User talk:Hipal/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hipal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Ronz, Re Al Seckel, his wife (ex-wife?) Denice Lewis e-mailed Mark Oppenheimer about Seckel's reported death, saying he died last spring in a spelunking accident and was missing for several months. This contradicts, BTW, other reports of death by a hiking fall or a heart attack. Oppenheimer writes that Seckel is still married to Lewis, and he may not be legally married to Maxwell (he lists her as his "partner," not wife).Tmciver (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I e-mailed the American Embassy in France and got a reply confirming Seckel's death. Not suitable for Wikipedia of course. When I exposed Seckel as a liar and fraud he sued me. Because he sued me Wales forbids me to comment on Wikipedia talk pages. Legal intimidation is highly effective for Seckel, as Lippard noted in his "Al Seckel Exposed" blog post. Shawn Carlson, owner of LabRats (listed as where to send memorial donations on the obit), is who posted the original report on Facevook. Tmciver (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I find Jimbo's interjections into this disturbing. Was there any ANI, COIN, etc discussion?

As you know, we need sources. If you can't source it, please don't bring it up - it only confuses the situation while putting your perspective in a bad light.

Especially do not make comments like, "When I exposed Seckel...". Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you have sources we can use, offer them. If you cannot put aside your off-Wikipedia disputes, then Jimbo's guidance might be the best route to take. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor or contributor, and am unfamiliar with much of what is going on. I just saw your response above--thank you. Perhaps private e-mails would be better for this discussion. I know that edit disputes do not belong in the entries themselves, but I thought that the "talk" page would be OK for discussion of disputes regarding sources, reliability, etc. I realize that private, unpublished information is not considered usable for Wikipedia, but my point in bringing up such "unverified" information was not to include it in the entry, rather merely point out that some of the information in the entry is simply wrong. It can't be replaced by unverified information, but it can be removed. E.g., the Embassy told me Seckel was declared dead July 1--this can't be included in the entry, but it indicates that Sept. death dates are wrong. (Why not leave date unspecified until confirmed?) My point about being sued for exposing Seckel relates to a frustrating aspect of Wikipedia: A Wikipedia subject can prevent any criticism simply by suing the critic--regardless of the merits or outcome of the lawsuit. Apparently this applies even to the "talk" pages, which I find disturbing, but I won't argue it here. As far as ANI and COIN discussion, I looked up those terms, and the answer is no. Seckel claimed to be a close friend of Jimbo's; Jimbo denied it (and thus any COIN). This is itself revealing. It means either Jimbo or Seckel is making an untrue claim. If Seckel, then this proves my point that biographical information coming from him should not be taken without outside verification, yet the entry is still full of info he supplied. Another neat trick he perfected: getting reporters to say things he told them, then using their articles as sources. E.g., the LA Times article(s) praising him. Back then, he told everyone he had a Cornell degree and was a Caltech grad student, and that was what was reported "officially." Until Oppenheimer published his article about Seckel (with information I supplied), according to Wikipedia standards those were his credentials. He didn't want those claims known when he wrote his own Wikipedia entry (because I had long ago exposed them as false), but he happily cited articles containing them. More information (not suitable for Wikipedia, of course) is now here: http://undeceive.weebly.com/ Tmciver (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The article needs a very thorough review, as it's clear that Seckel was very convincing but his claims were often far from the truth. Seckel was not a reliable source, and any source that didn't fact-check him is suspect. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you for your attention in this matter. Tmciver (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for helping on the talk page. I have a couple comments I would like your input on if you have time. I may have some learning I need to do on WP:MEDRS sources and I am open to any mentorship. I have read the MEDRS and I see WebMD may fall under popular press? Which then reliability could be in doubt. Basileias (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, we agree on this, but if you look at the article history, I am currently dealing with someone who has a COI on the topic and if you check article talk, you will see that my attempts to take out the whitewashing were met with the usual "evil Montanabw "owns" articles" rant. What I did was cite directly to the Parelli site for the stuff describing their program, but tried to find other sources for everything else. I actually was the one who has been working on sourcing the criticism section. One big problem is that these folk are quick to remove or use search algorithms to hide and remove anything critical of their programs, other than what is all over a lot of message boards. Anyway, given that we have sometimes disagreed rather profoundly on other topics, if you want to keep an eye on that article, I'm here to tell you that I'm glad to see you there; your skepticism is useful. Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Not surprising at all. --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I took another whack at it, I don't see any way out of having the program's own web site as a source for what it calls itself and what they say they do, but tried to minimize it. Feel free to edit further if you want. The guy is too mega-notable to not have an article at all... and while you are at it, fee free to trot over to Monty Roberts also. Montanabw^(talk) 08:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tags, my main problem at the moment are people on the other side wanting to puff it up while I keep trying to tone it down. If you want to explain your reasoning at the talk page for the benefit of the new editor, it might help. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 19:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I took the time to add a online calculator to the related links of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax because it was the first placed I looked to find one myself. Then Google, which eventually led to this page. It was meant to be helpful, it is relevant, I hope it serve the community well. It does not constitute link spam. However, I will not revert your edit until we have discussed this.

