User talk:Hipal/Archive 51

Request a Review
Hey Ronz, I'd normally take this to Jytdog, so reaching out to you to review this page to edit/delete. On the crypto front, it lacks reliable sources. Btcgeek (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother again, but the page has been nominated for deletion, and since you've already edited and reviewed it, appreciate your thoughts there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btcgeek (talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. At this point, I'm concerned by the rather blatant COI editing that's been going on in all the related articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's anything I can help with or review, please let me know. I don't have a COI in any of the projects, and can either remove/delete the advertising part or try to find quality sources to back up the (usually tall) claims. --Btcgeek (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hi there - i am trying to understand your comment about my conflict of interest ,

This is simply not true and i don’t understand the sourcing of your information whereby you discredited my change of this characters age? All my sources quoted were more reputable than what was there ,

Yes i am a fan, but not paid Brshar (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You used an unreliable source, and haven't answered my question about the images. Please answer the question. --Ronz (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Response regarding images:
Hi @ronz, thank you for pointing that out , you are right , I’m Sorry that i did incorrectly claim ownership of those photos , it was when i first started here on Wikipedia and I didn’t know what i was doing , the correct sources are:

Danielle Campbelle image: https://www.instagram.com/p/Ba5TT5oF2Qf/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1b39k8eg5m15k

Niki Taylor image: http://niki-taylor-fan.tumblr.com

Regarding Nidhi Sunil page, i don’t know what more I can do to fact check the information, as well as famous birthdays Having it listed on that day and about 3 more websites i found and had credited, her official website has the same date: https://nidhisunil.carbonmade.com/about

I am still still trying to learn how to prevent my contributions being seen as disgenuine in future, Does the person who changed her age without any sources not get questioned too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brshar (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com as a source
Hi Ronz, I've found an alternate source on AllMusic, does this count as a more reliable source? Thanks Boofhead185 (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. It's slightly better, enough to be used to verify his birth date as long as it's not disputed, but shouldn't be used for anything that might be questioned. It should not be used to identify his family members by name. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check my complaint
I understand you removed some content to a page I created, the reason you noted was not why it is like that, I don't have any external relationship with any article or person I have created, so I'm a bit confused as to come across it now since 2 years of my editing experience, I improve on pages I created consistently and wish you help me revert your edit so I can improve on it. THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amosflash (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Re your revert edit to Lola Glaudini
FYI see User:83.240.186.98. The sock master is tenacious and will try time and again with different socks to add text over a long period. However the style and content of user's edits are easy to spot once one is aware that these sockpuppets exist. -- PBS (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Two months ago I went directly to AIV, where my request was ignored. I should have documented it on the ip's talk page as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Ronz. Have a good one. --Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Re:Vital article designations
Hi Ronz, Level 4 is supposed to contain around 10,000 articles while at the moment Level 5 has a target number of 50,000 articles. This means that the lower than level number, the most vital or significant the article is. For example, medicine is a Level 2 VA (one of only 100 article to be Level 2) while science is only one of ten Level 1 articles. The first four levels all have an established discussion and voting process. For Level 5, because it is still growing, there was consensus to make initially it a free-for-all where anyone can boldly add articles to the list without any discussion in order to speed up the process. Once a section in L5 is close to full, discussion begins and a formal process or criteria for adding/removing articles is put into place.

The consensus to remove the alternative medicine articles was in the list of 10,000 (L4) whereas I added them in L5 (the list of 50,000). I have often used the older 10K list (which was around 12,000 at its biggest) as a starting point in adding articles to the much larger 50K. You are welcome to discuss particular additions to a section even it isn't full on L5 too if you don't think they belong. Gizza (t)(c) 00:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I figured it out. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Dan Peña (BLP Issues)
Ronz, came across the Dan Peña entry that seems to have issues with proper sourcing, advertising material, and COI. I also noticed that Jytdog cleaned up the article, but a lot of information has since been added without good references. The article also seems to have a history of COI per the talk page. Many references are to shady websites promising to make you millions, blog posts, and first-party website content. Wanted to bring to your attention. Btcgeek (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Much of the info was readded after a rewrite after similar problems had been found by SPAs. What a mess. --Ronz (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Any policy on specific investments from angel investors, adding to BLP?
I searched for this, but couldn't find a specific WP policy on this, so reaching out to you. I am interested to know how to handle specific investments made by famous living people who are part/full time angel investors. It seems like the number of companies are usually too many, and I feel like if the article mentions just one or two, that seems biased. I ask specifically because I saw one specific investment being added to the profiles of Gary Vaynerchuk and Scooter Braun. It is sourced correctly, and the information seems accurate. However, I do not know if this belongs in the articles as a separate section, since both of them seem to have made many such investments over the years, and I don't see why this specific company should be privileged. Can you provide your insight? Btcgeek (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good questions! Thanks for bringing it up.
 * Gary Vaynerchuk regularly has problems with promotional material. I'm sure Scooter Braun is similar, though I've not looked closely.
 * Regarding the recent additions that I removed from the two articles, the reference used is unreliable and promotional. The editor that added it likely has a COI, though it's iffy.
 * So to your specific question: WP:POV and WP:NOT are the policies. Without an independent, reliable source, such material doesn't belong because of the huge POV/SOAP problems that you're seeing. Even with a much better source, there are problems if the reference does not give some overview of the entire portfolio (so no one cherry-picking specific investments to highlight over others), and gives some reason why it is a noteworthy part of the person's biography. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back with the specifics! I noticed the low-quality reference, and then did some research into the veracity of the claim, which turned out to be true. So the question for me was whether to find a better quality source or remove this information completely. I guess you answered it!
 * I was bothered by the cherry-picking of that one investment, which didn't seem important enough or noteworthy to me, among the many others that exist but not mentioned (rightly in my opinion). In general though, does a list of investments from a person belong in their biography at all (I think not)? I noticed that Scooter Braun article has a quick list of companies he's invested in that are big enough for a mention (last line of his personal life section), and the reference is a CNBC article. Does this seem like a good way to mention only the most important investments via a credible reference? --Btcgeek (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never looked at Scooter Braun... --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Skimming: It's not clear mention of 100 Thieves Esports belongs. The CNBC ref is a puff-piece interview that does not have the independence needed to determine if it is noteworthy or encyclopedic. Further, the list in the article doesn't appear to be verified in the reference. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right about the 100 Thieves Esports! Seems just one out of scores/hundreds potentially, and not important enough for biography. Also, potential COI going through the history of when and how it was added. I removed it from the article. --Btcgeek (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're also absolutely right that the CNBC article doesn't verify the content regarding list of investments (e.g. the article doesn't mention Lyft at all). What's a better resolution here - remove the investment parts completely, or find better sources for each claim?
 * It's a BLP, so removing unsourced and poorly source material is the best start. If the article is as similar to Vaynerchuk's as I think it may be, there's probably a lot of work to be done. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your input. I've removed the investment parts referenced with the CNBC article in the personal life section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btcgeek (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Question
Years ago I made some edits to a page and you were kind enough to say they were appropriate on my Talk page. I made a few edits to the barbecue page yesterday that were correct and appropriate but they were reversed today. How do I engage the person who reversed them in discussion? Is there a single person who is in charge of that page? He/she knows me by my wikipedia name Quedude, but I am a pretty famous BBQ chef. My last book was a NY Times Best Seller, it was called one of the 100 best cookbooks ever written by Southern Living magazine, and it is used as a textbook in culinary schools. In otherwords, I have some expertise, and my edits should not be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quedude (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Quedude. Forgive me that I'm a bit busy and don't have time to look closely... What I'm seeing is this edit. If there's something else, let me know.
 * It looks like you didn't directly verify the changes by indicating a reference, and your edit summary makes it difficult if you were working from your own expertise or perhaps your own book. Changes that are not clearly verified by a reference, or if the reference appears unreliable, are likely to be removed.
 * I'm not clear if those were the reasons for the revert, but maybe could clarify.
 * You may want to work from edit requests, especially if you don't have the time to work through a tutorial or the like to get better acquainted with editing Wikipedia. Some basic skills that would help you in this situation are being able to identify a specific change to an article (like I did in the link above), review changes in an article history, and identifying which editors made which changes. --Ronz (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a more famous BBQ chef than this guy. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 12:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't find that answer very helpful. I'm going to assume from that reply that the level of expertise and the conflict of interest are of concern. A good approach forward would be using edit requests with reliable sources that verifies the changes. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Tag removal request for the page - Lori Greiner
I request you to please remove the ADVERT maintenance tag at the top of Lori Greiner page as I have edited the copy and have removed the promotional content that made the copy read like an advertisement. The page now has only factual content following WP:CCPOL guidelines. Thank you.

103.57.71.178 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on it. Let me take a look. I'll respond on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

ReverbNation Info Removal
Hello Ronz,

You have recently reverted every single change I have made to the ReverbNation page twice, citing that I was promoting the business, when in reality, I was updating some very out-of-date information and approaching the information from as neutral as possible. Can you explain what exactly you had a problem with in my last revisions (specific sources, what exactly you found to be promotional, etc.).

Thanks
 * I made small edit, with a clear edit summary, which you reverted without comment. Now you want me to provide further detail about why I reverted your edits? Can you see how that might not be a good approach to resolving this?
 * My suggestion: Instead of making on massive change, and undoing my other changes without comment, I suggest you work in very small pieces so it's easy to see what new references you are adding, how you are using them, etc. Please include an explanatory edit summary with each. Work on what you feel may be least controversial first, so we can get them out of the way. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Patent information question on BLPs
Hi Ronz, I have another question for you. What's the best way to objectively include information on patents in a BLP, noting that design and utility patents are very different (in the US at least), and that the same patent can be filed in multiple countries. I ask specifically because the page on Lori Greiner says she has 120 US and foreign patents. This in my opinion is misleading for two reasons - one, if you file the same patent in the US and abroad, it's 'double counting' the same thing, and two, there is generally a huge distinction between design and utility patents. I verified from the USPTO office that most of these are design patents, but none of the noteworthy sources mention this (they seem to repeat the claims made on her website that it's 120 patents without much independent fact-checking) and I am hesitant to use first-party data source here. Have you come across this issue in the past? This may not be a big deal at all, and perhaps the 120 claim is perfectly fine, but I just wanted to make sure. --Btcgeek (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally, I don't think patents deserve mention without reliable, independent sources that clearly demonstrate encyclopedic value.
 * Some mention of patents seems due for Lori Greiner, assuming we can wade through all the COI-editing and strip away all the promotion.
 * I think you're correct about the difficulties with properly sourcing the number of patents. (Could she have just a small number of patents, filed in many countries?) Even if we qualified the information by identifying the reference rather than using Wikipedia's voice, I'd worry about the information being misleading and promotional. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I'll look for a good reference and how to display this properly. The way it is now seems overly promotional to me in a way an encyclopedia article should not be. --Btcgeek (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Al Ries ‎
Reminder of an ongoing discussion to clean up article --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

help with correct revisions and preventing further changes
hi Ronz

firstly thank you for teaching me the correct image sourcing previously, I have been trying to figure out more about wikipedia before contributing again , however I wanted to check if you could look into this it seems that this person is repeatedly making negative changes to Nidhi Sunil's page (making her older, taking away accomplishments etc) it doesn't seem to make sense unless it would be someone who might know her and dislike her personally?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.30.239.50

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidhi_Sunil&action=history

her date of birth is not up for question is it?

