User talk:Vice regent/Archives/2018/December

December 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Himalayan salt, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''If you are editing about human health content, please follow WP:MEDRS for choosing sources. '' Zefr (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All the stuff I added was in the sources previously used in the article. I didn't add any content not already in cited sources, except the following: "many find such [Himalayan salt] lamps aesthetically pleasing". That's not a "human health" claim. Its a fashion claim.VR talk  01:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the edit comment and revision here. --Zefr (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Please redact your comment
Promising to not discuss the matter on the article's talk page is also counter-productive I don't understand how that's anything other than an outright misrepresentation. Please redact. If you'd like clarification, please ask. --Ronz (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

but you haven't taken the effort of discussing on the talk page, have you? All you've done is revert my edits without adequate reasoning. I've modified the wording, but it is you who said you'd take the matter to WP:FTN "before even responding on the talk page". Didn't you?VR talk  15:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My next two edits after commenting at FTN were to comment on the talk page.
 * All I did was indicate that I had not commented on the talk page yet. I didn't write anything that indicated that I would not comment.
 * Please redact. Strikethrough like this would work, or simply restore the redaction that I suggest by undoing this.
 * Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Re email
Thanks for the email. I think we're getting very good comments and suggestions for the article so far. You've stepped into a bit of a minefield, because the article has a very long history of problematic, mostly promotional editing.

As far as avoiding conflict goes, the editors that I've seen who are exceptionally good at it (which I am not) avoid personal comments, don't revert, are very respectful of others, and are very patient but active in allowing consensus to form at a pace where everyone can make their opinion clear. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)