Thank you,

Robert - Gnurob (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me. Responding on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Surely all environmental organisations are, more or less, advocacy groups? Does it help to put some of them into advocacy as a category? At present advocacy groups is a mishmash of unrelated organisations. I'm trying to put some sense into it.Rathfelder (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you're trying to make sense of it all. It seems to me if an organization's mission is advocacy, it should be in an advocacy category. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, The term “Psychotherapy” first appeared in a work by Hyppolyte Bernheim entitled “Hypnotisme, suggestion, psychotherapy “ published in 1891. The term “Hypnosis” has been coined by James Braid, a Scottish surgeon, in 1841. I think this would be enough to suggest that “hypnotherapy” cannot be a form of “psychotherapy” a concept and term that was coined 50 years later. I’ll let you the privilege to correct the Wikipedia’s statement in this regard. To me, the statement " hypnotherapy is a form of therapy" is fair enough and reflects pretty accurate the wide accepted perception of the term "hypnotherapy" Best regards, Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.181.21 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please take the discussion to the article talk page, and be sure to provide sources.

Note that while the history of a subject should be presented, a description of current practice usually takes precedent. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ronz,

I've got your message. Do you really think is a good idea to remove my useful link from this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9lardon (Pélardon), instead of the broken link you preferred to leave?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAllsone (talk • contribs) 07:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I didnt look. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz— I am an OTRS volunteer trying to suss out the problems of a client named ClarkNight with regard to the article on the Bates Method (she has opened an VRTS ticket # 2016011410015195). It seems she wants to include a link in the external links section of the article which you prefer that this section not include— without consideration of whether or not this "method" is quackery, your reason for removing the link, "per WP:ELBURDEN", doesn't give me a sense as to why you removed it... But I have a feeling there is a good reason, and I am hoping I can get a better explanation so that I can explain it to her. Can you help me out here? Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 11:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Bates_method#Links to publications and Talk:William_Bates_(physician)#Links_to_publications and User talk:Clarknight --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks— those are three discussions, but am still in search of policy reasons, not only the content of related discussions. Are there some of those (the former) too? Please advise. (Also: COI is, of course, problematic for editing article content, but I don't think it prohibits the editing of content such as link inclusion, does it?). Thanks again. KDS4444^Talk 02:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:EL and [WP:NOT]]. The material is redundant with material already in Bates method. The material is off topic and redundant for William_Bates_(physician). ClarkNight has been working for years to find a way around our policies against spamming external links, promotion, and conflicts of interest. ClarkNight clearly has a battleground mentality and is uninterested in working cooperatively with other editors to improve this encyclopedia. ClarkNight's response to being blocked is to try to figure out how to continue edit-warring without being blocked again.

I don't have an account for OTRS. Why are you wasting your time this? This isn't even marginally worth pursuing. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am only pursuing it because she asked me to, and because I am an OTRS volunteer and that's what we do: what we are asked, even if we can see it's likely to be a deadend. I will try to explain some of this to her. Thanks. KDS4444^Talk 00:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Glad to have someone with such patience working on OTRS. --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep -- keeps edit warring on every scientology-related article possible - and blaming every other editor on Wikipedia. [1]

For some silly reason, alas, I think I have seen the name "Farney" before, or editors who have had the same CoS viewpoints he seems to propose. Collect (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I saw your message on my talk page about my "conflict of interest" edits on other articles. I'm a new user to Wikipedia and don't have a lot of experience with publishing content on here, so I apologize for what may have appeared as a conflict of interest. After reading more about Wikipedia's COI policies, I saw that in order to avoid being penalized I will need to add a "paid contributor" tag to any article I write associated with a client of mine.