I just don't want to make any more changes yet as I don't quite know the system well enough and would appreciate your help
 * Thanks for bringing it up. That sounds troubling. I'll take a look. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Requesting help with people deleting images I have uploaded without explaining why, then threatening to block me
Hey Ronz. You were so kind to me when you left an extended welcome on my talk page. I'm having a spot of bother at the moment and I'm wondering if you could give me any advice. A year ago I uploaded an image I made myself so I could use it on my talk page. A couple of days ago I uploaded a fair use image (that got deleted, I'm not worried about that), but this other image from a year ago was deleted too. The people who deleted did no explaining. I initially assumed they thought I plagiarized it, So I uploaded the original variant of this image without lettering I used from a fair-use website to be on the safe side, but they deleted that again, believing it to be the one they initially deleted, leaving again no explanation. I'm really confused, as I've left a message and I've had no response. They've given me "final warnings" but I don't see anything I've done wrong. Could you give me a piece of advice? --Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're going through this. I'll take a look and leave a response on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing out important content on the Anthony J. Hilder page
Please go to the below to discuss this. You're editing out important info that should not be edited out..
 * Talk here: See Editing out important content

Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RS noticeboard

 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_258

Hi Ronz. At your suggestion, I tried posting about Sludge on the RS noticeboard here:. I've never done that before; I haven't gotten much reply--did I do it right? Thanks! Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll add to it if necessary. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how people normally utilize feedback from the RS noticeboard, but so far it looks like the two people besides us who weighed in on the reliability of Sludge are pretty negative on it as a source for anything, and I tend to agree, but you've stated a contrary opinion. What role does the RS board normally play in determining the reliability of a source? Also, it seems to me--correct me if I'm wrong--that you're sort of reticent to work with me anymore on proposed improvements to the PragerU page. I'm fine with moving slow. But if you decide you don't want to be involved anymore, can you please let me know? I can't tell at this point whether you're going to reply to the last post I made on the talk page. Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anyone that responded would agree with your assessment. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you agree with the assessments of the two who commented? Or, if not, with what do you disagree? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything came up that I hadn't already pointed out: We should use it with care, avoid using opinions from it, and properly identify it's use rather than use Wikipedia's voice... --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a quote that came up. Do you agree with it? At the very least any information sourced from Sludge should be attributed to Sludge in text, and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Even then, given the other issues, I'm not so sure it's a great source for facts. I would be inclined to agree with you that it should probably be treated more like a blog. The article currently contains facts from Sludge without an in-text attribution. I'm not trying to argue, by the way; I just want to understand what you think about the result of the RS discussion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that statement doesn't summarize the feedback. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is not a summary. It is just the opinion of one of the two people who gave feedback. Do you agree with that bit of feedback, which is not meant as a summary of what the other person said? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with it in the ways that it differs from what I've said. Again, this is battleground mentality. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you'd prefer I not talk to you on this page. Let me know if that's not true, and until then, I'll stay off. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Other than the initial RSN heads up, the discussion belongs on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you Ronz, I am new user on wikipedia. I will try to be more enthousistic on the innovation subject and try to be more factual. I have studies this well documented subject and thank you for your recommandations about conflict of interest. Please do not hesitate to notificate if a text is better another way. Thank you for your collaboration. Best --Fbeguin99 (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes you are wright I did not asked at the Conference to use the picture. I will take it off and first ask to use it. About my working situation I filled in my profile on my user page.Thank you for your good advises on wikipedia. It is nice to have someone like you to guide me through this new way of communicating and participating to science and knowledge.Best Fbeguin99 (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have understood that you wanted to know if I have conflicts of interest. I have red the page that you indicated me and can assure you that I have no conflicts of interest. I wanted to participate to wikipedia and for my first steps I took the profile of someone brillant that has recieved an international award at an international conference where I assisted also. I have filled in also my user profile to be more transparent. Yesterday I contacted Dr Di Franco & Dr Walsh and they gave me the authorization to publish the picture. I hope you will be secured. Thank you for you interest and your patience. I am just learning this new tool. --Fbeguin99 (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

TheRichest.com as a source
I received your message, but I honestly do not remember using TheRichest.com as source material for a previous article. If I did, I probably forgot which article(s) I would have used it in. I usually forget most of my article editing after I have done it. If you could refresh my memory on the articles that used TheRichest.com, that would be helpful. Thank you. - Jake "JJR" Rivera

Edit on Louis Cole
Hi, I'm confused with my undone edit to Louis Cole's page. I changed the 'FunforLouis' to a capital F on For because it's the way it's spelt in his channel name, sorry if this was wrong. But I'm also confused because of the Food For Louis information, it's true and the source is a video uploaded by him on the channel that states that he is now eating Vegan/Plant Based food. I agree with taking off the other information, but these two things have credible sources and are true, so I'm a little confused as to why you undid the edits. Was it in the wrong format?

Sawhitney36 (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what the conventions are for its capitalization, but at least it should be consistent across the article.
 * My concerns were about the food. Without an independent source, it is promotion. --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for informing me! So I have read the Examples section on the Independent Source page you linked which gave me the most understanding. So, I think what you mean is that I have to reference at least one article that doesn't have any personal bias or gain? Would this be a reference I can make (alongside the video or on it's own)? Sawhitney36 (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad to help.
 * Teneightymagazine.com is an in-world source, focused on the UK YouTube community. It's poor in general, and highly promotional.
 * The specific article is an interview with some commentary, so it may not qualify as an independent source at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay thank you very much! Sawhitney36 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOVN Rupert Sheldrake
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the info Ronz. I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfire101 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please step in
This page https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanne_Vloet doesnt adhere to the English page. The English page was changed. The Spanish page is an old translation. They do not want to listen and change/translate it to the current English page, please step in. They keep changing the post back or revert it + a user report me as a vandalist which I am not. Trying to stick to the rules here. Cna0912 (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone else has done so. I've no time to work on other language versions of articles. --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Martines
Can't find a version with sourced content beyond the accusations.  Dloh Cier  ekim  08:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's been a year, and if the SPAs have any credibility there've been counter-suits...
 * Meanwhile we have what we have. Is mention due? --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Mayte Garcia edits,
Hi Ronz,

The reason that I am editing information on the Mayte Garcia Wikipedia page is that some of the information on there is misleading and inaccurate. For example: Mayte Garcia was not on tour with Prince when she was sixteen years old. Her first tour with him was “Diamonds & Pearls,” which started in April 1992, when she was eighteen. She was born November 1973 and turned 18 in Nov 1991. She talks about being hired for the “Diamonds & Pearls” tour when she was 18 in her book, on her official site, in written and video interviews, etc. Therefore, I can not only site specific page numbers from her book to back these changes up but also include more external links if necessary.

Secondly, Mayte Garcia never lived in Paisley Park nor did she ever claim to in her book. Prince wasn’t even living in Paisley Park at that time; he had a separate house. Mayte Garcia lived with her parents in Germany until she graduated high school there. However, she was a few months shy of her 18th birthday, and in order for her to travel to LA for music videos and Minneapolis for music, her parents gave Prince limited guardianship opportunities. Once again, I can site specific page numbers from her book as well as external links to back this up. In fact, her graduating high school in Germany is mentioned elsewhere on this page, yet the Professional & Personal Life sections give the false impression that she graduated high school in Minneapolis. She did not.

Lastly, she didn’t live with Prince until marriage. When he hired her for the “Diamonds & Pearls” tour, he helped her get set up with her own apartment. That’s where she lived in Minneapolis until the two got married in 1996. Sometimes when he would go to LA, she would stay at his house but they didn’t really live together until later. When he proposed to her over the phone, she even talks about it taking her by surprise because the most she was hoping for at that time was him asking her to move in with him (The Most Beautiful, p. 181).

I hope this explains things. I personally believe that this page should endeavor to be as clear and concise as possible. If you need me to provide specific page numbers from her book or other outside sources, let me know. Bojarsjk (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Mayte Garcia Edits
Hi Ronz,

The reason that I am editing information on the Mayte Garcia Wikipedia is because of some misleading passages on this page. For starters: Mayte Garcia was not sixteen on the “Diamonds and Pearls” tour. She was eighteen. She was born Nov 1973 and turned eighteen in Nov 1991. She talks about being hired for the “Diamonds and Pearls” tour when she was eighteen in her book.

Secondly, Mayte Garcia never moved into Paisley Park, and she never says she does in her book. When she moved to Minneapolis, Prince set her up with her own apartment. He became her guardian for a brief period after she graduated high school because she was a few months shy of her 18th birthday and she moved to Minneapolis, Prince set her up with her own apartment. He became her guardian for a brief period after she graduated high school because she was a few months shy of her 18th birthday and she wanted to travel to LA to work on videos. She traveled back and forth between LA, Minneapolis and Germany, where she lived with her parents. She also graduated high school in Germany. It even says so in another section on this page.

I think it’s important that information is as clear and accurate as possible. Therefore, I believe it needs to be made clear that: a) Mayte Garcia did not live in Paisley Park, and she never says she does in her book. I can site page numbers if you like; b) Mayte Garcia was eighteen years old on the “Diamonds and Pearls” tour; and c) Mayte Garcia had her own apartment in Minneapolis until she and Prince got married. Once again, I can site specific page numbers of her book if you’d like, especially the part where he proposed over the phone and it took her by surprise since the most that she had hoped was that he would ask her to move in with him (pg. 181).

