User talk:Hipal/Archive 50

Article
How would I get a article written, I need a Wikipedia article done, I manage over 200 million on social media, have hundreds of thousands of followers, over 100 million in total views, and I also own a company. I have other articles about me if you would like to see. I’m a actual public figure I just don’t know how to go about Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.179.178 (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Get yourself an account so it will be much easier for editors to help you.
 * Autobiography gives plenty of guidance. --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Aquaria
Hello! I understand that FamousBirthdays was not a great source, but it has been confirmed many times that Feb 12, 1996 is Aquaria's birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 727deluxe (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ayurveda
Your last edit taking the statement out of Wikipedia's voice was reverted, so I've taken it to the RSN. I guess we'll see what happens. Perhaps I should stop responding so it doesn't turn into a complete repeat of the talk page? --tronvillain (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've not been paying too much attention, but saw your comments and the RSN discussion. Thank you for staying with this. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Natalie La Rose
Thanks for letting me know! I was working with an experienced editor earlier today and they didn't know about that either. The date can still stay since "Natalie" has said that it is her birthday herself through social media. Snowycats (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. It would be better to have independent sources, but as long as there's no doubt or controversy over the birth date it shouldn't be too much of problem. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Matt Chamberlain page exits
Hello This is Matt Chamberlain.. I just tried to correct the mis-information on my wiki page and you changed it back saying I needed reliable sources.. how do I go about getting a reliable source on a page about me?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumcymbalssticks23 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Matt. Thanks for following up with me. It's an extremely frustrating situation to be in. I'll follow up on your talk page so others can help more easily. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Thanks for thee response. I thoroughly confused about how to update my Wiki page and how to use the right protocol.. Are there people i can hire or contact to help me correct this mis-information/lack of info on my page? Best Matt Chamberlain  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumcymbalssticks23 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * At best, there are people happy to take your money that are unable to promise anything. Please review WP:COI.
 * If there's poorly sourced information in the article that you'd like to see removed, use an edit request on the article talk page (request edit).
 * To correct information, you should use an edit request that includes supporting references. Non-independent sources like interviews, press releases, material that you've written, etc may be used in some circumstances and are often helpful to support better sources that lack detail. Without independent sources, no one will be able to make much headway in adding or changing material. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Candice Swanepoel
Hello, I'm Mosstacker. I noticed that you recently removed content from Candice Swanepoel without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mosstacker (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've left you a welcome message on your talk with a bit of clarification about the article, the poor sources, and the inappropriate use of the template above. --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Paul Thacker
Hi Ronz, thanks for the welcome and advice. I do believe Mr. Thacker is editing his own Wikipedia page to remove my additions. Both IP addresses used to delete it are based in Spain where he lives. I know a lot of people live in Spain, but being an American journalist it is a bit coincidental. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welovegv (talk • contribs) 11:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I've not looked to closely at the article or editing history, but all the WP:SPA accounts and vandalism is troubling.
 * It would help if we had a better source for his being fired, including details that narrow down the date to fit in the timeline. --Ronz (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The atomic swap page is turning out to be a battle ground
Hi Ronz,

You may recall me from earlier this year.

We came in contact regarding the "atomic swap" technology page.

Our community has pioneered this technology and worked diligently behind the scenes for years.

Other communities are repeatedly staking territory on this page. It is quite outrageous. We have reached out to them, even, but everyone wants to claim "we did it first" for this technology, and they are all too happy to ignore the facts when it gets their name in the newspaper. The most common statement appearing on the page is a belief that the Litecoin/Decred 2017 implementation of an atomic swap was the first. This is 100% incorrect. The first atomic swaps were performed in 2013/2014. We did our first in 2014, but we admit we are probably not the first. Again, most likely Tier Nolan was the first -- the man who first penned the concept.

We are, however, the first to make the technology available to the public via a simply downloaded software application. This represents literally tens of thousands of hours of work by our community. We were performing thousands of atomic swaps throughout 2017, including months before the Litecoin/Decred community did their first non-public swap in the laboratories of their computer offices.

At this time, we have performed over 100K atomic swaps with the public, and are growing faster than any other atomic-swap decentralized exchange.