Since you seem to have a lot of experience with Wikipedia, I wanted to get your feedback and guidance on what I should do going forward. If my content is factual and backed with third party resources, does disclosing this "paid editor" information at the top of my article keep my content from being deleted? I tried creating an article for a client of mine, Mobile Labs, and included at least 6 third party, credible references (not links to the clients website) and my article was still deleted. Do you think it is worth trying to publish the page again with the paid contributor tag? Or do you still think the article will be deleted?

Any guidance or advice you can offer is appreciated,

Arketi (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Arketi

Thanks for the response. I'm going to copy this to your talk page and answer there so others will find the discussion easily. --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

As you notice, I attempted to make changes to the Eminata Group wiki page as it was loaded with incorrect information and/or information no longer applicable to the organization.

First of all, these two links (reference 2 and 3) below do not work as they have been deleted from the hosting sites:

^ "Bogus varsities prey on Indian students". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2013-09-08. 3.Jump up ^ "A Response from Dr. Peter Chung, Executive Chairman of the Eminata Group". Ucanwest.ca. Retrieved 2013-09-08.

The entry nesting these two references has a defamatory term "convicted" which is not applicable given that it was a civil law suit. As you may know, in a civil law a judgment may be made against the defendant but it is different from a conviction which is applicable in criminal cases only. This is a dangerous entry as it harms the individual noted, and misinforms the layperson who may not know the difference between civil lawsuits and criminal charges.

The rest of the changes were made (pertaining to removing references to University Canada West and certain products) in order to better inform the public. I have supported my edits with applicable references and I'd like you to review them carefully before nullifying all my changes.

Once you verify the changes I made, I ask that you revert them (or edit them to your standards as I am not an expert in editing Wikipedia).

Thank you for your time Ronz. I look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,

Amvan2002

Responding on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, can you please explain where in WP:Redirect it states that categories should not be included on redirects? Tanbircdq (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing_redirect_pages and WP:RCAT? --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Both appear to relate to adding templates rather than categories. However, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects states "There are some situations where placing a redirect in an article category is acceptable and can be helpful to users browsing through categories", I think this applies to categories of albums titles that have been redirected to the artists' page. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Both appear to relate to adding templates rather than categories." I don't believe so.

"There are some situations..." Why do you believe that this is such a situation? --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Because as the sentence ends "it can be helpful to users browsing through categories", for example an editor browing through Category:xxxx debut albums will not get to the title without the categories being placed on the redirect. Maybe Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars can shed light on this as he/she is quite experienced on this. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, let's get some help. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to explain it another way, the page Hasbara redirects to Public diplomacy (Israel) and there's a category Category:Hebrew words and phrases which is in Hasbara but doesn't apply to the Public policy (Israel) . Therefore, common sense would deduce that if a category applies to the redirect but doesn't apply to the redirected target article then this is appropriate as there's no duplication and it's helpful for the user to browse and navigate through in order to get to it. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've asked Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Good suggestion. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I agree there is usefulness to categorizing redirects but I would expect the redirect target to contain reliably sourced information regarding the topic to be included in the topic article. For example, an album that may not meet notability requirements but may have played a significant part in the development or career of the music artist could be included in the article for that artist. I believe the redirect should only be categorized by topics specifically mentioned in the target article (perhaps by year of release [Category:XXXX albums] and by the artist [Category:Foo albums], but not the producer of the album if the producer is not mentioned). So I base it on the content of the article to which it is being redirected.

In a specific example, in the Wajid Akhtar article, it says "In September 2008, his debut album Show Me the Way was released by IQRA Promotions". Ignoring the very poor sourcing of this info, based on the content alone, there is justification for the redirect for the album to be categorized in Category:2008 debut albums, Category:Wajid Akhtar albums, and Category:Iqra Promotions albums, but nothing tells me in what languages the album was recorded. Similarly, I am also against categorizing redirects of songs by the artist if it only takes me to a album article that only mentions the song in the track listing of the album because that gives me no further information about the song itself, but if the song charted by a particular artist in, say, 1998 (and there's really not much more that can be found about it to justify its own article), and the chart info is noted with sources in the artist's discography, that might be useful info for someone and categorizing it by artist or year makes sense. This is not based on any policy but just my opinion. Forgive me for dragging on a bit but I hope this helps. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:INCOMPATIBLE states that redirects can be categorised when the category is incompatible with the title of the target page. Regarding the specific categories, the album tracklisting includes tracks "Allah Hu" and "Ya Rasoolallah", these phrases are not any other language but Arabic as "I Need Your Help" is English. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

How about we backtrack a bit, and please notify me when you start relevant discussions. Do you have a WP:COI with any of the content? --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, well it does work both ways, apologies if I'm wrong but I got the impression that you were quite dismissive about everythiing I've had to say so far. This may possibly be driven by the fact that you're a far more experienced editor than me, although considering you've been editing for 10 years I must say I'm rather surprised that you've never come across a redirect with categories.