Hope this clears it up, and I hope we can get on the same page with the necessary edits for this page. Bojarsjk (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojarsjk (talk • contribs)

Mayte Garcia Citations
Hi Ronz,

I’m in the process of adding specific quotes from Mayte Garcia’s book as well as her official website and other interviews that I’ve come across. I’m just learning my way around Wikipedia and how to cite things so be patient with me lol. I was wondering though, is there a way to reference a source that’s already been put in the reference list so that it doesn’t show up numerous times? For example, I’m citing things from her book and it adds a new citation for the book on the list each time. What would you suggest? The only new thing I’m really adding are the specific page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojarsjk (talk • contribs) 23:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.
 * WP:CITE should have all the information you need, especially Citing_sources and the following subsection, "Citing multiple pages of the same source". --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank You!
Hi Ronz, thank you for fixing This Is Lit! Catinthedogs (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Another thank you
Hi Ronz, Thank you for fixing my edits and letting me know more about Wikipedia. Catinthedogs (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing help Jonathan Swan article
Hey Ronz, I came across the Jonathan Swan page, which has been heavily edited by material provided by a user with a COI, who gets paid for this type of whitewashing, and was recently covered here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225. It is quite worrying in my opinion, but it seems like the user has followed the rules of disclosure. However, specifically for the page of Jonathan Swan, can we make the article less promotional? Doesn't it fall under BLP? If so, can't we hold it to a higher standards based on Wikipedia's higher BLP standards - e.g. why are we talking about such trivial issues like 'someone thought he was overly deferential during an interview' etc.? Since you're more experienced with Wikipedia's rules, I wanted to ask your advice first. What do you think of this type of issue, and can we clean the article up via higher BLP standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btcgeek (talk • contribs) 04:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it up. I saw the COIN discussion and have been weighing if I wanted to get involved. I've taken an initial look and responded at the article. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ronz, appreciate your input. --Btcgeek (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Ronz, I've cleaned up the Jonathan Swan page quite a bit. Got rid of a lot of overly promotional stuff, some NONEWS stuff, and some RECENTISM bias as you commented on the talk page. I've also removed some content that was poorly sourced, e.g. only from Axios. Would you mind taking a quick look and letting me know your thoughts on the page now? Do you think it complies with the BLP standards now and safe to remove the advert tag? Thanks for your help! --Btcgeek (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw. Thanks. I'm wondering if the interview will become noteworthy over time, but I'm not seeing anything beyond publicity from Axios. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly. I removed it because citing Axios for this doesn't seem right. If the interview does become noteworthy over time, I am sure there will be additional coverage (say "review" type articles that might review the administration's record, or journalists covering the administration, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btcgeek (talk • contribs) 03:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Dorcas Shola Fapson
If an person is said to have appeared in "X" and we have a reference to "X" from the company that made "X" then that is a reliable source. NdaniTV and MTV Shuga are great references for the fact that someone appeared in their productions. Your deletions at for instance here are preventing good work from progressing IMO. Victuallers (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's horribly short on specifics, to the point that I wonder why you even brought it up. It looks like typical PROMO, BLP, likely COI cleanup; though I probably should have broken down the removals into multiple edits to make it clearer. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Energy crops
The reason I edited the article was simply the bad writing. Also, it seemed both incoherent and outdated to me. But you think the original article is better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Perennial Hugger (talk • contribs) 08:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the article needs a great deal of work. I suspect that overall the edit may be an improvement. However, the edit is so large that it's difficult to determine what you did, why you did it, and what problems were introduced along the way. Removal of sources without comment is an obvious problem. Removal of prominent links to related articles is also a problem. As I already said, simply try again with a number of small edits and descriptive edit summaries so others can follow along and help. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi Ronz. I know you are a very active contributor on Wikipedia and I don't want to bother you unnecessarily, but I noticed you recently struck out "I hope that essential information was not overlooked purposely" on the Talk:E. J. Levy page. Since you struck it out after responding to my comment, I was wondering if that was directed at me and my reference to Levy's Twitter page? If it was, I am a little disappointed you would make that accusation against me there like that. I never suggested using Twitter as a source in the article for personal information, and had already used that link twice on the BLPN to suggest that we should take the claims of "EJLevywriter" with a grain of salt. If it was problematic to use that Twitter reference on the talk page, I would prefer to be told directly rather than accusations that I was purposely trying to introduce inappropriate sources. I am a new user, and I welcome advice from more experienced and better quality editors like yourself! I think a direct comment on my talk page or when I first referenced the Twitter comments on BLPN would have been more appropriate than the more indirect or backhanded comment that suggests bias or underhandedness. I just wanted to let you know, and I hope we can continue editing together productively. Thank you for taking the time to read this. FYI, your welcome message when others are editing your talk page has two commas after "Welcome". Small typo, but thought you may like to know. Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, if you have any advice on how I could improve my editing or any improvements I could make to my interactions on the Levy article (or anywhere else), that would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. There were multiple edit-conflicts in there, and I should have been clearer. No, I probably shouldn't have even brought up the Twitter link.
 * My main concern was that the dates weren't mentioned, nor the context from the references. That was addressed, and I specifically acknowledged the dates in my thank you.
 * Welcome,, Dang. Looks like my script is partially broken. It's supposed to place the editor's username between the two quotes. I need to look into that for some other notices that I use. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. BTW, I looked into the script issue, and it seems that the REVISIONUSER is broken: . Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a relief. Thanks once more. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Luda Kroitor
Hello, Thank you for your message. I have not used famous birthdays before and agree that its information is not likely to be reliable.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Eazy e was born in 1963 and died aged 31
The wiki page is incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.185.208 (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Thanks for bringing it up. I have a hard time imagining what new sources could completely overturn those currently being used. A new, high-quality at best could make a case for including both years and indicating it is uncertain. --Ronz (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Username response
My username "Cdjcasting," while also the name I operate under professionally, are my initials "Caitlin Dorothy Jones" and the word "casting" which is my profession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:2B84:F900:E574:1204:F0C7:86C8 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I'll make a note on your talk as well.
 * You should not be using your company name as your username. The account will likely be blocked because of this. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

World Culture Festival
Please start a discussion before reverting my changes. In your revert, you have removed a counter statement made by the foundation. I have merely presented what the foundation has publicly stated. It is important to present both sides of the story to maintain a neutral viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewlyHookedToWiki (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's your personal viewpoint, being used to promote that of the foundation. That's SOAP by definition. Thanks for starting a discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is NOT my personal view point. The case is being fought in courts. I have added sources. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with advocating a strong position without sources is it looks like personal bias. Adding sources afterwards brings up the possibility of cherry-picking sources to promote the previously stated position. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Re:Famousbirthdays.com as a source
I see, thank you for letting me know. I will keep the chart of reliable sources handy for the future. DisgustingFish (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Wellness Tourism
Hi Ronz,

I have never done this before so not sure if I am doing it correctly. I understand the conflict of interest but the definition for Wellness Tourism is wrong by basic definity. Just as Retail is the industry and Shopping is the activity, Tourism is an industy and Travel is the activity. I would like to see this corrected but do not know how as I am the President of the Wellness Toruism Association. But also a 25 plus year travel/tourism journalist and - for accuracy - words matter to me. Would love to hear your suggestions on correcting this. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adimon (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've left a welcome message on your Talk page that gives wide reference to Wikipedia. You may want to work through the tutorials to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia.
 * Better sources, clearly independent of the industry, would be of tremendous help. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Ron. I totally understand the conflict of interest. But the definition continues to remain incorrect. Should it not be corrected for the good of the public? I will leave this for now. Thank you Ron.

Anne Dimon Travel writer/tourism journalist Founder/Editor Travel to Wellness President, Wellness Tourism Association adimon@traveltowellness.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adimon (talk • contribs) 22:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Review of SIRIO
Hello Ronz,

How are you today! Thank you so much for your message on my page :). Really appreciate your help. I'm currently working on adding some missing Albanian new/emerging celebrities such as Endrit Mertiri, Sirio, Megi Pojani, Ronela Hajati etc. I saw that you just reviewed Megi Pojani, and it is true, there is a lot of work to be done still. Can you take a look at SIRIO as well - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SIRIO. There are still some info to be added but I'm waiting on other users to contribute as well before I release it to the main space. Can you give me some feedback/review? Would be greatly appreciated. --Ilirtoska (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I strongly suggest taking time out to learn Wikipedia far better before continuing to work on BLPs. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much Ronz. I'm trying not to have a advertising approach to my articles. Im trying to follow examples of Albanian public figures that are already part of Wikipedia. How do I make sure it doesn't read promotional? --Ilirtoska (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Start with better sources. Spend time working on articles where the required standards aren't so very high. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

For Sirio for example and for Bes Kallaku, I have used reliable sources such as Google News, Official Albanian Magazines, Issues, Interviews. Also Bes Kllaku was already a published article with only two sources. --Ilirtoska (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Google News" isn't a source at all.
 * I've given you my recommendations. I've no interest in discussing this further if you're going to ignore them. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Roy Spencer
Thanks for reverting your revert. The problem is indeed with "denier" which requires explicit sourcing in a BLP. I'm less concerned about the rest of the edit, though I think many of Lovemankind83's recent edits have problems of NPOV and SYN. But if you think the rest of the edit has merit that's absolutely fine with me. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Joel Berghult
The page for Joel Berghult is not to promote or advertise and I would appreciate it if you remove the speedy deletion, the page is new so information and reliable sources will be added soon. Michael14375 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're lucky you haven't been blocked yet. Please take some time to understand the many comments on your talk page and why Joel Berghult was deleted. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Advertising problem on The Mexican Runner
I was worried that someone would think that some trimming should be necessary. What do you propose is too much? I believe I accurately cited most of his accomplishments using external third party sources. What else needs to be mentioned to counterbalance the advertising tone?