In being faithful to your council, as you appear to be a dedicated, knowledgeable, and ardent Wikipediaphile, I have avoided getting involved. As I am connected to the Komodo team, I have a conflict of interest and I don't want to tarnish the good spirit of Wikipedia.

Can you please revert the topic back to the shortened version that you and I worked out together -- it had no references to any project whatsoever, and was quite brief -- and then please lock the thread for further discussion?

I am doing my best to be respectful of the Wikipedia community. At the same time, I also am speaking on behalf of a community of thousands of people, and their work and contribution to this movement is constantly under attack.

Thank you, eagerly awaiting your reply.

Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me about this. I've not looked at the article in some time now. I'll want to look over the subsequent history, but a revert is likely if it's all more of the same problems as before. --Ronz (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. What would it take to get the page locked for now? As the public is generally under the impression that a lot of money can be made from "being first" in this technology, I expect the issue will keep appearing. It will be some time before a peer-reviewed scientific article about any of this stuff is written. It's all bleeding-edge technology, and even the best academics that I've spoken with are still trying to figure out what blockchain is, let alone atomic swaps. Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Global University Systems articles
Hi Ronz. You've been a big help re the plethora of edit requests from Global University Systems's marketing employee at University Canada West and GISMA Business School. Could I ask you to put a few more of their for-profit college and corporate staff pages on your watch list, especially for the month of August when I'll be away with much more limited internet access? The main college ones are:
 * London College of Creative Media (acquired by GUS this year)
 * University of Applied Sciences Europe (acquired this year)
 * Arden University (acquired 2016)
 * IBAT College Dublin (acquired 2016)
 * University of Law (acquired 2015)
 * St Patrick's College, London (acquired 2013)
 * London School of Business and Finance (GUS's original business, started in 2003)
 * LSBF Group (various divisions hived off from London School of Business and Finance)

COI editors for GUS have also created articles on two of their corporate staff members
 * Maurits van Rooijen, Chief Educational Officer at GUS
 * Sagi Hartov, "Principal of creative arts" at GUS, whatever that means (I've recently cleaned this up. It was full of misleading and outright false claims. Very dubious notability)

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Soapbox
Hi Ronz:

Thanks for pointing out my entry to Silicon Beach for including Parachute Home as a soapbox. I am actually attempting to update the list to include multiple entries from here and here. I believe I have followed the exact same format as other entries in the table (and thereby not really promoting one over the others) Will all these be banned? If so, what will be a better way to update the table?

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plenmao (talk • contribs) 19:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up on this. Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising, including directories. Using highly promotional sources like those would probably not suffice. Editors are encouraged to write the article first, establishing clear notability. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand
I don’t understand how this is to me. I don’t intend to promote and since this is a YouTubers Page I’m trying YouTube sources because there the best I can provide for this page I think I’ll redirect this to its most common YouTube which is his AGP A.R.M. 18:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ARMcgrath. I was in the process of writing a note on your talk page. Let me know if it's not clear, but basically, YouTube videos don't suffice. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay then I’ll either ask for the page to be deleted or redirected A.R.M. 18:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay then I’ll either ask for the page to be deleted or redirected A.R.M. 18:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicelebs.com as a source
Hi Ronz, I've reviewed the Terms of Service at Ethnicelebs.com, I do not disagree with your assessment. I'll update the articles I edited. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Serenesage (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not know that
I did not know that the source i provided was not up to code. I hope that the article will not be deleted, but fixed with better sources. If you can find a source with the information on it, feel free to add it to the article. thank you and have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarmusic2 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad to help. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of promotional/unsourced Article on one Shenphen Rinpoche
I saw you have helped improve Alexander Berzin's article and wonder if you have time to help out with the one on Shenphen Rinpoche, which appears to consist of entirely unsourced self-promotion about (or by!) an eminently non-notable person? Speedy deletion? - MacPraughan (unable to log in at the moment)
 * Hi MacPraughan. Delete or stub. Stubbing might bring some attention to the article which hasn't received much attention from editors in some time now. --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks Ronz how can my article be seeing on google Ziggy 2milli (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is at risk of being deleted entirely. Find better sources to use. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Welcome
That's so nice to have some tips from the senior. I understand my mistakes at Jeane's article and would love to get more of your knowledge shared with me. Will take care of things in the future. Ultra Instinct Greninja (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

