→Okay what if I disengage from everything?: trying to clarify |
Right cite (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 2,060: | Line 2,060: | ||
::Me not making any ... what? [[User:Right cite|Right cite]] ([[User talk:Right cite|talk]]) 18:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC) |
::Me not making any ... what? [[User:Right cite|Right cite]] ([[User talk:Right cite|talk]]) 18:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::Sorry that I wasn't clear. {{tq|...without any other terms}}, without the dependency that I do something in return. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal/Ronz]] ([[User talk:Hipal#top|talk]]) 18:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC) |
:::Sorry that I wasn't clear. {{tq|...without any other terms}}, without the dependency that I do something in return. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal/Ronz]] ([[User talk:Hipal#top|talk]]) 18:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
== If I disengage from everything, will it increase at least the likelihood that you will stop following me around? == |
|||
If I disengage from everything, will it increase at least the likelihood that you will stop following me around? [[User:Right cite|Right cite]] ([[User talk:Right cite|talk]]) 18:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:25, 6 November 2020
![]() | This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify) |
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)
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)
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?
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 @Roxy the dog: 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)
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)
Talk:Al Ries
- Al Ries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Talk:Al Ries (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
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..
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
RS noticeboard
Hi Ronz. At your suggestion, I tried posting about Sludge on the RS noticeboard here: [1]. 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)
- 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)
- 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'm afraid that statement doesn't summarize the feedback. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Here's a quote that came up. Do you agree with it?
- 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)
- 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 believe anyone that responded would agree with your assessment. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 12 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)
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
External Links
Hi there, with External Links, I added her Tumblr as an external link because I found that there was a template for it, when using it, it didn't work so I added it manually. Was this wrong? I thought that pages were supposed to have all of their social media accounts..? And I'd like to also add that I only just read your talk on my page, thank you for the advice and I will try my best to follow and understand the rules. Thank you!
Sawhitney36 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Sawhitney36. Thanks for checking with me.
- One social media external link is allowed when the individual doesn't have an official website, per WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
- Okay thank you very much! Sawhitney36 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
NPOVN Rupert Sheldrake
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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)
- Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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)
Can't find a version with sourced content beyond the accusations. DlohCierekim 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 Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations 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
- Jonathan Swan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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)
- 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)
Dorcas Shola Fapson
- Dorcas Shola Fapson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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: [2]. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:12, 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 [3], 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)
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)
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)
A kitten for you!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Kitten_%2806%29_by_Ron.jpg/150px-Kitten_%2806%29_by_Ron.jpg)
Thanks from youngster kitten editors of Wikipedia to the experienced mama-cat editor for caring about the newbies
Mchan12345 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)
Some baklava for you!
Have a good day! Kuba Ali (talk) 06:01, 30 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)
Ninja (streamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol. 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, Michaelgmitchell45, 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
- John Crist (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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 Wikipedia:Good_articles/Media_and_drama#Media_and_drama_2 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 @Ronz: 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_creepTalk 12:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- How To Cake It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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#Ancestry additions....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)
- 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:
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)
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)
- Jonathan Haidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 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)
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:
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
- Heterodox Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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)
- Faruk danyaya (talk · contribs)
- 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
Dan Peña Page
Hi Ronz, your last cleanup of the Dan Peña page is [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
- Earl Mindell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Peacedove.svg/60px-Peacedove.svg.png)
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
![Stop icon with clock](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)- @Bbb23: 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:
- 17:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC) removal of a link to an interview (initially added here - likely COI - SPAM)
- 15:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC) revert to remove the TED speaker profile link
- 15:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC) removal of Seckel's "Recollections of Richard Feynman" (initially added here by Seckel)
- 04:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC) revert to remove the TED speaker profile
- 01:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC) 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)
- (edit conflict) 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)
- (edit conflict) 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)
- 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)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Appointment_green.svg/48px-Appointment_green.svg.png)
Hipal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wasn't aware that removal of any information can be considered a revert. As I've explained, I consider this two reverts on my part. Long term, I'll change my behavior to avoid such situations in the future. Short term, I'll restore the two unrelated links, and start a discussion about them on the talk page. On the tangential issues, I'll work on de-escalating the situation between myself and Ammarpad. Ronz (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
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#Today's changes 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)
- WhatamIdoing, I didn't add that in April 2010. It was carried over from Wikipedia: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)
- WhatamIdoing, I didn't add that in April 2010. It was carried over from Wikipedia: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)
- 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)
- And I'm usually so good at counting in the single digits...
