User talk:Pushroll

January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Resveratrol Lozenges


A tag has been placed on Resveratrol Lozenges, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Resveratrol Lozenges and leave a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi I removed your comments from the article page, they should be posted in the talk page, you can still access then in the article history.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Resveratrol
Stop readding no consensual content in Resveratrol. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Pushroll. The content of Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, please see Wikipedia policy WP:V. In the context of resveratrol that means that the text on resveratrol lozenges you are trying to include must be backed by studies published in scientific journals. Although resveratrol from lozenges may be more effective, you cannot add this this information unless it comes from scientific or otherwise reliable source (please see WP:RS guideline). The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Resveratrol Lozenges
Hi Pushroll. Although it may have not been your intent, your article read like an advertisement. Here on Wikipedia, we have a policy in which advertising/spam is speedy deleted per deletion criterion G11. Please note that articles for deletion are judged on their own merit, not in comparison to other articles (See WP:OTHERSTUFF). You are certainly welcome to resubmit the article, but please revise the text so that it complies with the policies and guidelines noted at WP:ADS and WP:MOS; otherwise, you run the risk of having the article deleted again.  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 23:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

spammer
stop spamming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.158.242 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Mabidex (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

Conflict of interest policy
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Resveratrol
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Resveratrol. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
WP:DR describes the options for dealing with disputes. WP:NOR/N is probably the best venue for this situation. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ronz, since you are involved in the disagreement, you shouldn’t be the judge to resolve the dispute. I’m sure you know it isn’t fair. By the way, why do you keep deleting my talking points? --Pushroll (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a suggestion on what step from WP:DR I think would be most helpful.
 * I've deleted one of your comments per WP:TALK, as I mention below. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To be crystal-clear, I'm not suggesting I be the only one to judge how to handle the situation, nor to decide the outcome. I assume you'll be involved. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You should have told me that would be the judge the first time. Or even better, a different judge should have looked at the matter the first time. I know what you will do. I won't make the same mistake twice. Don't delete this. --Pushroll (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I encourage you to use proper dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Resveratrol Lozenges
Could you reword your comment here per WP:TALK. How about just removing the last sentence? --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed your completely inappropriate comment here.
 * Much of what you wrote here is similarly problematic. It would be helpful if you removed the personal comments. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't see why my comments are inappropriate. Just as you have the right to express your personal opinions, I guess I can express mine too.--Pushroll (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:TALK, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. I'll go ahead and remove the inappropriate sections to make the problems clearer. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done . --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Inappropriate" is just your excuse to delete my valid points. I hope you won't say this comment is inappropriate and delete it. --Pushroll (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say it’s important for an editor to hear different opinions. It’s my sincere opinion of your way of dealing with the matter. Please don’t take it as attacks. --Pushroll (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how sincere you claim to be or think you are being. It's disruptive to the discussion.  It makes you look bad, and undermines any relevant points you might have. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)