REMOVE TEMPLATE
Please Ronz I want you to help in removing the the template of page issues in the article YNW Melly Ziggy 2milli (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me on this. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page, Ronz (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at ANI
I'm sure you can guess what for. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Very strange. I've responded. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit Princess Maria Amor
Not acceptable. This is the reason that Wikipedia has too few women contributors. Please put this back. 86.0.20.87 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way. Before we get started on working together, it would be extremely helpful if you created an Wikipedia account for yourself. See Tutorial/Registration for details on why and how to do so. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out User talk:Maureen Brindle and my response. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with sources needed and speedy deletion tag
Hello, I've noticed you've been recently editing and revising an article I published on Jonny Ferrari. It seems that you've deleted references that aren't necessary or reliable, and also some information. I had specified that Jonny Ferrari worked in online casino, and that is verifiable through the references. I readded this detail in the hopes that it would rectify the reason for speedy deletion tag that has been attached by another user onto this article. Can you help me to clarify what is needed to have the speedy deletion tag removed and perhaps have more details added to this article based on the existing references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstar P1 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I ran some quick searches, but didn't find anything. I'll be happy to review anything others find. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Four years ago ....
Hi Ronz. Remember this guy? Your comment in this edit summary goes to the heart of the matter. Before that, I unfortunately tagged the wrong delete template, which was summarily removed. You know how it goes - if I had then tagged again with the correct one, the other editor would have felt obliged to find some reason to oppose it again. Anyway, besides maintenance by bots, the article has been basically dead for years, which go to shows that it has zero notability. How do you feel about proposing it for deletion?

And while I have your attention, do you have an opinion on this? Thanks, regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Without going over it in detail, it seems like there's enough at Keith Loris to keep an article.
 * I'm not seeing any obvious problems with Medical astrology. What concerns do you have with it? --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Ronz, thanks for your input.
 * On Loris:
 * "Loris is currently president and CEO of his fourth startup, Sales Renewal"
 * What are the four startups? Were they a sucsess? Why is there no information on them?
 * The lengthy paragraph on Softlock basically describes how the book was sold (and it was not exactly a success — sales [demand] were a success [Simon & Schuster], the technology not) and how the business model works, this is about Softlock, not about Loris as a person — a few lines on it being a first (if it was — you tagged it as dubious) would be enough.
 * On Medical astrology, I had quite a few articles open and I as closed them one by one — after the message I left you — when it came to Medical astrology I took one more look, consulted the sources and removed a large section.
 * Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you already made the point about Softlock being a failure (and Loris replaced). Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The Princess
Have you no sense of romance? My biggest disappointment in my years of editing Wikipedia has been my inability to rescue the Princess (or her article anyway). Digging in to her sources and network of web pages was like discovering there is no Santa Claus. She has obviously put a lot of effort into making herself appear notable. Who are we to kill her dreams of notoriety? When I am appointed King (or have purchased the honor) my first official act will be to re-instate the Princess.

Seriously though, I did my best. Thanks for all the effort you put in to this. I am sorry if it hasn't been as amusing to you as it was to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your help. I've worked on similar biographies, and they rarely go this easily. After her websites were removed from archive.org, I was expecting a complaint from her. --Ronz (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Patrick Bet-David for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick Bet-David is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Patrick Bet-David until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Kate Grigorieva
about kate's age 30 is true you can check her instagram then you edit it to 29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90nasrin (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop changing my text
The net worth information is up to date and is the most accurate! The net worth is calculated by Wprost magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wprost (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think of Close connection
I look after Debarun Pal's online presence, As with years he never insisted me to write biased stuff. Exactly which part of the statement made you think that, pls educate me that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theemperorstudios (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a clear conflict of interest. Please declare it and use edit requests rather than editing the articles directly. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Edmunddantes and Nancy Wong photos
"Conflict of interest policy Information icon Hello, Edmunddantes. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest"

Can you be more specific? I am not employed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.3 (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:COI. You're using Wikipedia to promote your photography, and you apparently have never taken the time to learn about relevant content policies like WP:IMAGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, Edmunddantes. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information.