But nevertheless, going back to the issue at hand, you reverted the categories citing a policy that had nothing to do with categorising redirects. I then unsuccessfully tried my best to explain the matter. Then I presented you with the which you didn't acknowledge. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars agreed that the artist, label and year categories were justified with the exception of languages due to the lack of evidence supporting. You then removed the categories leaving with year with edit summaries of "per discussion so far", I will WP:AGF and assume this was an oversight rather than disingenuity or WP:IDHT. Also, Starcheer himself said that this was his personal opinion and not based on policy. I've now given evidence which can verify the languages.

Regarding whether I have COI with the content, I can see from your talk page that you have accused several editors of this in the past, but in a word, no I don't. Since you haven't said why you might think this I'll try to elaborate further. Do I know the artists? No, just like I don't know the 350 or so other articles that I have created over the past five years. Do I know anything about the production of the albums outside of what is publicly available? No, all the content was soley obtained by researching the topics, nothing else, and you're more than welcome to check the sources for yourself. Am I familiar with this type of music? Yes, I can also distinguish Arabic and Urdu when I hear or see it. I try to be as thorough as possible when I contribute to articles but if anything is doubtful I leave it out.

If there's nothing else that's in contention in the matter then can we consider it settled and move on to make more constructive use of time on more meaningful matters. Take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edits, promoting a very obscure recording label, suggest a conflict of interest. It's always good to get those concerns out of the way, which is why I ask.

You've asked at other venues, without notifying me. Please notify me.

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars comments suggest that the categories relate to notability and noteworthines. I agree. The label and musicians appear to fail this criteria. I'd add that there's also a WP:NOTADVERTISING problem that would suggest the best approach would be to be more conservative with the categories. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 04:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding a translation link is using wikipedia as a soapbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinn Earth (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, adding nothing but links to bookwire.com for purchasing books is advertising and spamming. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ron,

Thank you for your feedback. I really hope you allow me to work together with you to address some issues on the page. First of all, I will respond to your comments below.

Could you please respond to the conflict of interest message above, first? --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC) - Thank you for addressing this. Yes, I am an employee of the company. However, I have no intention to promote/advertise/glorify the company. I really hope that I can work with the Wikipedia community together to have the page updated with factual, current information.

Sources should not be removed just because an editor cannot access them. I've added links to archived copies. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)" - Understood.

I have supported my edits with applicable references and I'd like you to review them carefully before nullifying all my changes." No, you did not. You appear to have a great deal of knowledge about the corporation, but provided no reliable sources for anything about the corporation, and you provided a press release for what appears to be trivial info about Chung. --Ronz (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC) - I would like to work with you. If you have any questions or need any supporting sources for any edits we can work together on, I will do my best to find them and provide them to you.

Now, if you allow me, I'd like to bring up a few points for your consideration and collaboration:

Heading Eminata Group Sentence: The corporation, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, owns and manages a number of for-profit colleges and universities in Canada, including University Canada West, Vancouver Career College, and CDI College. - The current page notes that the company owns UCW. UCW was acquired by another group called Global University Systems (GUS) in 2015, and it is noted in the school's own wiki page as well. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminata_Group

Perhaps you can edit the page to note the chronicles of UCW pertaining to Eminata Group. (When it was acquired by Eminata and when it was acquired by GUS). In addition, with the sale of UCW, now the company no longer owns universities in Canada.

Sentence: Eminata is chaired by Peter Chung, a man convicted in 1993 in California for defrauding students at a computer school he ran. - This sentence contains a defamatory term "convicted" which is not applicable given that it was a civil injunction. As you may know, in civil law, a judgment/injuction may be made against the defendant but it is different from a conviction which is applicable to criminal cases only. This is a dangerous entry as it harms the individual noted, and misinforms the layperson who may not know the difference between civil lawsuits and criminal charges. Similarly, when Mcdonald’s was sued for injuring Liebeck with hot coffee, the company (defendant) was ordered to pay $2.7 million to Liebeck. Now, this does not mean that the CEO of Mcdonald’s was convicted. (Liebeck v. Mcdonald's)

- I really hope you pay attention to this issue because this entry is harming the company. If you are not convinced, please tell me what is required to delete this sentence.