Happy to move this discussion to the talk page of The Mexican Runner if you prefer. JordiGH (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While removing the one unreliable source that led me to the article, I noticed poor and unreliable sources, extremely heavy usage of in-world sources, promotional BLPSPS violations, and linkspam. I stopped looking at that point and tagged it. Given your COI and inexperience as an editor, I think you should take great care with working on it. Trimming back all poorly sourced and promotional content should be safe. Then use edit requests, noticeboards, etc to get help. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. I'm still not sure of the COI claim, but can you help me with one bit? Please remove the "other interests" section. It's poorly sourced and obviously irrelevant, as this person is not primarily known for their musical talent. JordiGH (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks from youngster kitten editors of Wikipedia to the experienced mama-cat editor for caring about the newbies

Mchan 1 2 3 4 5 16:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC) 

What is what in my editing is not real and normal? Ava Max ( AMANDA KOCI ) is a Albanian Singer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olindo123 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Independent sources and examples
Hi Ronz, I'm trying to figure out why your objection to my initial edit on Appeal to nature was so significant that the paragraph added was worth deleting entirely. An example given in one of the most widely-read and widely-used applied ethics texts does not seem like something in need of additional references in support of its relevance to the article, and it just seems like bad editing practice to delete content from a reliable source unless there is an issue with the actual content (which clearly does not apply in this case). By the excessive standard you're employing here, most examples in articles like this one should also be subject to deletion, which just seems unreasonable. Also, your second reversion included several extra objections that you hadn't mentioned in your first reversion, and I'm not clear on how any of those apply, so if you wouldn't mind clarifying how all of those policies apply in this case, I would appreciate it. Thank you. And PS, I do appreciate your work to keep information off of Wikipedia that isn't adequately supported, I just think that this is a case where adequate support is clearly there. Drevolt (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up with me. I hope that you don't mind my coping it to the article talk page for follow-up there. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Anthony J. Hilder
Hilder is dead according to his own Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/anthonyjhilder Why are you reverting my edit? Tom-1674 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't indicate a reliable source. Thanks for indicating what you are using. I'm not sure that would be considered reliable. There's no independent press at all? No obituary? --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ninja (streamer)
Why did you take all of my stuff down on Ninjas Page. DomB12 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi DomB12. Thanks for following up with me.
 * As I mentioned on your talk page, Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages. The sources were poor and promotional, and the content violated multiple policies. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

TheFamousPeople.com as a source
Hi, I accepted your recommendations, but I look at all the sites and the latest news. I try to check the information before editing. Kuba Ali (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I'll leave some tips on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nicole Eggert Article
You have claimed that the edits I made to the Nicole Eggert article violate BLP. Could you explain in more detail?

1. the DJ Lethal episode was widely reported by major media, and clearly qualifies as encyclopedic.

2. The claims against Scott Baio as stated are unbalanced and do not include facts, which were also widely reported, including  that he passed polygraph tests. These are clearly relevant and well sourced.

3. Her bankruptcy was widely reported and is clearly encyclopedi.

Taken in total, these deletions appear to unbalance the article and tell one side of controversial matters in which she has been involved, instead of both.

Since you appear interested in educating new editors about Wikipedia policy, could you please explain how these deletions advance the encyclopedia mission of Wikipedia? Thank you

Michaelgmitchell45 (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion should be on the article talk page.
 * High-quality, reliable sources are required especially in situations like this.
 * I've already pointed BLP to you, and why it so very problematic to work on BLP content as a new editor. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the BLP vios in two articles
I notice that you have now followed me to two articles and undone all of my edits, which were encyclopedic and well sourced. This is not normal protocol (see: Dispute_resolution. I would appreciate a fuller explanation for your reasoning why this edits were "unsalvageable" before I decide whether to escalate this dispute. Thank you. Michaelgmitchell45 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see,, why I would need consensus to delete the material you added. One part of "normal editing protocol" is WP:BRD (it's an essay, but still), which in this case, especially since it's a BLP, would require you to gain consensus for re-inserting it. I have not looked at the specifics of the dispute you're having, but I don't think that "escalat[ing]" would be to your benefit. (And "adamantly" is not a neutral term, by the way.) Drmies (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * With regards to the term adamantly, I think we could agree to find another word if one is required, but that is a minor issue compared to your other deletion, which explained the basis of the Baio claim that Eggert's prior words had undermined her claim. Thank you for your response. Michaelgmitchell45 (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I notice that you have now followed me to two articles If you take some time to look closer, you'll see that I've been working on exactly these content issues in both articles long before you ever had. Could you please retract the accusation? --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not make an accusation, but an observation. It is not clear to me why your length of time editing these articles is the defining factor in whether your independent decision to make multiple complete deletions of accurate, encyclopedic and well sourced material is within normal editing protocol, which in clear language calls for exactly the opposite. I wish to assume goodwill here, and ask exactly why you believe that these complete deletions are warranted? Michaelgmitchell45 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your observation is wrong. The accusation that I followed you is wrong. If you are unable to reconsider after given the facts, then this all seems more like harassment than an attempt to improve Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (Content redacted --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)) I edited two articles, and you deleted all of the edits on both of them, without reasonable explanation. You still have not issued a material comment on all of the deletions you made, and why they are merited. I would appreciate your doing so now. Again, I assume goodwill, but it is time for you to make your argument. Thank you. Michaelgmitchell45 (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're doubling down on incivility while ignoring policy and my comments to you about that policy. You're putting yourself at risk of a block.
 * Please carefully consider how you move forward. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time. I am seeking outside assistance. I believe you are showing bad faith in answering a direct and simple question. Please do not edit this block. Michaelgmitchell45 (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Michaelgmitchell45, I do not understand why you are seeking to escalate. You posted on the talk page; one editor agrees with you. It might be you develop a consensus for your edit. In the meantime, throwing around accusations is the least useful thing you could do. As for "do not edit this block"--Ronz redacted a snide little remark of yours; it seems to me they are allowed to do that. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Notification
I have filed a notice to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard requesting outside consensus regarding the deletions you made to the Nicole Eggert article. You may respond here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#User_talk:Ronz#Concerning_the_BLP_vios_in_two_articles. Thank you. Michaelgmitchell45 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

TheRichest.com as a source
What is the exact issue regarding the source? Eerie Holiday (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up with me. I'll add to the already detailed explanation I left on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response, I'll take those things into consideration before deciding on a source next time. Eerie Holiday (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources for date of birth
Hello Ronz,

Could you please tell me the reliable sources to prove that someone is born on the day is says so on their wikipedia page?

I need specific website sources if you can because i don,t understand with all that abstract information that you provided me with.

Hedleyfannumber12


 * If it isn't already reliably sourced in a Wikipedia article about the person, I recommend not bothering to avoid WP:DOB problems. --Ronz (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

John Crist Edits


Hi Ronz,

Thank you for pointing out my editing errors. When I originally edited the page I was too hasty and did use language that I do not normally use. After re-reading it - I have gone back through the page and removed language that sounds promotional and stats that could come across as advertorial. Thank you for pointing this out - I was trying to squeeze too much information in and did it too quickly. I do normally edit one paragraph at a time but for some reason got caught up on this one. I think the current version is much better. Thank you!

Drsammyjohnson (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)drsammyjohnson
 * Do you have a conflict of interest with the subject?
 * I may have time to work on it in the next few days. Some initial observations:
 * The very first reference is unreliable.
 * Many of the other references look poor and promotional.
 * Notability is unclear. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not have a conflict of interest - he is a headlining christian comedian so he just doesn't get a ton of notable press but he is a huge figure in the Christian community. I would love your help on this if you have time. I spent a ton of time on edits but could use some help on references. I thought that interviews were OK but I understand that they can't be the only source. Thank you.

Drsammyjohnson (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)drsammyjohnson
 * Thanks for the response.
 * It would be extremely helpful if his notability was clearly identified and referenced. Otherwise the article is at risk of deletion. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I included additional citations and removed/restructured infor that could be construed as advertorial. It looks like the page creator stepped in and made some edits over the weekend as well. Can you re-review? I think the ad template can come down now. As the page is a work in progress I think it's OK for the other two to stay but I don't believe it reads as promotional any longer. Thoughts? Thank you.

Drsammyjohnson (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)drsammyjohnson
 * Thanks for following up.
 * Turns out I didn't have the time I was hoping for, but the work that you and Mukilteoedits have been doing is great. Thank you.
 * Titles, authors, and publication dates need to be on each reference. Not having them makes it difficult to identify which might meet WP:BIO. I'm not seeing it in all the announcements, promotions, and publicity pieces.
 * If most of the references are poor, then no amount of editing is going to solve all the problems. At this point I'm still wondering what he's notable for (a comedian known for family-friendly, Christian comedy?), and which sources establish that notability.
 * You might want to look for similar biographies in Good_articles/Media_and_drama to get an idea of what information is emphasized in such articles and how it's organized and presented.
 * I'm not sure when I'll have another large chunk of time to look through the article. I hope this helps at least a little. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean, he's headlining 55 city national tours with sold out shows and has millions and millions of views on his sketches. He is also in two movies, etc - he's a fairly well-known comedian. So I do think he is notable enough. Regardless of that - I didn't create the page and am more than happy to leave it as a work in progress with the two templates asking for more... but would it be possible for you to remove the advertorial template? I think removal is warranted now since it's been massively revised by two editors. I can do it but wanted to ask you first since you put it up. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)drsammyjohnson
 * It needs a lot more work, and tagging articles is the first way to identify that work is needed.
 * For example, the WP:LEDE. Because the notability is not well identified and referenced, it reads like some of the promotional pieces about him. I think it safe to say he's not notable for who he's opened for.
 * Again, thanks for the improvements you've made. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting tag removal on Lori Greiner
Hey Ronz,

I am requesting you to please remove the tags on this page Lori Greiner. All citations have been completed by a previous editor while the unclear citation style has also been taken care of. The article's list sources do show notable and reliable names such as Bustle (magazine), Forbes, Crain's Chicago Business, NY Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Business Insider, Entrepreneur.com, New York Post etc. which are enough to establish notability. Also, after the changes as per the talk page history, the article reads factual. I would appreciate if you could look into this, have also left a request on the talk page of Lori Greiner. Thanks.