Thank you for your interest in my snapshots: I do not have any external relationship with anyone.--Edmunddantes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.178.0.58 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a language problem here that would be helpful to address?
 * You are Nancy Wong. You are adding your own photos to articles. That's a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

"his(sic) is very likely a professional photographer. I certainly believe so. I'd like to assume that she is offering images from her work for use in Wikipedia, unless I'm overlooking something that obviously links her to photography services. "

Dear Mr. Ronz: I am an amateur who shoots one roll of film every five years for my own pleasure. I am very flattered that you believe I am a professional photographer. I offer no photography services and I do not accept photo assignments nor do I do work for hire. I am happy you think my work is good. I hope it is a valuable resource for Wikipedia as some of the people I have taken snapshots of on a public street location are now dead: i.e. no more new photos can be taken of these people: Joe Rosenthal, Jim Jones. Thank you again for your interest in my decades-old snapshots! --Edmunddantes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.26 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to respond at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. I will copy your response there. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyright problems; likely concerns about outing; possible sock/meatpuppetry; misleading responses; possibly creating a legacy

TheFamousPeople.com as a source
Hi Ronz, thanks for the heads-up. I can't remember why I used that source — possibly it contained the same information as the more convincing other source, in a way that was easier to link directly to. With the other source it doesn't seem possible to directly link to the right page — and just now I can't get at the relevant bit of the other source at all, not even in the archived copy. But it does at least name the right book, even if that online copy has become inaccessible.

Anyway, no argument over removing the dodgy reference. --Shuggaroth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Jena Rose Links
Hello Ronz, I've removed as many of the low quality links as I could on the Jena Rose page, as well as anything too personal, unprofessional, or unverified. Is it sufficient to take down the tags now? Thanks! &#39;loneagain (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on it and letting me know. I'll take a look and respond on the article talk page. If I don't respond soon, don't hesitate to give me another reminder. --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just making a quick reminder on this. Thanks!&#39;loneagain (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Apology
Accepted with as much grace as it was offered. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlehto (talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Further Reading "The Greyhound & the Hare
Would you please leave this reference standing. It is the ultimate source. It has nothing to do with spam! It is even more of an accurate, authentic history of the breed and it's sport, than the preceding title that I recently added, "Greyhound Nation", thank you.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comments here and elsewhere on the the book are written like promotions, which is the continuing problem. Please discuss, follow WP:DR, and work to get consensus. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. A historical perspective may have a positive or negative leaning in terms of the information but sources are not where we monitor NPOV. Sources often take positions in tone. I can't see how a historical perspective can be spam.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC))
 * I've clarified my comment above regarding the promotion.
 * There are COI problems, which I've brought up on his talk page.
 * Over at the article talk page, I've asked if it is a reliable source.
 * This is a spam issue as I see it: WP:REFSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see COI and I don't see proof for that on his talk page. What am I missing? Could you clarify? Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC))
 * (Discussion removed - I thought I was clear, and I still don't think that there's any doubt about the coi --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC) )
 * I've added this diff to User_talk:Richard_Hawkins, to make it clear that he has admitted to having a coi. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That diff, of an edit from July 2006 establishes he has a coi. If you don't understand this or don't agree, then let's stick to discussing it, rather than you throwing accusations of me threatening anyone. Otherwise, it looks like you're harassing me in an attempt to deflect attention from the coi-violations he has made. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Blake Fielder-Civil birthday
Hi,

I didn't know that TheFamousPeople.com is forbidden on English Wikipedia, but I am afraid that Amy Winehouse bio still contains false information about at least the year of birth of her husband (as well as quite probably month and place). Please read: talk:Amy_Winehouse. Polimerek (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting a discussion! --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Atomic swap
I've noticed that you've edited the above article and thought you might be interested in this. I've been going thru cryptocurrency articles and removing unreliable sources, as well as general copy editing, removing adverts, etc. I haven't been nominating anything for deletion, but others in some cases have nominated the articles I've cleaned up.