History - No comment

About Sentence: The group has three main divisions. K-12, Career colleges, and Universities. - As noted above, the group has only career colleges.

K-12 - Whole section should be deleted/revised as the company does not offer such services and Start Education Centre does not exist.

Universities - As noted above, the group does not own/manage any universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amvan2002 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The solution is to provide sources. I've tagged the article as possibly being out of date. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. In other words, if we can provide a copy of a clear criminal record search from the State of California, would that satisfy the rules? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amvan2002 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ron,

You keep reverting my suggested changes citing the COI policy and asking for sources. When I asked on your talk page whether a clear criminal record check regarding the following sentence would satisfy the requirement, you did not respond to me:

Sentence: Eminata is chaired by Peter Chung, a man convicted in 1993 in California for defrauding students at a computer school he ran. - This sentence contains a defamatory term "convicted" which is not applicable given that it was a civil injunction. As you may know, in civil law, a judgment/injuction may be made against the defendant but it is different from a conviction which is applicable to criminal cases only. This is a dangerous entry as it harms the individual noted, and misinforms the layperson who may not know the difference between civil lawsuits and criminal charges. Similarly, when Mcdonald’s was sued for injuring Liebeck with hot coffee, the company (defendant) was ordered to pay $2.7 million to Liebeck. Now, this does not mean that the CEO of Mcdonald’s was convicted. (Liebeck v. Mcdonald's)

I did go ahead to work with Peter Chung to obtain his records, however we found out the following:

“California Penal Code section 11142 prohibits you from giving your copy of your criminal record to an unauthorized third party. In addition, California Penal Code section 11125 prohibits an individual or agency from requiring you to provide him/her or the agency with a copy of your criminal record or proof that a record does or does not exist. Violation of either of these sections is a misdemeanor offense.” (reference: https://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/security_faq)

So now I don't know what you want us to do when what we are pointing out is the wrong use of a legal term that is defamatory and is seen as vandalism on the individual. This is of serious issue. Please read my argument before you just revert my deletion this time.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amvan2002 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

First, if you aren't interested in following our conflict of interest policy while continuing to violate it, your account is at risk of being blocked or banned. Please declare your interest per WP:PAY, and start using article talk pages for your requests for changes to articles. Once you do, I'll work to get some others to help in the dispute if you think it is needed.

So Chung doesn't want to give you access to the material. You realize it puts you and the corporation in a bad light, made worse by your other behavior here.

Paid coi aside:

Complete removal of sourced and non-contentious material violates WP:POV, and borders on vandalism.

The arguments that the term "convicted" is incorrect and that the material should be removed accordingly violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV.

I agree that the source is likely using an incorrect term. Ideally, we correct the problem by finding better sources. If you look at the talk page, you'll see I've identified a source that might help resolve the issue.

What do you think of the source I've proposed? Can you suggest some rewording to indicate that there was a judgement against him rather than a conviction? --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, stating in Wikipedia's voice that a person was "convicted" based on a low quality source is a serious violation of our policy on biographies of living people, especially when that assertion has been contested. A civil judgment is not a conviction and an Indian publication is not a reliable source for a BLP related California legal matter. Accordingly, I intend to remove the BLP violating claim and argue to keep it out unless a far better source is provided. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems that far better sources keeps getting overlooked. I've added it to the article. As we're finally discussing this on the talk page, let's keep it there. --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The content of the Rick Alan Ross article is now the subject of a Dispute Resolution notice.Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I reworked my hardware modification to the organic farming page -- if you still disagree - please edit it rather than simply delete it. Thanks Farmerbob2 (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Responded on your talk, for some quick confirmation, then let's take it to the article talk. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I received your comment about a recent edit I did on the Reiki article, and have replied on my talk page. Thanks. ABF99 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Ronz, thanks for the comment. My edit fit into the section at hand which is Chopra's other roles. Also I wasn't trying to emphasis on it being news per-say, I was simply noting the fact that NYC Peace Week was a recent public speaking he was apart of. This is something that should definitely be noted. --Artho718 (talk) 04:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As part of a marketing campaign for him, but not as part of an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueStove (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I am the initial editor that added some of the content to the Ann Louise Gittleman page. I think we do need to chat about how to proceed at this point. I respect your standing as a senior wiki editor, however I disagree with some of the references that have been removed and added recently. Let me try to tackle them one by one.