FamJoshua1 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I see you made the same request on the article talk page, so I'll respond there. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

How To Cake It
Hi How are you? I think this is the first time we have spoke. I see you reverted my revert the last time on the above article. The editor added a whole bunch promotional editing. Since your in the lead, do you fancy taking a look.  scope_creep Talk  12:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Bob Marley
(Comment removed per instructions --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somville243 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Editor has been blocked for a few days....start a talk at Talk:Bob Marley....so if the come back they can see all the problems.-- Moxy 🍁 14:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Tsutomu Miyazaki ‎
The zoom lens in the vagina thing was added in 2009 with no source, then a source was added later to a book that can't be viewed, I would like a source added for that that's both earlier then the 2009 edit and also on a website, otherwise it shouldn't be there, as it might be vandalism
 * Thanks for responding.
 * An inability to access a reference is immaterial to such situations. If you believe the source unreliable, make a case.
 * Assuming the material may be vandalism is inappropriate. Again, if you can make some case that it is, please do so.
 * Restoring unreliable sources is inappropriate.
 * Please follow up on the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I posted two sources. http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/06/17/2008-tsutomu-miyazaki-the-nerd-cult-killer/ here's another one. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-06-18/japan-confirms-execution-of-cannibal-killer/2475810 and another one. So I'm not sure what you want regarding that. So there's my case. Four sources compared to one that can not be viewed to confirm if it actually says that, which since it is immaterial in such situations, I guess doesn't matter. But still, four over one, even if you find at least two of them "unreliable" but a book neither of us can view isn't. I guess if I had said the book didn't mention the zoom lens it WOULD be appropriate. The zoom lens seems suspect and I only find it in articles made after the 2009 edit. ALSO, the Japanese wiki article for the killer doesn't even mention it so it seems to clearly be vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.74.105.129 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand.
 * You aren't denying that you restored unreliable sources, and removed a source because you cannot access it, right? --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear how executedtoday.com could be reliable. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying the "ZOOM LENS" part seems to be entirely fabricated and can not be found on any articles that are from before it was actually added to this wiki page (not to mention it was added in 2009 and the book it's sourcing came out in 2016 so even if the book did say that it could just be referencing the Wikipedia page). It is not on the Japanese wiki page for the murderer, and in fact the Japanese wiki article just says he got the girl completely nude like what I wrote, and it sources a Japanese book, so we could use that book if you like (or the ABC dot net one). The "ZOOM LENS" part is fake and there's no real source for it, and it's most likely just something someone randomly added to the wiki to make it more shocking, and there's no proof that this isn't the case compared to my sources that say otherwise. That's the main point I'm trying to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.74.105.129 (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm only concerned about the use and reuse of unreliable sources. Make your case on the article talk page.
 * It appears that the Whipple reference was the original source for the information, which doesn't appear reliable. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I changed it to just say she was naked and linked the ABC source. The Zoom Lens isn't anywhere on the Japanese version of the article. You're okay with the ABC source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.74.105.129 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is in the book, which you should check, then it should be considered for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll go to library when I can and check it out, if it's not actually presented in the book or it cites the Wikipedia page I'll leave it as is with the ABC source.96.74.105.129 (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * You might want to see what general consensus there is for such graphic details in similar articles, at noticeboards (like WP:POVN and in good articles. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah like from what I can get from other sources the main thing stated was that she was convinced by him to strip naked, and I can't find any real source for the Zoom Lens, I'm still gonna try and find that book so I can read the article about it, and even if it does mention it, I'm not sure if that detail is more important then the fact that he had already gotten her naked and her dad walked in. Like you said it might also be unnecessary detail. Thinking about it more, I would also need to find a source that says he was actually trying to insert it and not just, you know, getting a close up. The INSERTION part seems like speculation since nothing says he actually inserted anything in her, we would need to find some source where he admitted in court or to the police he was trying to insert it into her vagina and not just trying to get a extreme close up. This is a really gross topic in retrospect. 96.74.105.129 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed this conversation and thought I could help. The book is available on Google Books. Search for Miyazaki, and on the last two pages about him the incident is discussed: On Sunday, July 23, 1989, Miyazaki spotted two sisters playing in a public park in Hachioji. He pulled over and cajoled the younger of the girls to walk with him to a nearby river, instructing the older girl to stay behind. She immediately ran home to fetch her father who returned to find Miyazaki taking photographs of his naked daughter. The man attacked Miyazaki, but he managed to break free and flee. The man then called the police and they apprehended Miyazaki as he tried to return to his car. Hope this helps. Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you that helps immensely. I guess the Zoom Lens insertion was made up entirely 96.74.105.129 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Remember the RfC at Axios(website)?
I had said unkind words to you for "patronising" me. You had immediately apologised to me on my talk page. I am the kind of person who immediately apologises when such a confrontation occurs even if I don't believe I was at fault, because conflict is pointless. So, I'd wondered if you were the same. Anyway, I'd told you then that perhaps I'd one day come back and apologise to you for passing off hasty judgements out of one misunderstood engagement. I believe that day has come. Having been on wikipedia for a month more, I realise that you did nothing wrong. That I would have realised that it was just how people interact on wikipedia had I had a little more experience here. So, I apologise unreservedly for that public display of unkindness. Hope you can forgive me. I don't know why we don't encounter each other more often. But I guess, one can't come into contact with all 125K editors on a regular basis. Hope to see more of you. Cheers mate! Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 18:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really appreciate it. --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Face on Mars fringe sources
I have noticed that you have just removed an apparent fringe claim on that page. Do you also consider peer-reviewed papers in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society as fringe? I have references in the talk page which need to be revised before being added to the page. Thanks. Diagramofsymmetry (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's a connection relevant to improving the article between my edit and your question about the journal, do make it clear on the article talk page. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan Haidt page
I don't see any real justification for the "written like advert" and "contributor appears to have close connection" templates on Jonathan Haidt's page. I can see perhaps in the intro (fourth paragraph) but Jonathan Haidt is a highly respected academic figure. Aside from that one paragraph, the page looks like every other page on Wikipedia, and other editors agree with me. Is there something I'm missing here? In my opinion and as other editors have noted, those templates are excessive. I can somewhat see the point regarding the fourth paragraph, but I also believe it's appropriate to point out his accolades.

Trafficon87 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I've left you a detailed welcome, including details about how biographical information on Wikipedia is held to a very high standard. I hope you find the information useful. I'll take a look at the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is still a mess. As I pointed out in my welcome message to you, I do not recommend that new editors work on such articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is still a mess. As I pointed out in my welcome message to you, I do not recommend that new editors work on such articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was on my other laptop... it appears I was logged in with the wrong account. This is the account I use. It was originally written like an advert, but I fixed those issues a while back. Jonathan Haidt is a researcher who's contributions to science and is probably along the lines of Steven Pinker. He's made very significant contributions to the science. While he doesn't have the clout of someone like Richard Dawkins or Charles Darwin, he is a highly respected scientist. Almost everything we know about moral disgust came from Haidt's experiments.

In academic research, the proxy we use proxy for a scientists contributions is A) number of citations, and B) h-index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index

From the Carnegie Institution website:

"Its creator, Jorge Hirsch (UC-San Diego) asserts that a “successful scientist” will have an h-index of 20 after 20 years; an “outstanding scientist” will have an index of 40 after 20 years; and a “truly unique individual” will have an index of 60 after 20 years or 90 after 30 years."

https://library.gl.ciw.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=170

For context, the average h-index of Nobel Laureates is around 60. The box on the right contains the scores of Haidt and Pinker:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NYYzMQQAAAAJ&hl=en

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=VafYYacAAAAJ

Pinkers h-index is 93, Haidt's is 83. Again according to the creator of the h-index: "an “outstanding scientist” will have an index of 40 after 20 years"

I looked up Steven Pinker's page and it looks exactly the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker

From Pinker's article:

''Pinker has been named as one of the world's most influential intellectuals by various magazines. He has won awards from the American Psychological Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Institution, the Cognitive Neuroscience Society and the American Humanist Association. He delivered the Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh in 2013. He has served on the editorial boards of a variety of journals, and on the advisory boards of several institutions. He has frequently participated in public debates on science and society.''

From Haidt's:

Haidt has attracted both support and criticism for his critique of the current state of universities and his interpretation of progressive values.[4] He has been named one of the "top global thinkers" by Foreign Policy magazine,[5] and one of the "top world thinkers" by Prospect magazine.[6] He is among the most cited researchers in political psychology[7] and moral psychology,[8] and has given four TED talks.[9] In 2019, Haidt was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[10]

I really don't see an issue. Haidt's article looks basically the same as all the other researchers in the same camp.

Chrisvacc (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE: Comparisons to other articles without regard to the quality of those articles is a waste of time.
 * It may be helpful to find WP:GA-quality articles for comparison.
 * Or simply cleaning up all the references would be a good start, and would make the article easier to review. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the Steven Pinker article is fine. Do you disagree? I don't feel like pointing out the accolades of an acclaimed scientist isn't writing an Advert. If it were an article on Tai Lopez, sure... but the sentiments regarding Haidt are generally reflective of the scientific community as a whole. There are a few progressives who criticize his moderate political stances, but his academic work is pretty much uncontroversial.

Perhaps there's a better template to use than those two. There's no evidence that an SPA or two equates to a 'close connection'...

50.255.154.230 (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, wasn't logged in again

Chrisvacc (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Well this is pretty funny. I went to look at WP:GA to find a comparable social scientist to compare to, and humorously enough Steven Pinker's article was one of only ~8 psychologists listed as exemplary articles:

https://imgur.com/HOKECWr

Listen, most of the other editors agree that Haidt's article looks pretty standard, and I agree aside from a few things. I'm gonna do some minor cleanups on that fourth paragraph article and anything else I see and remove the tag. Saying that pointing out the accolades of one of the most eminent living psychologists equates to an 'advert' is overkill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisvacc (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Steven Pinker is a far superior article.
 * Do you have a WP:COI with the subject matter? Not that you have to respond, but discussions like this are rather indicative of paid editing, or some other strong relationship with the subject. --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I work in the social sciences, and I do know Jonathan... as well as a number of researchers in the field. Which is how I have a knowledge of all this. It's common for people who actually work in the fields to edit pages pertaining to their field.

Whether I'm close enough to imply a COI is definitely debatable. I know a lot of psychologists. If you look at all of my edits, they're mostly within the social sciences or Neuroscience

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Chrisvacc&offset=20170324143542&target=Chrisvacc

And I didn't even know paid editors really existed... I thought that was very rare.

But regardless, at first you said the Pinker article wasn't of high quality [Edit: see next comments], but now it's good. I do agree that the Pinker article is superior, but "far superior" is a bit of a stretch, so perhaps you can point out what you think the issues with the Haidt article is.

Chrisvacc (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * at first you said the Pinker article wasn't of high quality I'm afraid you're mistaken. Please retract. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:OSE: Comparisons to other articles without regard to the quality of those articles is a waste of time.
 * It may be helpful to find WP:GA-quality articles for comparison.

That statement, to me implies that the Pinker article wasn't of good enough quality to use as a comparison. Am I misunderstanding?

Chrisvacc (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

But I struck out the comment anyway

Chrisvacc (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're misunderstanding. You brought up an article for comparison, Pinker's, without any mention of its quality, so I pointed you to OSE and GA. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Heterodox Academy description
I wanted to reach out about the Heteorodox Academy description. I changed it to simply refer to them as a non-profit organization, rather than a non-profit advocacy group.

Non-profit advocacy group is a contradiction in terms. According to Wikipedia, advocacy groups are "group or an organization which tries to influence the government but does not hold power in the government."