Atomic swaps is perhaps the worst crypto mess for unreliable sources. I ended up removing all the sources as unreliable. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If the cryptocurrency and blockchain articles that I've looked at are any indication, paid editing and other conflicts of interest are the norm, such as . --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of "Famouspeople.com" as a souce
Hi Ronz, sorry I didn't know that. You may revert the section cited if you so please. Yobbin (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confusing very different things?
Jytdog's comments pertain to Wikipedia's stance on crypto, in terms of a lack of good sources for articles. You're commenting about businessinsider and digiday being 'promotional junk'. It seems you're confusing two very different things. This has nothing to do with crypto/blockchain at all. It's not even really promotional - it's just news of starting a new project, that has been covered in the media. Feel free to delete, but can you provide a coherent reason? Is your issue with the legitimacy of the sources or the news not being newsworthy enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btcgeek (talk • contribs) 17:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's very pertinent. The blockchain/crypto is a larger and blatant problem. Warmed-over press releases have little independence, and fall squarely into WP:NOTNEWS. Add that it's in a WP:BLP, which is covered by a different set of sanctions, but sanctions once again. Best to stay clear of them while learning your way around Wikipedia, and then tread carefully if you decide you still want to edit in areas covered by sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Disagree with your assessment of "warmed-over press releases" for the sources that are independent based on independence, but if it is contentious, I'll stay away. --Btcgeek (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Both publishers gladly print promotional material, and in this case that's exactly what they did. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted, cheers --Btcgeek (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

For my reference, which part of WP:NOTNEWS would you consider an update that a notable living person has started a new media company? I see 4 points listed, but unsure which of these are being violated by such an update. --Btcgeek (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * routine news reporting of announcements --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it, cheers! Btcgeek (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Reversions
Hi Ronz,

Thanks for letting me know that some of my edits have been reverted.

Just a note to say that the guy who started the Pro-Truth Pledge (which I support) did ask me if I could make some edits, including a page about him, so I did. I don’t feel too strongly about these edits, but I do wonder if the Wikipedia community may be a bit too strict about enforcing this sort of thing. Is it really harmful to the spirit of the project to include facts like “so-and-so took this pledge” and pages about people who are not particularly well known? Sure, it’s to the advantage of the organization’s promoters that this information be available, but if the fact that someone wants some factual information made available is enough to make it “promotional” then it seems to me a lot more content would have to be deleted. I would think that type of enforcement effort would be better spent on things that are clearly malicious or controversial.

Anyway, no big deal, but of course it does tend to discourage me as an occasional contributor to have content deleted. I’ve had edits reverted in the past for being not significant enough for inclusion, and I still wonder why having less content rather than more is seen as a necessary policy. Disk space is cheap, right? ;)

Thanks for listening.

Branchc (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia is not strict enough in enforcing this type of thing, but it's getting better. People want to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. It's by far the largest problem that Wikipedia has. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