First, I believe that Ann Louise Gittleman is be definition, notable. Many similar authors and nutritionists do have wiki pages. She has been a best selling author and featured in numerous television programs, magazine articles, other books, radio shows and the like. Do references to some of these need to be included to substantiate this claim? If so, whats the threshold for notability?

Second, I believe that stating that Clayton College is a known diploma mill is an opinion and not consistent with references on other wiki's to the college. To say it is now defunct or was unaccredited may be a more neutral and accurate way of referencing this.

Lastly, I do understand the removal of some of the language used to describe this author, as it could be seen as promotional. However, in the controversy section I believe the content that has been deleted now presents a very negative bias of the content. The very nature of controversy is that many agree and many disagree. To only present information in defiance to Gittleman's work is not fare and balanced.

I appreciate us working together to improve this page. On a personal note, being newer to wikipedia I don't see how me reverting content back to how it has appeared for months is problematic enough to be threatened with banning, yet the other recent edits are allowed to fly under the radar without being substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsune78 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think we're fairly close to agreement. I'm still getting familiar with the editing history, the content, and Gittleman. Clearly though, the article is in very bad shape.

I think she's notable. The article does need references that clearly show her notability per WP:BIO.

I'm not sure exactly how to handle Clayton College, but to treat the college and her diploma as if they are legitimate is improper. I think WP:FTN should be able to help on this.

She promotes Detoxification (alternative medicine), so a properly neutral presentation per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE is going to seem "negative" to some.

As far as banning goes, can I assume you're referring to 97.93.180.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? The ip is definitely on the way to a block for violating most of Wikipedia's content policies and some important behavioral ones as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz. I do not believe that I was vandalising the page in question. The first time I edited it, I did so incorrectly as I did not know how to add the picture in an acceptable way. The picture I added was not meant to vandalise the page, but to add a modern example of the effect. Deuxknives (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I've removed my warning from your talk page.

Examples require sources that specifically say they demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I've no idea what the image was you were trying to add, but be sure to have a source available before you try again. Given the edit-warring that happened, it would be best to propose any additions rather than try to make them once again. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

HI Ronz, You sent us a message today about being blocked from wikipedia. This network/ip address is used by many people at this facility. There are some who view wikipedia and perhaps make edits - and I can imagine that they would be questionable; however why block all of us from using wikipedia because of a few fools? What edits were an issue? I understand that a few of us have been viewing content on Boston, MA and travelling through the USA of late as we plan a trip. Is it to do with this? I understand that an option exists to create an account so that individuals are not unfairly targeted. If they relate to the viewing on Boston, then I can categorically say that NO edits have been made to these pages! Sincerely, Michael. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.181.93.58 (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You can view contributions from your IP by visiting Special:Contributions/101.181.93.58 - you should be able to easily spot the problematic edits, but if additional clarification is needed feel free to ask here. If your IP is blocked, it only prevents you from editing - you'll still be able to read it without any issues. If you'd like to edit without being bothered by vandalism from other users on your network, considering creating an account. Let me know if you have any extra questions. Elaenia (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Elaenia.

For those using the ip: It has nothing to do with viewing, but rather the edits coming from that ip. An ip block would prevent editing, and the block would last for only a short time. Any subsequent edits of a similar nature could lead to longer blocks.

Sorry that you got caught up in this. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey just wanted to let you know the user you've been dealing with on User experience design was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I've cleaned up most of his spam to Mybridge. It appears his motive for adding those questionable sections is to promote Mybridge (which is currently up for deletion at AfD). I figured you could possibly be aware of additional incidents of similar behavior and thought you should know the bigger pattern. Cya. Elaenia (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, it appears that you rolled back all the commits I made in the criticism sections of these two articles. While I appreciate your efforts to stop vandalism, let me assure you that this was not an act of vandalism, but of public information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and if it contains the philosophy and attendees list of an event, it should also contain valid criticism from all quarters. Moreover, I listed 5-10 citations from the most respected Indian newspapers in support of the criticism. Not approving such an edit just because it is criticism shows Wikipedia and its editors in a very poor light - it is partisan in nature to say the least. I invite you to counter the criticisms with newspaper articles opposing the criticism, but please allow valid criticism on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strings.1879 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Let's see what we can do with the sources. I'll respond in more detail on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. Responding on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