As a 501c3, Heterodox Academy is legally forbidden from trying to influence government: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-section-501c3-organizations

Additionally, their leadership has repeatedly spoken out against attempts to legislate viewpoint diversity:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Are-Colleges-Failing/244544 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/04/president-trump-vows-issue-executive-order-barring-research-funds-colleges-dont

As a simple matter of fact, they are not an advocacy organization, they are a non-profit. This is a fairly straightforward issue.

Now, all non-profits exist to serve particular purposes. In fact, they are legally obligated to state an official purpose when they file for status. Heterodox Academy's official purpose on their 501c3 paperwork is to 'promote viewpoint diversity, mutual understanding and constructive disagreement in institutions of higher learning.'

It may be the case that Heterodox Academy was characterized as an advocacy group in some of the articles Acquillon cited. But this does not make the characterization correct. The type of organization they are, as a simple matter of fact, is a 501c3. A group cannot simultaneously be a 501c3 and an advocacy group (as defined/ linked to in Wikipedia).

I should add, I have two concerns about the sources previously used in the lede:

1. All three are overtly hostile to Heterodox Academy. It would not be appropriate, for instance, to begin an essay about Barack Obama by characterizing him according to his critics, and sourcing exclusively from those. I don't think this is a normal approach. I cannot think of any other organization or figure that is defined primarily by their critics in the lede, sourced exclusively by hostile references.

2. Those sources relied upon in the intro are overused. Two were used 4 times in the article, another twice. This is over-relying on particular sources to advance a particular (uncharitable) portrayal of the organization.

I understand the concern about not treating as fact what the organization stands for. So I changed the language to read "their stated purpose is..." rather than simply "their purpose is..."

I hope this proves sufficient. But it is factually inaccurate in a pretty straightforward way to characterize them as an advocacy group. You seem more reasonable and even-handed with regards to this subject, so I am appealing to you as a voice of reason... --Moses102 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding.
 * The bottom line at Wikipedia is usually what independent, reliable sources say about them.
 * An individual's biases against viewpoints and sources are one of the main reasons for WP:POV. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

User Faruk danyaya
Please i am a wikipedia contributor and i contribute for creating new article and you are deleting what I've made please i beg you stop deleting it when i added it back thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faruk danyaya (talk • contribs) 00:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finally contacting me. Unfortunately, you don't appear to have read anything anyone has written you, while you persist in violating many of Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies. Please respond on your talk page with some understanding of what's going on. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finally contacting me. Unfortunately, you don't appear to have read anything anyone has written you, while you persist in violating many of Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies. Please respond on your talk page with some understanding of what's going on. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank You
Hello. I noticed that you reversed edits I made on the Why Don't We article. I didn't realize I was using unreliable sources and I thought I was using a neutral point of view, but that's probably because I am new to editing. I apologize if I broke any of Wikipedia's policies. That was not my intention. Thank you for your welcome message on my talk page. AshleySusan182 (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)AshleySusan182
 * Glad to help. Be careful. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Dan Peña Page
Hi Ronz, your last cleanup of the Dan Peña page is [|this version]. I don't see anything new via RS added to the page. It seems like a promotional mess, with completely unsourced and biased information like "His mentees have made in excess of US$6 Trillion, with much of that coming from the IMF and the World Bank. Without those two sources, the total is about US$700 Billion" which should not belong to a biography (IMO). Do you have any thoughts on restoring the page to the previous version I linked above? Also, given the history of the page, do you suggest we apply some sort of page protection to that article? It seems hard to keep up. --Molochmeditates (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. It was not on my watchlist. I'd hoped someone would come along and improve on it, or at least there were enough people watching it to avoid another backslide. I've done the revert myself. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ronz. I thought I had it on my watchlist, but was mistaken, so didn't keep track of the new changes. I've added it to my watchlist as well, to make sure at the very least that it doesn't backslide again. Thanks for the prompt action. --Molochmeditates (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Detailed feedback appreciated
Hi Ronz,

I appreciate your comment on my latest edit. I carefully read your notes and the linked page.

As you said, it was my first edit and I saw that it got reverted. This raised the question of why exactly and was also demotivating since I really put a lot of thoughts and cares in my first edit to not mess up. I'm sure you had good reasons to do so though.

Therefore, I'd like to kindly ask what exactly was wrong about the edit?

I read your feedback but could you please give me specific feedback for my case since it basically just says I should not start with public figures and linked to the rules for editing pages of public figures which I read?

I'd like to avoid making the same mistakes again - and yes I'll not work on public figures anymore. I ask, because in my understanding there was a page of a person where I saw that by fact something was / is missing and that could be improved. I kept the tone of the article, placed changes in the right spot and quoted with the best possible source. It was not written in a promotional way, nor some subjective content or random change. Not even a new chapter. Again, I don't want to argue about the making the changes revert, I'd just like to know what was actually wrong about my specific changes on the page.

Thanks for your help.
 * First, biographical information requires high-quality sources. The only external link provided was to the podcast page. Without an independent, high-quality source, the content is simply advertising, regardless of tone per WP:POV and WP:NOT.
 * Second, this specific article has a history of problematic edits, so there are many editors watching the article for continuation of these problems. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As the editor who reversed your change, I'd also like to add that for BLPs, "important" information is more important than "timely" information. Even if there was an independent RS for your edit, you need to ask yourself if that information belongs in a biography (not saying this doesn't, just saying it's not always obvious to new editors). Apologies for hijacking your talk page Ronz! --Molochmeditates (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Need help with the page of Earl Mindell


Hello Ronz,

I am writing to you with regards to the page - Earl Mindell. A maintenance tag on the page says that 'The neutrality of this article is disputed' and hence I had proposed a few changes to the page in July 2019. I would require your help in understanding as to what can be done to establish neutrality of the page. Since there was criticism of his book, I had suggested a few good reviews about the book to make it neutral. Also, that PWU was granted authorization to operate as a California degree-granting institution by the State Department of Education. Mindell was awarded a legal and valid Ph. D. in Nutrition under the laws of the State of California. All changes proposed were referenced and hence I am requesting you to please let me know what can be done to neutralize the text in 'Relations with the scientific community' section and the overall page. Thank you. TP495 (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Follow COI and Wikipedia's content policies more closely. Keep your requests small, brief, and clear. Don't expect to make much progress, as Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia, rather than a venue for public relations. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Yonaguni Monument#Rough_cleanup".The discussion is about the topic Yonaguni Monument. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Melkov (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Al Seckel. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to provide more information as two why the three of the five diffs are not reverts, if what I've written isn't clear. I will make no more edits to the article regardless for whatever timeframe you choose in the meantime.
 * As I wrote, there are three different external links being removed in that set of edits. The TED link is under discussion at the talk page and at ELN, where consensus was to remove it, until Ammarpad came along and restored it while admitting to not understanding the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So what? Why does that mean your edits are not reverts? Also, while you're at it, please explain why you left a retaliatory warning on Ammarpad's Talk page. The warning was meritless and disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The notice on his talk page is a formal step to get him to stop his edit-warring.
 * Removing different information from the same section isn't reverting in my understanding. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's my descriptions of the diffs:
 * removal of a link to an interview (initially added here - likely COI - SPAM)
 * revert to remove the TED speaker profile link
 * removal of Seckel's "Recollections of Richard Feynman" (initially added here by Seckel)
 * revert to remove the TED speaker profile
 * initial removal of the TED talk and speaker profile
 * I count two reverts of the removal of the TED speaker profile. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't warn someone of edit warring after only two reverts. You can do so after three so the user can avoid violating 3RR, but not after two, and particularly when your edit-warring was obvious, smacks of bad faith. As for what constitutes a revert, Ammarpad cited part of the relevant definition from policy at ANEW. Below that wonderfully colored box, it continues: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." (emphasis added by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When someone jumps into a dispute and edit-wars while ignoring consensus, I think a formal warning is required. That's the situation here. That's why I left the notice.
 * So you're saying any removal of any material is a revert? To me 3RR and EW are to prevent back-and-forth editing as a means of dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to restore the two other links, and comment on the talk page on why they should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like that's been the 3RR wording since this edit by User:SlimVirgin. It was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule/Archive 8 when the change was made almost 10 years ago, and it comes up again and again. It still surprises editors. Most admins do not choose to enforce the "or different material" line.

I think the fundamental difficulty is that this series of cooperative edits:


 * Alice: This picture is awful, so I'm removing it.
 * Bob: Thanks for removing the bad picture.  I just fixed a typo.
 * Alice: This paragraph doesn't really belong in this article; it's a duplicate of what's already in the related article, Example, so I'm removing it.
 * Carol: Good idea, Alice.  I'm adding a quick a link to the Example article.
 * Alice: Thanks for the link, Carol.  This sentence is unsourced and wrong, so I'm removing it.

has Alice removing something three times, with someone else editing in between those three times, and therefore "edit warring" and "violating" 3RR as written. It's not meant to be interpreted that way, but it's written so that if you remove content in a series of smaller edits, and two other editors happen to edit the article during the time you are editing, then you can get surprised by a block. The workarounds are usually to remove everything in one large edit, or to carefully spread your edits out over the space of multiple days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I didn't add that in April 2010. It was carried over from Three-revert rule. For example, see September 2006: "Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." SarahSV (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that the long history. So the rule has been around for at least 13 years, and editors still get surprised by it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, best practice is to work in short edits with specific edit summaries. Defining a "revert" so broadly encourages editors to make large edits. I'd like to know more about the history. --Ronz (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, in that example Alice can't have violated 3RR, which prohibits making more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. But I understand that's not the point you were making. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm usually so good at counting in the single digits...    WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I invite the blocking administrator, Bbb23, to comment on the unblock request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ronz, you initially said "I will make no more edits to the article regardless for whatever timeframe you choose in the meantime." Are you still willing to do that in exchange for being unblocked? You would still be able to edit the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. In light of the dispute escalation that's happened today, I was going to try to negotiate something regardless (1RR for myself to start) to help turn the focus back on content and policy. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is two weeks not editing the article for any reason, including vandalism, acceptable to you? You can restore the ELs as you stated, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck and thanks for your cooperation in resolving this.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

To do

 * uses Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_141
 * uses Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_141

HSM
Seems to be extremely arbitrary and partly prejudicial methods for deciding upon HSM images. Having an easily visible "THALES" logo as the first image seems to be COI to me. Smartguy0001 (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Peace and Salutations! Gr8full to Be Here
Peace!

Hello Ronz,

This is a note of thanks to you for your helpful tips and beautiful welcome note.

So sweet!