About removed edits
Hi Ronz. Apparently you've removed some of my edits. I'm just starting to learn some of the basic policies of wikipedia and I didn't think that editions about living persons could have so many limitations. Editing an article is an easy process, learning wikipedia's policies or replying to other contributors or editors is a much more complicated process for me. I'm not even sure if this will arrive to you, but I'll try it. Sorry if I've broken some of wikipedia's policies. Nevertheless, I've noticed that not only some of my posts have been erased, but all the previous controversial issues of some of the articles. Probably someone else had made my mistakes. I'll spend some time reading them before editing something in the future. Thanks for your time Juanelo1931--Juanelo1931 (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Yes, these policies are difficult to navigate and learn. I've been trying to get some help with the articles, Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, but there's no response so far. I'd rather not be involved: it's especially difficult to work on biographies where politics are involved, plus fluency in Filipino is required and expertise in Philippine culture and history are needed. Tambayan Philippines may be of help. I'll keep an eye on the articles. Feel free to contact me.--Ronz (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Answer
I read your message, but I can't agree with the "unreliable sources" argument in this case, when there are sites like Forbes or Billboard magazine supporting the info. I think you're being disruptive with your reverts, especially with the last one to the edit I did in the 'Activism' section, which was minimal, and again, supported by reliable sources. I'm not gonna get into arguments with other users, especially when there is not motive to argue about in the first place. Have a nice night, Ronz!. NiceBC (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Sorry you feel that way. Responding further on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, thank you for the feedback, I'll check that out. NiceBC (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Shamari Fears & etc
I think your Level 3 Warning to Lollo12345678/user talkpage was unnecessarily harsh. Maybe their references weren't the best in your opinion but they did have plenty of them. Also, your edit summaries seem somewhat pejorative to me - I've been keeping an eye on the Erika Jayne article and this editor does mainly edit there but their contributions are always sourced, they are not vandalizing, and their content seems quite reasonable (as opposed to much of the vandalism that seems to habitually get done on all the Real Housewives castmembers' articles). "Less than 1000 edits and seems to be ignoring notices" - I don't see any previous Level 1 or Level 2 or Level 3 Warnings on their talk page, just some fairly bland Disambiguation Notices and since when did an editor with a low edit count mean something bad? At some point we all had less than 1000 edits... and they could just be a superfan. Shearonink (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we disagree. I'm afraid you're not looking closely at what the editor has been doing in light of BLP, NOT, POV, and RS. While this may be some other type of advocacy other than a UPE, the editing and behavior need to change. The past warnings have been ignored as far as I can tell. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What are these "past warnings" that you are referring to? Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything that Lollo12345678 has removed from their talk page. I've tried a new approach. What do you think? --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I looked over, and found the same type of problems. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the Level 3 Warning - your new approach/notice does have a more conciliatory tone. (Regarding removing posts from one's own user talk - editors can remove content from their own talkpage just like they can archive or not whenever they want.) I personally don't see a pattern of truly-terrible editing, I see perhaps a superfan of various pop-performers who isn't as experienced as some of us. I remember how overwhelming Wikipedia was when I first stumbled onto its pages (and heh how overwhelming it can still be to me!) so - even though my editing and behavior around here can be full of assumptions - I just always try to first assume good faith before I assume anything else... Shearonink (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that you take sanctionable problems so lightly, and you're assumptions about me seem to fail what you're asking of me. --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think that this editor's actions are sanctionable then go for it. I'm sorry you misunderstand me and that I seem to have also misunderstood you. I can tell you're an editor who cares deeply about the project. Shearonink (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Section Blanking on articles
Hello, I've read a post in reddit that the Wikipedia pages of the Dutertes had been vandalized. I checked the revision history and I found your changes. If you don't have the time to edit or fix the content, please put a notice in the Talk page of the article which content were BLP violations first before deleting them. Or if you do decide to delete them immediately, please leave a message of why you find them to be BLP violations or tag them as possible BLP violations in the article. It's rude/inconsiderate to blank a section and claim the content as BLP violations, without providing sufficient explanation to the other users who have contributed. I'm saying this because after reviewing the removed content, I found that most of the content you have removed were actually sourced from published articles of reputable news companies, contributed by several users. You can use the locked article on Rodrigo Duterte as a reference on how BLP is handled by reputable wikipedia editors to understand which parts are acceptable or unacceptable. Thanks. Sctcooper (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. WP:BLP requires such removal. I've started discussions in two locations. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What you've removed though are content paraphrased from published, verifiable sources which are already in circulation. They are not "contentious" because they had already happened and were established, even the personalities themselves have admitted these events happened in live television and interviews. They are facts, not fake news. They had been placed in the Issues/Controversies section because they divided public opinion. I've personally taken the time to examine some of those content out of sympathy to the redditor who complained (he/she may have thought that this was also done by the president's army of trolls and paid hacks). Well, from what I can see, what you have done is irresponsible editing and highly abusive of the BLP immediate removal rule, indiscriminately removing entire sections in Wikipedia articles you don't agree with. You don't seem to be actually making any good contributions to the Wikipedia community, you just delete content you don't like and "pull rank" when people try to discuss your actions with you. You have not even pointed out which pertinent BLP guidelines those contributions have violated. Sctcooper (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sctcooper - I'm going to step in and clarify any confusion for you and explain Wikipedia's policies so that you fully understand them. Ronz removed the content you added to Sara Duterte and Paolo Duterte because they add contentious and controversial information onto articles that are biographies of living people (or "BLP" articles for short) and don't all appear to cite reliable sources. On articles that are BLPs, all content added must cite reliable sources that are secondary and independent from the article subjects - especially if such content is contentious, negative, or controversial in nature to the person. Any content that does not meet this requirement (which is outlined