http://adage.com/article/news/activist-capitalist-food-babe-makes-money/294032/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpookyStirner (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss it on the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

hey Ronz. I am not actually sure if globalgurus.org is reliable. My main intent was to verify the Trotskyite claim, since it wasn't supported by the existing first citation and couldn't be verified using the second one. I couldn't find anything to support it, but globalgurus (which I found via a quick Google search) supported the other part of the sentence, and so I used it for that. I am totally fine with your edits on that article. Sue Gardner (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You left a message on my talk page that Water fluoridation is under discretionary sanctions. Please provide a link to the ruling.Jdkag (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to spot amidst all the others. On your talk. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The link you sent me is unrelated to fluoridation. I cannot find any sanction in the past 6 years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log Jdkag (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't understand, then I suggest you avoid he article completely. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Saw your post at my talk, glad to discuss. Sometimes this works best on a talk subpage so as not to derail other discussions on a User's main talk page. If you want to set up an area and ping me, we can set aside a spot to chat. Montanabw^(talk) 16:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking for wording that makes the 3rd paragraph consistent with what follows later. It wasn't exactly contradictory, but as it was, it was more inflammatory than useful and accurate. If you don't like what I have, would you do your best to improve the wording along those lines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericatius (talk • contribs) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You should work on the article talk page to get consensus for such changes. It should go smoothy if you work from third-party references to address the issues that I indicated in my edit summary, "seems a bit undue and WP:SOAPy - if third-party sources confirm this, then may be due", where I was referring to WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Noticed that you reverted a number of images that I updated on wikipedia. In some cases, I updated an old image I took with a new one. Some were reverted by you with a note saying that the new image wasn't an improvement. I would think a portrait 10 years old would benefit from being updated to present day. I'm working hard to provide wikimedia with a ton of good images and provide them for no reason other than to give back. But I find these changes confusing. thanks, Cmichel67 (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Cmichel67

Thanks for responding. My biggest concern by far was your use of the edits to promote yourself. Are you being paid for your photography? --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised you reverted my edit today. This is potentially controversial and I had rearranged the lead to make this clearer. Please amend to reflect this is just one page from NHS Choices as per reference -- the NHS (per se) does not make statements. It is discussed almost word-for-word again in the main article and I question why we need to say anything more in the lead. Jrfw51 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You might like to review these primary sources (not up to MEDRS standards I admit) PMID 21224837, PMID 26056920, PMID 26867199 before accepting there is "no" evidence. Jrfw51 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I now realize some the context for your edit, but it's by no means clear. It needs an explanation on the article talk page. Maybe restore the edit piecemeal with clear edit summaries for each step as well? --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

... I'm wondering why you threw out my edit on the coworking values? While myself only being a coworker, the reference was given to me by someone very active in that community, and I can't see anything that's wrong with it. I did not add the linkspam "the ultimate..." Here's the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coworking&diff=next&oldid=714089567 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmueller78 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll reply on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ronz,

My header (original header: "Can't Discuss Improving the Article Without Touching on the Subject Matter" --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)) sez most of it, but there is a general version of the same point. Improving the post often involves replacing lies with truth, and, when that's not possible, propaganda with judicious assessment.

Consideration of either of these possibilities necessarily involves discussion of the actual subject matter of the article.

You will note that I scrupulously try to avoid wandering off into the motives of the authors of the lies and propaganda.

Cheers -- Your work as a Wikipedia Editor is valuable, and I value it.

-dlj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lloyd-Jones (talk • contribs) 09:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You appear have some understanding what talk pages are for, but it's not to replace "lies with truth" and the idea that it involves replacing "propaganda with judicious assessment" is fundamentally wrong. We're here to work cooperatively with others to improve this encyclopedia.

"You will note that I..." Such comments are inappropriate, as you are assuming bad faith and treating talk pages as battlegrounds.

You seem completely unaware that what you've done is the opposite of what you describe. If you want to continue contributing to Wikipedia, you'll need to more closely follow WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, and especially WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

But my Website contains so much information about Vastu Shastra. It has more than 1600000 pages on vastu.