THANK U THANK U THANK U

With gratitude and appreciation,

Nafeeesa (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned you're missing the point completely. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID carefully. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on edit
Hi Ronz,

Since I am new to Wiki editing, could you please suggest a better way for implementing my edit.

Regards, Preeti — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMPreetiKalra (talk • contribs) 05:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Ravi_Shankar_(spiritual_leader), write a proposal, being sure to provide an independent reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Any objection
Do you have any objection to me redirecting the Maxwell Billieon article to the show he hosted? He does not appear to be independently notable of that (and questionably notable for that, too) and his commissioner position is not something that would satisfy NPOL. I don't want to undo all of your work without asking. Praxidicae (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'll go ahead with it. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition
Hi Ronz, I wonder if you have time to take look at this self-promotional site, Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition; you did a great job on ]Alexander Berzin's article, another Buddhist, this looks much the same to me, needs a going-over and you do a much better job than me. Thanks and all the best, if you agree I will watch with interest and learn. MacPraughan (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't have the time to take something like this on, so a few initial impressions:
 * Yes, it looks like a promotional mess. I'm not clear on which sources are independent, beyond the obvious non-independent ones, which are relied upon too much. The SPA and blocked editor involvement probably indicate inappropriate COI editing. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It all comes down to sourcing. If editors can agree on which sources establish notability and what that notability is, then it shouldn't be hard to make a lot of progress. If you can agree on which sources are high quality, then most disputes should resolve fairly easily. --Ronz (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Newbie/International Sources
Thanks so much for the welcome! It's helpful to be able to review the things you've linked me, I hope I'll become a good editor and I recognize that I jumped feet first into an edit on living people with some controversial news. In order to learn from the edit, I wanted to ask some detailed follow-ups. First, my edit included a relatively verbatim section that was accepted on a band member's profile, was the problem or was it just deleted as part of the larger post? The second, I saw your concern about the sources (some? all?) and referenced the list of generally acceptable sources for entertainment. The list seemed heavily American and are publications and rarely cover South African/Australian musicians. Is there a larger list somewhere that might be helpful in the future for acts that aren't seriously popular in the US? While at least one source I cited weren't listed, I hoped that the included alleged primary source material was useful. I'm generally not an entertainment-focused person and will try and stick to non-living and non-controversial topics for a while, but any assistance you can lend is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexacon (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Alexacon. Thanks for following up with me. I'm not sure if you noticed, but I removed the remaining material from both articles.
 * Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists frequently discussed references that can be easily checked, identifying current consensus on their use.
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the place to ask questions about the reliability of sources. It can be searched for past discussions.
 * Thefamouspeople.com is unreliable. The 2oceansvibe.com article identifies a blog as it's source. Uproxx is a poor source at best. Generally, if it looks like sensationalism or gossip, it's probably not a source that should be used in for biographical information.
 * I thought it best to remove the material given the controversial nature of the content, the sources used, and the requirements of WP:BLP.
 * I'm in a bit of a rush. I hope that addresses at least your main concerns. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Gary Wales
Hello Ronz,

Thank you for the welcome message I very much appreciate it. As you know I’m still pretty new to it and was wondering if you can help me.

I noticed there were a few issues on Gary Wales (actor) article that you pointed out.

If you can let me know what I can work on or fix I would greatly appreciate it.

I don’t want the article to be deleted or removed as I’ve worked pretty hard on it.

Thanks RomeZw (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC) RomeZw

Also after reading all your information, can you please tell me what parts look promotional and I’ll be sure to fix them.

Along with the Early Life section, you said that it’s a poor source that doesn’t verify anything. If you can tell me more information I’d greatly appreciate it.

RomeZw (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC) RomeZw
 * I think it would be best if you declared your COI on the article talk page and work primarily from edit requests there.
 * Cleanup of all the references would be a useful step: identifying author, title, publisher, publication date, etc.
 * It would also help if you could briefly describe Wales' notablity on the article talk page, identifying the WP:BIO sources. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Describing the qualifications of Stamets
Could you review and comment on this RfC, please? Many thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like the COI problems are under control, but the influence from his marketing remains. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your activity today in the RfC discussion and article. I deleted his website from the article yesterday because 1) it is another form of self-publication, 2) it is a promotional-commercial site, WP:PROMO, with no evidence of external scientific review, and 3) the sections under "Health & Wellness" are made-up nonsense about the health benefits of their mushroom supplements. I sense having it identified under External links gives it credibility to the undiscerning user, especially the "About us" section where Stamets is described in glowing, self-described CV style, WP:NOTCV. Reconsider? Thanks again. --Zefr (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw the removal of the website, but hadn't noticed the removal of the profile.
 * I think it's a very clear case of ELOFFICIAL, and none of the concerns you list are relevant. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Lesane Casino (rapper)
Thank You Ronz For All Your Feedback I Will Work On Improving The Article And Finding More Appropriate References. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiphoplegends (talk • contribs) 04:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Lesane Casino (rapper)
Hi Ronz Hope All is Well I Had A Quick question could the "Lesane Casino" Article be Categorized as a STUB that Way Qualified researchers could add or remove anything not up to Wiki standards I Researched the top 25 Baltimore Musicians Page created on Wikipedia and some of those Artists are not as Noteworthy as The one I Researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiphoplegends (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Very good question. I'm not sure. My interpretation of Deletion policy is that changing an article to a STUB does not avoid deletion because of lack of notability. --Ronz (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the sourcing headsup!
I looked at that source for a long, long time. Should have ignored it but was trying to confirm the year in that statement (though it is in other Wiki pages so I considered not sourcing - probably should have just done that). Thank you for the edit, and for being courteous about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technutt (talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

New book: Liberating Hollywood
Thanks Roz, for the advice, as you can see I'm pretty new at this. As you noticed, my DAUGHTER, MMS wrote the book Liberating Hollywood, she has a Phd from UCLA (Film History) and is the Research Director of the UCLA Film Archives. The book, which has been favorably received in the field, is one of the only studies of women directors in the 1970s. I specifically targeted the 16 women who are discussed in the book. I, of course, can add an ISBN, and heading Further Reading, as well as a chapter/page location. As for self-dealing, not sure how to get around that. Maya, the author, is probably the leading academic expert on this niche field, so she is probably in the best position to recommend the book. I have read and purchased the book myself, but that is my only credential. That said, who can submit the entry if not the author or a person familiar with the book. You certainly don't want the edit to come from a less authoritative person. It seems a shame to have these excellent Wikipedia articles on a group of often unknown women directors and then there is nobody qualified to add one of the newest and most comprehensive books on their lives. If you are in fact, the expert in this field, is it appropriate for me to ask you to add the citation? Looking forward to your help on this is. Hsmukler (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Responding on your talk page... --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

New book: Liberating Hollywood
Thanks Ronz, I spent last night reading some of the articles you suggested and I think I'm more knowledgeable now. I don't think I want to individualize each edit as there are about 20 women directors in the 1970s, but I like the idea of putting in a chapter/page number. Your suggestions were very helpful and I think I can suggest edits that will pass scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsmukler (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, how do I put in the standard "bullet" ahead of the entry. do I do it with a special character symbol or is there a preformatted bullet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsmukler (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * That's right --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Starting over
Hi Ronz, it looks like we are starting over. Am I missing something. The heading on the Women's DGA Committee page says, "This article needs more links to other articles" The chapter 4 in Maya's book is probably one of the most detailed discussion of the Women's Committee. With your and PamD's help I think I finally got the citation done correctly. It appears that you have taken all that out. What did I do wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsmukler (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have noticed you adding the reference to your daughter's book as well, and I do not feel it is appropriate. If you are not willing to add any content and your purpose is merely to add a reference to your daughter's work to various pages, then that is spam. If you think your daughter's book is an important resource, then put the information on each article's talk page and another editor can use it to add information. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wallyfromdilbert. I think it's all been covered on your talk page. Please use edit requests on article talk pages rather than adding the material yourself. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance
Hello Sir/Madam:

You left a note on my talk page but I would appreciate if you could advise what specifically it was that I did wrong - and how to fix it. I do not as a matter of practice edit controversial topics; my beef lately has been the overzealousness by which new articles are deleted (not ones I created, I could care less about pride), because often those people are relevant - since I searched for them on google and only as of the last few years I'm discovering Wikipedia doesnt have articles about them.

Unless the article is self promoting or conflict emerges, it could very well be a relevant up and coming person but editors would lack a frame of reference. Regardless, I might leave a talk page note but I have not edited such pages myself.

I appreciate your help.

Canlawtictoc (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you did anything wrong at all. I hoped that my comment could shed some light on what you're encountering as you dive into Wikipedia editing: Some areas of Wikipedia require considerable expertise with Wikipedia's policies. --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hank Aaron
No problem! Red Director (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Drug Prices
I was reverted quickly for deleting some drug prices I found on Burpenorphine and Suboxone, even though I researched the matter well before doing so. I then took the time to try to defend this view at length here: talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology. I am under the impression that medicine (like BLP) should be dealt with more carefully than other topics. Could you please advise here? Should I post this talk elsewhere? I think it would definitely be possible and valuable for WP to have an official stance on this and I'd love to participate (but no one wants to listen to us lowly 500 edit folk). Much thanks. Luke Kindred (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is very strange. Pricing is generally not included in articles per WP:NOT and WP:POV. Exceptions are for clearly noteworthy cases. Basic pricing is not noteworthy. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Heterodox Academy page edits
Hi Ronz -- the content I removed, and that you restored is factually incorrect -- which is why I removed it. The "Guide to Colleges" no longer exists as a tool (see here: https://heterodoxacademy.org/guide-to-colleges/) and the student "Viewpoint Diversity" tool that is referenced I can find no proof it exists.

Not sure why you deleted my updated membership numbers -- as data from February 2019 is out of date, I updated it to reflect Sept 2019 data available on the Heterodox membership page.