here) must be removed immediately and on-sight upon being discovered, no exceptions. Even content where it's questionable if it meets Wikipedia's requirements regarding BLP citations and references should be removed (per this policy) pending a discussion, and editors are allowed to err on the side of caution and remove content where the BLP requirements may not be met. Ronz did the right thing by removing this content, and your edits restoring them without a discussion and input from the community on the articles' talk pages is disruptive and can lead to being blocked. Content you add to Wikipedia articles (especially those that are biographies of a living people) aren't verified and the sources provided aren't reliable just because you say that they are; arguing your point, going into long details about how you examined everything, and behaving uncivilly toward Ronz and bullying this user with personal attacks doesn't change that - so please tone it down and stop with the lashing-out toward Ronz... Content is considered to have a high degree of verifiability and are considered acceptable because it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you have questions or need help, please feel free to ask one of us or refer to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, reliable sources guideline, verifiability policy, or this how-to guide for citing references in-line with content... but please don't behave like this toward Ronz - he's following proper policy. If further disruption continues on these articles without discussion, you can be blocked from editing in order to put a stop to it. I hope my response was clear and set the appropriate expectations. Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oshwah Although I appreciate your concern, I'm not pleased with the fact that you support his behavior that's detrimental to the community as a whole. This is besides the fact that I had made no contribution to the articles other than providing a label which classifies a section to have non neutral point-of-view, which follows the same standard of BLP as that of Rodrigo Duterte. Again, you misconstrue the things involved here because you weren't part of the discussion. The issue I have with Ronz is his blatant disregard for the contribution of other users when he removed the entire section, not just the content he considered malicious. This irks me because he removes them along with existing content, but he doesn't even clean up the mess he made afterwards. God knows if other contributors would take the time to restore and rewrite the article. Some people in reddit even accused Ronz's changes as part of the Duterte's administration's campaign to silence dissent and subvert facts by hiding the truth. Also, I don't recall that Wikipedia ever has this policy of deleting an entire section just because a part of it isn't up to standards. Ronz is free to remove all content he finds to be violating BLP, but he should be able to answer specifically on what grounds(sources,NPOV,quality) when he was called out on it. So far, what he did is lazy and only referred me to the BLP pages as if it proves him correct, but instead it only leaves me wondering which part. If you actually looked at the diff history of the Sara Duterte article, some of the content which he deleted, were actually the very content that had been revised through the flagging of Diannaa(who's an actual administrator) for copyright violation because they were copy-pasted from published news sources. He removed more than half of the content of the article, which were prior to the BLP blunder made by the most recent contributor. So I hope you understand why I called what Ronz did as irresponsible editing and why I have a rather negative opinion of him. I don't mind if you raise this issue to the administrators for arbitration because it's better to discuss this with people who truly care about the Wikipedia community and don't have their own personal agendas. Sctcooper (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sctcooper - I appreciate your response and your honest input, but I don't consider the removal of questionable content or content that may potentially be in violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy (one of Wikipedia's most serious and important policies) as irresponsible; in fact I see it as quite the opposite. Removing content that may be potentially libelous and about a living person is a responsible thing to do - which is why it's explicitly . If you have questions or would like an in-depth explanation regarding specific content that was removed, you're of course within your right to ask Ronz about it and it would be generally expected and courteous for him to respond and explain. These specific issues belong on the articles' individual talk pages as part of the discussion that is being asked to hold. I recommend that you start these discussions with your questions (be civil and work with Ronz in a positive and receptive manner; no personal attacks or name-calling), ping Ronz in the discussion so he's notified of them, and let him know here that you started them and give him the locations of each one so that he can respond. assume good faith; give the guy a chance and be helpful and he'll do the same for you. You'll be surprised as to how quickly things are resolved if both of you do this, and life can move on from there. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sctcooper - I see that you've since started a discussion on a talk page here; thank you for doing this. Please be patient while others review and add input to the discussion, and let someone know if you have any questions. A place where you can ask for general assistance is Wikipedia's help desk. Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Ronz
I’m afraid I have a slight problem. Austin012599 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia
Hello, all links can be list in the external links if they are useful to the user. Please do not remove such links unless they clearly break the Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks! HeartGlow30797 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Claims of links being "useful" are irrelevant.
 * The general consensus in such cases is that links are removed until editors have consensus that they don't break guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Archiving
When I see a talk page like yours, I usually add a note with H:ARC included. But I see you already have archiving set up. As your page now has 193 sections, and is almost 240kB in size, can I suggest you bring your archiving up to date? Thanks - wolf  17:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's all done manually, and I don't want auto-archiving based upon size. (I actually did some archiving just a week ago and delayed doing more because of I wanted to keep a few comments on tools and projects to look at later.) Are there other options for archiving tools, such as archiving a date range, or a number of sections? --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I manually "archive" myself, but yes, there are bots you can use to do it automatically. If you look at H:ARC -> Options -> Automated archival, they currently have some bots listed there you can use. -  wolf  19:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hows the archiving coming? - wolf  03:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at the bots a bit. They require more time than I want to put in short-term, so I'll be doing another manual one before I try a bot. --Ronz (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Re:ELBURDEN
I put the hidden note in the section to keep people from wheel warring while this is under discussion. Once this settles the comment will be removed. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 01:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just thought you'd like to know since an anon has reported you to ANI. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 01:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting Ronz know about the ANI thread . Here is a more direct link Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings and Salutations