Please consider

Regards Dr. Kunal Kaushik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.115.253.18 (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

See WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Haven't come across you for a long time, but just now saw your name here. I see you are no longer an admon, but I know I will get relaible infotmation from you. There is an editor here who edits under wiki-name, but who in real life is an academic. Nothing wrong with that. The issue is that the editor has created a page about self in more than one language and has included references to articles written by self and spouse as sources in more than 50 articles in a number of languages. What I need to is how do I take up the COI element without falling foul of the rules on Outing? Thanks for any help. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can help. Quickly responding: Take it to WP:COIN with whatever evidence from within Wikipedia that you have (eg the editor may be a WP:SPA working only in the area of the coi). It doesn't sound like WP:PAYDISCLOSE applies, but the editor should be made aware of the requirements to disclose under certain COI circumstances. You aren't suggesting WP:BLPCOI applies, but if there's a good chance it does then it needs to be brought up. Clearly WP:COISELF and WP:SELFCITE are being violated. If the editor denies the COI violations and the COIN discussion results in agreement that the evidence of a coi is poor (ie no convincing evidence of the editor's identity within Wikipedia), then it's a BLP, NOT, and NPOV violation that's usually best addressed at WP:BLPN. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronz. It certainly helps. Looking back on it, I do believe I have enough to build a case without running foul of the principle on Outing. I will prepare it and take it to the appropriate forum. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Clayton College of Natural Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The current article on CCNH is biased and one-sided. The changes made were not self-published but linked to archived copies of CCNH website. Just looking for clarification in regards to removal of edits that are truthful and reduce the one-sidedness of the content. Newbie seeking to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj2221 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

By self-published, I meant exactly that the material is from their own website. See WP:SPS and the section that follows "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves".

The apparent "one-sidedness" is appropriate and necessary. It the result of years of editing and review by experienced Wikipedians. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

A few months ago you gave us guidance on a page and some listings of Mobile Labs. We understood your comments and did not work to get the pages reposted. We recently noticed this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricentis which appears to have the same issues that Mobile Labs did. Do you agree or did they do something correct to merit a page like this?

Arketi (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Just skimming over it, it seems to need a rewrite from better sources to prevent it from being deleted. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ronz (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz

I would like to request you to inform me why the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markelytics_Solutions got deleted. There was nothing promotional or advertisement related on the page. It did not classify the organization as a leader/front runner and instead gave bare-minimum information on the organization. Each and every information mentioned had a credible reference attached too. Kindly let me know how to resolve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawazjaleel (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It was deleted for the same reason as the three prior deletions. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Markelytics_Solutions

I suggest you first make a COI statement.

The references all have the exact same problems as the past: None demonstrate notability at all. The article is written entirely from the company's efforts at public relations: profiles and press releases.

Note that Power2SME has similar problems and should probably be deleted as well.

Please don't add Facebook links to articles as you have been doing. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Colleague, you canceled editing because "looks like spam". I believe that this link is not spam. Link contains the date of beginning of the year on the Chinese calendar from 1 to 3999 year. If you know of any other source containing the date of beginning of the year on the Chinese calendar, then bring it instead of the remote reference. Kalendar (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

If that's the best argument to be made for inclusion, then it should stay out as having almost no relevance to the general topic of the article. --Ronz (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I accidentally reverted your valid edit while using a mobile device. Sorry. I immediately corrected this. HGilbert (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So you banned my comment on the Bonsai tree page, comment with relevant content describing the newest contribution in the world of bonsai, because I've placed 2 relevant source links to that comment. Yet on the bottom of the page I can find 115 references and at least one of them is a shop.

So, with all due respect, how did I do wrong again and the other guys didn't. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsai trees (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that some of the other references look questionable as well.

Could you please comment on your apparent conflict of interest? --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

I'm surprised that you clipped the paragraph which I added to the Batteriser entry, as it was a simple statement of fact. It wasn't judgemental or critical of product or people - just a reflection of widely expressed positions from their crowd-funding campaign feedback. Thanks for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcoop (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to present "a reflection of widely expressed positions from their crowd-funding campaign feedback". --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz

I'm curious to see if collaborating on some wording would be best. I'm finding it difficult to narrow the wording down o where it isn't advertising but it seems that anything beneficial mentioned is considered advertisement. I have information concerning the technology so if you want I can pass it on and you could word it correctly. Currently, the only types of articles available for the technology are news or technology organizations summaries; there are no peer reviewed articles at this time. Would one of those suffice for a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrow363 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Let's work on it. We can get others to help if necessary. I think Talk:Germicidal lamp would be the best place to start.

I'm sure there are materials we can use as sources somewhere, given the medical applications of the technology. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)