Please let me know why this was deleted -- I was attempting to make this page more accurate.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mloustaunau (talk • contribs) 20:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up with me.
 * The goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for promotion (WP:SOAP).
 * Removing sourced content without explanation is inappropriate.
 * Removing sourced content verified by multiple independent, reliable sources is unusually going to be problematic.
 * Looking at the info about the guide and it's sources, I think it should remain as something historically significant. I'd thought it might be even a notable aspect of the group, but that seems to be a stretch. I do see from their website that they're working on a new guide, using a different methodology.
 * As for membership, thanks for pointing it out. I wanted to do further work on that, which I've now done. Given the primary source, little or no mention is due. Find a better source.
 * The WSJ ref seems reliable concerning the "Viewpoint Diversity Experience". I'm not finding much more that would help us, such as https://www.spiked-online.com/2017/08/02/standing-up-for-the-heterodox-academy/ and https://www.thedailybeast.com/tolerance-and-diversity-of-views-on-the-left-not-anymore . These aren't great sources, and apparently the "Viewpoint Diversity Experience" no longer exists under that name. I suspect it was renamed or is part of openmindplatform.org, but we'd need to track down sources for that.
 * There's definitely work to be done. Please just refrain from using their own press as sourcing. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

aegeobalkanprehistory
Hi. When you put it that way, yes - I agree. It's article is well documented with sources, but you are right, you can't search it and verify it. I will fix other references I have made (Butmir culture and Okolište) with appropriate sources. Mhare (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I jump into this old conversation regarding this website - I don't know if you guys have seen this: Credits and Team ?
 * It's really not my intention to root for the website, nor against it, but I noticed that site is credited properly, with two genuine scientists who maintain it, and with some genuine institutional support (Austrian Science and Research Liaison Office (ASO)). I don't know if something else may be problematic, but these guys are for real:
 * Barbara Horejs - Institut für Orientalische und Europäische Archäologie, Peter Pavúk - Institute of Classical Archaeology with full address, maials and personal pages at schools' websites (http-__www.orea.oeaw.ac.at_horejs.html ; http-__ukar.ff.cuni.cz_en_en_Pavuk), all properly credited.
 * Anyway, it's not that important. Cheers-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Trisha Yearwood
Thank you for the feedback! I was not aware that NDDB is a no-no source on Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions to use for her filmography section? Currently I'm using IMDB, but know I could use a more reliable source. Thanks. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary sources and promotional pieces are usually fine for verifying basic information such as casting of a film. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And please tag me next time in your reply so I know that you responded. I have no way of knowing you answered unless you tag me. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy Dashain!
 Namaste, Ronz, and Happy Dashain! WikiProject Nepal wishes you a wonderful Dashain filled with joy, love, and happiness. Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great Dashain! Cheers. Message sent by on behalf of WikiProject Nepal. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Lollygagging...
Hi Ronz, I do not contest your edit here, but just wanted to note that it's sort of a tricky area, because typically (as you know) we'd link to the primary topics, so the nations seemed to make more sense to me. A lot of folk think that Bollywood is the Indian film industry, but it is the Hindi-language Indian film industry. There are scores of other ethnic industries/languages like Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Gujarati, Bengali, Assamese, etc. If you already knew this, I'm sorry for being didactic, but if you didn't, it was worth a shot to explain it. A good week to you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm not sure either. I'd expect there are some WikiProjects that could help.
 * I'd guess that Bollywood is well-known, while Lollywood is not. Probably best not to treat them in the same manner. Better? --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Tyler Ward age dispute
Here's his signing day page, no photo, but Parents name and background/bio checks out:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170223130257/http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ncol/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/04-Football-SigningDayb.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by COS719 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest that you have commented on at the user's talk page. The thread is Karldmartini. Thank you. —-Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

H. Lawrence Culp Jr.


I am not part of GE, but the information you took down from Mr. Culp was correct and true and cited by a reputable source. Wikipedia is a place of knowledge sharing. Please keep good information online. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.144.100 (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are going to continue restoring clearly unreliable sources into a WP:BLP article, you'll likely be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Phill Lewis
If I find an actual reliable source, can I revise my original edits? IntellectualChristianWikiUser (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely, with the caveats I mentioned in my edit summary:
 * It should not name his children.
 * Mention of the piano playing would require an independent, reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Greiner
Which content do you have a problem with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:8003:75F0:55AF:321F:CBF3:321A (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Best take it a sentence at a time, because pretty much all of it. --Ronz (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 

A. J. Liebling
Hi, thanks for your heads-up about the source I cited. I've restored my original edit, but with a different, more unambiguously reliable, source. Thanks again. P.D. (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)P.D.

Can we speak on wednesday about my edit to the Dennis Prager page?
Please call me at 438-925-6410. what time is best for you? my changes aren't spam. I am a real person with a real desire for balanced content on Wikipedia. I can also be reached at either lambert63@yahoo.ca or alambert@cpvcgroup.ca.

Best regards, i look forward to our discussion over the phone to clear this up.

Alain

__________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainlambert (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. I'd rather keep any discussion transparent. If there's something private you'd like to share, send an email to my linked account.
 * I'm assuming you've read the welcome I left on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

iPhone 11 price
It seems like this section: Talk:IPhone_11 is now an RfC. I saw your comment on there without a position mentioned -- do you want to indicate whether you support or oppose the price table? Someone963852 (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm interested to see if editors want to follow policy or not. --Ronz (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove advertisement maintenance message


Hi Ronz,

You setup an advertisement maintenance message on the article for Randy Olson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Olson) a while back. I've since had another editor remove what I believe to be the source of the message (a new section that didn't have proper neutral third party references) and was hoping your could review the article to see if the maintenance message could be removed. And if not, I was hoping you could point me toward the next steps I could take to get it removed.

Thank you for your time. Mattmdavid (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It would certainly help by starting by addressing the COI concerns.
 * Who did you contact and how?
 * Did you see the edit summary for the last bit of cleanup, where the editor was concerned about primary sources? --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Who did you contact and how?" - I tried to follow COI guidelines by making a request edit on the Randy Olson talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Randy_Olson). The request edit was to remove a primary sourced section that I believed may have caused you to add the advertisement maintenance message. As you can see on the talk page, you removed the section (Story Circles Narrative Training Program), but said "I don't think the tag should be removed without careful, independent review." Since you were the one that placed the advertisement tag there, I thought I would start with you.

"Did you see the edit summary for the last bit of cleanup, where the editor was concerned about primary sources?" Yes, that's why I requested the primary sourced section be removed entirely. I was hoping you could point me in the best direction for the Randy Olson article to receive independent review. Would RfC be my best course of action? Mattmdavid (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Ronz,


 * It looks like Spintendo closed my edit request for the Randy Olson article as no additional feedback was given for several days. Are there any other steps I can take to have the advertising tag removed from the article? Thank you for your time!  Mattmdavid (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The two references you proposed are poor, promotional sources. As long as such sources are being proposed as additions, we have a long way to go.
 * RfCs need to be clear and specific. What would you ask to be addressed at this point? You now have three editors who've made suggestions on what needs addressing. Jumping to an RfC at this point seems extremely ill-advised. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually have no further additions I specifically want made to the article. What I would like addressed at this point is removing any content that would warrant the advertising tag on the article.  Once the offending content is removed and the advertising tag is gone, I'll be satisfied.  That's the only issue I wish to address now.  I think with the help of all three editors, all the offending content (PR pieces, primary sources, etc.) has been removed, and I was hoping you could verify this and remove the advertising tag. Mattmdavid (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Prager Page
Hi Ronz, as you know, I am new at Wikipedia editing, so I may not be familiar yet with all nuances of editing. I have no relationship with Dennis Prager or any of his projects, other than having listened to his show for 17 years. In other words, I know the guy well. When I read hos Wikipedia page, I find it unbalanced and it misses some key aspects of some of his most important positions. I remain available at anytime by phone (provided earlier) or by email at alambert@cpvcgroup.ca. I'm keen to learn and provide constructive information on Wikipedia. RegardsAlainlambert (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We rely upon independent reliable sources rather than our own biases. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, I provided references for all my edits. Also, my desire to speak to you isn't meant to take things privately but rather to find an efficient way to learn from you how one goes about making changes which do not get automatically rejected. I do not know how to find your email. I look forward to your continued guidance as I continue to learn about Wikipedia. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is under rather severe restrictions, being a biography related to American politics. It's a topic that's difficult for experienced editors, let alone a new editor with a strong bias on the subject matter. As I already explained to you, working on such articles is not the way to learn how to edit Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ronz, I'm trying to understand why you reversed my edits to Dennis Prager's page. The first edit was removal of a seemingly unrelated negative comment against the subject, and the second edit was just the addition of a movie that he recently produced. The movie was noteworthy in that he produced it, but also in one instance protesters attempted to disrupt the showing by pretending they were mass shooters. I actually went back to add that and noticed you deleted my previous edit. The initial edit seemed noteworthy and wasn't meant to be promotion, it was listed under his career section. If it were promotion nearly every actor or film director on Wikipedia would have a far reduced entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunamoonunit (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I already left you a note on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration
Dear Ronz, There is nothing more I’d like than communication and see it it’s possible for us to work cooperatively. That is why I offered it on our first interaction weeks ago. Your thoughts are welcomed. Regards. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Aliia Roza
Isn't Forbes a good enough publication for a reference? Not sure why this was removed as it proves Aliia won an award: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanrabimov/2019/06/07/world-bloggers-awards-makes-history-in-cannes/ --Johnalexwood (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable per Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Such articles tend to be warmed-over publicity pieces. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
I feel I should let you know I mentioned you, and an edit war you were involved in with Doc James, at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Colin°Talk 11:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. The discussion I had with him is listed in the WP:PRICES link I included at ANI. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

COI on "Daniel J. Barrett" reopened after 12 years
Hi Ronz -- back in 2007, you settled a COI issue on this talk page, writing:


 * Looks like this article has been handled appropriately and we can continue.

An anonymous user just re-opened the issue. Would you mind weighing in? Thank you. Djbwiki (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.
 * Yes, I've noticed the ip. I've responded, and removed what looks like spamming of the tags without an understanding of how they should be used. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much!! --Djbwiki (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

FamousBirthdays.com as a source
Hi XXXXXX. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for biographical information in FLETCHER. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Ronz (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * All I did was revert a bad redirect - that edit re the birthdays was not mine. Thank you though for checking in. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP vio regardless. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Haroon Ullah
Hi SidP. You're the creator and main contributor to Haroon Ullah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views). I brought it up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#PragerU_-_an_unreliable_source?, after noticing the article is poorly referenced and outdated (and needs more work than I have time for). Do you have time to work on the article? --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2019
 * Ronz, I'm glad to help with continuing to edit the Haroon Ullah article. However, I'm not especially interested in the subject matter (I'm not sure what motivated me at all to add and/or even edit this article). I can see that some important matters have occurred regarding it. While that is of utmost importance to me, I thought I would also add that I'm not especially concerned with an issue you mentioned: that one of the sources is not considerably reliable. The reason I am not so concerned is that this particular instance is used as an indicator that Ullah was a writer of the subject indicated; not the content itself of the source linked. I hope this is an acceptable reply to you.—SidP (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)