 * To Ronz:


 * Hello!


 * Congratulations!


 * You have been included in my first, and possibly only, Very Early Christmas List!


 * As an earnest fellow believer in Santa Claus, and possibly in Our Redeemer Liveth as well, you may wonder how you got on this list.


 * I have no idea!


 * That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


 * Unless I tracked down the connection in our user talk archives, in which case you know who you are!


 * Or not.


 * All the best for you and yours this Christmas 2018 and New Year 2019!


 * – Athaenara jingles all the way 02:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

World Culture Festival
I see that you had reverted one of my old edits here. I used the word "critical" in my edit summary because I added the main reason why this event was held and why is this page of notoriety and importance: "Over 37,000 artistes from around the world performed at this festival on a 7 acre stage. I understand that you misunderstood the usage of "critical" which meant important. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC) NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand your point at all. --Ronz (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am pointing out that I used "critical" in my revision comment in the sense that the edit was the most important statement about the event. Possibly the reason why the article should exist in the first place. You reverted my edit assuming a different meaning of the word "critical". NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then my edit summary seems a correct response. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

John Candy Page
Hello. I was curious as to why you thought ethnicelebs was an unreliable source when I used it on the John Candy page. Thanks. 2601:143:4200:700:30AC:60E3:9B2E:A0A1 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See the listing in Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I did, and neither of the websites I used were on the list of websites that shouldn't be used. 2601:143:4200:700:2429:1027:D253:9110 (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry about that. See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Ronz (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

A Script You Might Find Useful
There's a handy script which will pop an article onto your watchlist with a note that I've taken to using and you might also find helpful (ala in the MT:MEDMOS discussion). It is User:SD0001/W-Ping.js. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been looking around to find tools to help with large watchlists. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for such a warm welcome! No specific asks at this point but thank you for reaching out and writing all of that out. Fonz1951 (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Celebritynetworth.com as a source
Thank you for letting me know. I did not know that. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Abbymsmall
Thanks for blocking this user, who just didn't seem helpful. Fonz1951 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The blocks were done by someone else. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Marking Drug Costs/Prices Disputed
Hi there. As I think you are now definitely aware, until the RfC - which seems to have made some real strides towards being ready in the last day - has been completed there is a moratorium per this ANI discussion on removing or adding this information. Adding disputed tags falls in a bit of a grey area but does, to my reading, fall against the spirit of that prohibition, namely that energy should be focused on find a solution to move forward rather than continuing to edit war over this content. I would ask that you allow the status quo, whatever form that may take, to stay until the community has weighed in. Please ping me or leave a message on my talk page if you want to discuss or have questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So disputed content shouldn't be tagged, to maybe get some others involved? --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just came back here and so am seeing this question for the first time. Marking disputed content as disputed has the effect of not remitting "question[s] of drug pricing.. to a single venue". Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? My concern was the way Seraphimblade stumbled into the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Concern how? As I noted in my ANI close the idea of new editors stumbling into the dispute unaware (or having read something somewhere but not knowing the specifics) seemed likely to happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think it's fine, then ok. I see there's another example of the situation, with what could be considered a breech of the embargo by Doc James... --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean it's not "fine" in the sense that they should be told what's going on but fine in the sense that it seemed likely to happen and require little more than a friendly FYI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's definitely not fine. Doc James has pushed against the ANI result, and it's been invalidated. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)