www.the-aiff.com. I think this website should be regarded as reliable source. Thank you. --UpalC (talk) November 21, 2013 (IST)
 * Sources and external links are two separate and different things. I removed the external link per WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. I am done with my explanation of football related links and now moving over to another edit I made and you removed. Please go to the first paragraph of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_hack where the examples of 'groups', 'fold it' and 'google' are given. Do not you think that the phrase 'tweet in', symbolised by http://2et.in, or the word 'ReTweeting', symbolised by http://re.2et.in, deserve a place here ? I am not saying a link is required. I am saying a mention is worthwhile. Looking for your opinion. Thank you. --UpalC (talk) November 23, 2013 (IST)
 * The article is a mess and needs to be stripped of any examples not backed by independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Then why are you allowing grou.ps, fold.it etc. to stay ? I added 2et.in because it was the only domain hack I found using a .in domain. If you think all these are worthless, then why remove only one ? Please remove all of them. Wikipedia is maintained in a democratic format. If an US site makes its place so should an Indian site. If you take responsibility of removing one, remove them all. Or else please let the Indian domain extension stay as well. Thank You. --UpalC (talk) November 23, 2013 (IST)
 * I'm sorry, but your assumptions about what I am and am not doing are simply inappropriate, much less telling me what my responsibilities are.
 * I cleaned up your mess. That doesn't mean I have to clean up all the other messes in all the other articles that your or anyone else edited. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry about VOSS Solutions article


Hello Ronz,

I am a representative of VOSS Solutions, (admittedly complete newbie in Wiki), who is wondering what to do (if anything) to comply with standards, request edits, etc etc in order to qualify for the removal of the 'Looks like an advertisement tag' currently posted onto VOSS Solutions' article. Looking at the article's revision history, it seems that some positive actions have been made by another editor since it was flagged as promotional? VOSS seeks only neutral representation and doesn't want to have any sneaky/suspicious posts out there (on any platforms, especially Wikipedia).

Thanks for your time!

71.233.210.201 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC) CSweeney
 * Sorry I overlooked your note.
 * Given how the article was started, a complete rewrite from sources both reliable and independent would be ideal.
 * An easy start would be to remove everything supported only with press releases or similar press.
 * VOSS Solutions is one of a number of articles that are a part of Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_68. Since the editor has basically withdrawn from editing, I was going to take the list to WP:NPOVN to get ideas on how to proceed. I think instead I'll start with this article so you can have the attention you want on it right away. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion started here. I'll start a few discussions on the talk page as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated - would appreciate anyone's help on this. VOSS is generally concerned about Wiki presence just due to the fact that they've seen equitable peers/competitors recognized/having articles on Wiki, etc. If I can provide any informations, sources, etc etc please let me know. Trying to learn the processes here. Thanks again for your time and explanation! 71.233.210.201 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)CSweeney
 * The easiest thing you can do is suggest changes on the article's talk page.
 * The highest priority concern is to clearly establish that the company meets WP:CORP with appropriate sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User experience design
Agreed, links to the author's pages would be nice. The ISBN citation template doesn't provide a usable implementation of this metadata when entered. However, if the authors themselves are crucial to the article, they and their contributions to the field should be called out by name within the article text itself, not just in "Further reading".

However, this section should probably be further revamped, not by adding in links to the authors' Wikipedia pages, but by actually moving some of these readings to the "User interface design" page, as they speak less to UX design (a broader field) and more to UI design (a narrower field within UX design).

WikkanWitch (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with how the templates work, but now that I look, the examples have links. Why don't the ones used in the article? --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

GFI SOFTWARE
http://www.teamviewer.com/en/company/company.aspx I canot understand why a page original of the company thas is being cited canot be used like a reference!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauricio ximenez (talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up with me. I understand the confusion. You added it as a reference, but made no other changes to the ariticle, or did anything else to indicate what it was a reference for. I'll give you details on your talk page on how to resolve this. --Ronz (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Massive open online course
I have been editing several entries recently, so it would be helpful if you gave me specifics on what you deleted so I know to avoid promotional-sounding language in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetfount (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the articles are being used for promotional purposes. It's not about language at all, though the language could be better I'm sure. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wendell Cox
I'd like an explanation or maybe I'll just return the favor. BTW your edit reason on the Wendell Cox article is not correct as the subject of the article is not disputed, it was the spamming that was being done on other articles. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain Wendell Cox edit summary
WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK ?

Can you please explain to me exactly why you deleted material that was added by myself and other editors to the Wendell Cox (correction edit 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC))in this reversal of my edit to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendell_Cox&diff=prev&oldid=583420038?

From the way that I remember it, I only added the link to the Demographia site which is mentioned in the main article several times, AND the Cox article happens to be a redirect for Demographia. I did not build that list of links but I did see it and what other editors had posted there looked OK to me. Please explain in detail how exactly my edit and the other editor's material that you removed pertains to WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK, because I could not find a suitable reason listed there(s).24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL found on the page that you sent me to. I think that says that is where those links belong?24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Responding on article talk. --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Ronz. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Section Blanking Reason NPOV.The discussion is about the topic Cholangiocarcinoma. Thank you.24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ever look at WP:DR and WP:BATTLE? --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes-and you have accused me of not responding to your NPOV charges multiple times in edit summarys reversing my edits on several topics and on my talk page in not so nice a way yet I have asked you to please specify so I thought that the NPOV noticeboard could help me figure-out what your point is.Because as I have replied to you I really do not understand where I am expressing a non NPOV. And if that is the case, (unintentionally on my part), I have no problem with my edits being reversed or changed on those grounds.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, then you've read WP:FOC. Please follow it. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a WP:SC that points out using shortcuts to try to annoy editors? I think you may want to see that. And what is the one that speaks to not responding to the original question? What is it called when an editor jumps all over the place with new complaints without resolving the original problem? You might want to have a look at that. Now if you want to talk about WP:NPOV, I'd still like to know what you meant. Sorry to get personal with you but there are some things about your editing that I find to be odd, and due to your actions I am suspicious about activity here.24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry that being asked to work with others and follow our policies and guidelines annoys you. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not annoy me and i am trying to follow the policies and guidelines as it applies to NPOV specifically but I have yet to have anyone explain how my reverted edits in the article were not doing that.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your behavior clearly demonstrates otherwise. Perhaps you're simply not aware. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Collaborative Real-time Editor Edit
Hi Ronz - I believe you were a little overzealous in removing "Firepad" from the list of Collaborative Real-time Editors. Firepad is actually the software that powers Koding (one of the editors you didn't remove), Nitrous.IO, LiveMinutes, and a whole bunch of fairly well-known websites. It has over 1000 stars on github. It's also the top hit on Google for "collaborative text editor". I'm going to re-add it to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startupandrew (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm simply keeping the article free of inappropriate external links and entries added without any indication that they deserve to be listed.
 * I suggest writing the article first about Firepad. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Veena Malik
This is Tenthmonth, If you looked on French Wikipedia, her birthday are mentioned and it is also on International Film Database. May be you should do some research yourself before deleting other people's work and criticize them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.129.211 (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that research should be done before adding unsourced material to a WP:BLP where the content in question has been discussed at length on the article talk page and on noticeboards. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

user Bhutto gee
Looks like is back, doing the same disruptive editing on same articles and adding same unreliable sources in WP:BLP articles, another one from the sock farm (User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_20, User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_19).

I already notified at ANI but since you and are more familiar with it, so I thought I should tell you about it.--Jockzain (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and good catch! --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Massive open online course - again


I received your message accusing me of submitting promotional material in my edits. Frankly, I find your message to be bullying. I am not a techie, and am doing my best to navigate the editing site, which is quite non-intuitive. I cannot identify exactly which contributions of mine you are complaining about, but I do see that someone removed a cite to a NYT article. If that is one of your edits, please re-read it and the cited article. It is not promotional, but a summary and quote from one of the most respected New York Times writers today in the field of education. If may edits seem promotional to you, please be assured that this is unintentional and accept my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetfount (talk • contribs) 19:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm concerned with your edits as a whole. While their being promotional may be unintentional, they are still problems.
 * This was what I left you the message about and was included in the message.
 * This portion was an addition to the WP:LEDE of the article, that was not supported by anything else in the article but rather just highlighted a bit of hype, "The Year of the MOOC", and three providers. This information simply doesn't belong in the lede of the article.
 * The rest of the edit highlights recent research giving undue attention to the researchers. It's worth reintroducing with proper reference information. It's an initial report on a large study, where the further reports should be incorporated when they become available, if they aren't already. --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits on Crowdfunding Page


Hi Ronz. I'm not sure why mention of Crowdnetic was removed from the description of our site HelpersUnite being sold to EarlyShares. As you can see from the referenced press release (http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/equity-based-crowdfunding-platform-earlyshares-acquires-helpersunite/19053/140), I am filling from whom the site was acquired. There was no promotional information included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by East212 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is a press release, so by definition it is promotional. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Shakib Khan


What type of reliable source are you talking about? Sources that I gave are from the best national-level newspapers of of Bangladesh & Youtube. Kindly let me know as the informations that I wrote are fully correct.

Kindly note that my intention is to make a complete change & fully review this page and give it a permanent shape like Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Aamir Khan's page and make it a "permanent page" which cannot be edited. Which can be viewed only & users can only request for a change. Please help me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsterio (talk • contribs) 17:18, 16 December 2013‎
 * My concern was that some of it had no sources at all, and that some was simply gossip.
 * It's not easy learning Wikipedia while focusing on a biographical articles because of the quality requirements from WP:BLP. Start reading and learning. Gossip and anything similar is almost always inappropriate in such articles. --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ronz! What happened this time? I have visited other pages like Shahrukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Salman Khan and Saif Ali Khan. What is the wrong with the standard of information I have provided this time? Sir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsterio (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The standard of information is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. It's tabloid journalism. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I write a fresh, complete & full biography of this living person with proper links (with no taboloid link) and send to you by e-mail? with no advertisements or promotions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsterio (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be best to get others involved by using the article's talk page to propose and discuss changes. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Block me!!!!! Yes Yes Yes "Wikipedia is not a gossip and entertainment magazine" but I feel like that is only for Bangladeshi actors when it is Hollywood/Bollywood actors like Shahrukh Khan/Aamir Khan/Salman Khan everything is alright. Poor Wikipedia just get lost. I understood your double-standard, always giving excuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsterio (talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 January 2014‎

Deletion of standard work on human capital with implications for the public sector
Can you explain the basis for your removal of the Voinovich classic on the subject from the list of external links? It is one of the few standards in the field that is available online, that has changed the dialogue about human resources for government practices, irregardless of political party, and still has recognized implications for the public sector. And while you are at it, do you know how to fix the link so it doesn't come up with the error message? The PDF seems to load directly from the government website. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a copy without the cover sheet, though it could be a different version given the lack of page numbers.
 * As I noted, a clear and concise summary that clearly shows its importance would be acceptable as an external link or as a reference. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice find. I'm sure the version is the same, as it is a government document. I'm always annoyed when I google for this document and find no one has even bothered to put it on the WP article. The second part of your comment I don't understand, maybe you could point to the policy you are referring to, or some example that illustrates what you are talking about.  Or better yet, just fix the thing yourself, now that you have the link.  FWIW, I have started a talk page discussion, but this is not really a topic area I care to edit. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)