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)
- (edit conflict) 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)
- 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)
To do
- Locksmithing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- uses Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_141#Michael_Simkovic_references
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)
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)
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)
- @MacPraughan: 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.
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists frequently discussed references that can be easily checked, identifying current consensus on their use.
- Wikipedia: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)
- 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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
- Hsmukler, 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 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)
The Anti-Spam Barnstar
![]() |
The Anti-Spam Barnstar | |
For your hard work in removing spam from articles - ZLEA T\C 12:27, 23 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 ౪99° 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!
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 Wikipedia: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.
- H. Lawrence Culp Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Kitten_in_a_helmet.jpg/150px-Kitten_in_a_helmet.jpg)
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#Price 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
- Randy Olson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes_contributors. 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Colin. -- 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)
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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Famous_Birthdays 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)
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)
A Script You Might Find Useful
There's a handy script which will pop an article onto your watchlist with a note that I've taken to using and you might also find helpful (ala in the MT:MEDMOS discussion). It is User:SD0001/W-Ping.js. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've been looking around to find tools to help with large watchlists. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for such a warm welcome! No specific asks at this point but thank you for reaching out and writing all of that out. Fonz1951 (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Celebritynetworth.com as a source
Thank you for letting me know. I did not know that. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Abbymsmall
Thanks for blocking this user, who just didn't seem helpful. Fonz1951 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Marking Drug Costs/Prices Disputed
Hi there. As I think you are now definitely aware, until the RfC - which seems to have made some real strides towards being ready in the last day - has been completed there is a moratorium per this ANI discussion on removing or adding this information. Adding disputed tags falls in a bit of a grey area but does, to my reading, fall against the spirit of that prohibition, namely that energy should be focused on find a solution to move forward rather than continuing to edit war over this content. I would ask that you allow the status quo, whatever form that may take, to stay until the community has weighed in. Please ping me or leave a message on my talk page if you want to discuss or have questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- So disputed content shouldn't be tagged, to maybe get some others involved? --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Just came back here and so am seeing this question for the first time. Marking disputed content as disputed has the effect of not remitting
"question[s] of drug pricing.. to a single venue"
. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)- Huh? My concern was the way Seraphimblade stumbled into the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Concern how? As I noted in my ANI close the idea of new editors stumbling into the dispute unaware (or having read something somewhere but not knowing the specifics) seemed likely to happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
If you think it's fine, then ok.I see there's another example of the situation, with what could be considered a breech of the embargo by Doc James... --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Concern how? As I noted in my ANI close the idea of new editors stumbling into the dispute unaware (or having read something somewhere but not knowing the specifics) seemed likely to happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Huh? My concern was the way Seraphimblade stumbled into the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Just came back here and so am seeing this question for the first time. Marking disputed content as disputed has the effect of not remitting
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "An update on and a request for involvement at the Medicine MOS". Thank you. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I would put the RfC together …
but I don't know what these 'better sources' are that you are referring to. They should be presented for assessment or the issue dropped. Humanengr (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- I believe I've pointed them out multiple times. I agree it would be better if you dropped it. --Ronz (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Nice list. We have been doing some other work about dubious reference material and its coordinated use at WP, some discussion about how we can work with this at User talk:Praxidicae/fakenews, and noting that I can do some of that configuration for COIBot reports. Let me ping @Vexations, Praxidicae, and ThatMontrealIP: to your build. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've been meaning to link any RSN discussion for each entry, but the list grew too fast. It's mostly scraping or publicity sites. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Moving comments out of an RfC
Don't accuse me of moving comments out of an RfC, as you did here. It is clear that all I did was to move a section in its own right into the discussion about the RfC, and add it as a sub section, here. It was never in the RfC for me to move it out. - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I didn't even notice that you were the one that moved the section out of the RfC.Moving comments like that are inappropriate. I added it to the RfC. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)- Do you ever actually read what people say to you? I did not move anything out of the RfC. You added a new section, not a sub-section. I moved the section to above the RfC to allow the RfC to be the clear item at the bottom. If you meant to add what you typed as a comment within the RfC, then next time don't add it as a new section, then double down on accusations against others who have followed accepted practice. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have no idea what you're complaining about. The first diff you provided has nothing to do with you as far as I can see. Nothing you've shown demonstrates any accusation by me about you. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- (Comment removed per TALK, NOT --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC))
- How is the first diff about you? How is the second? --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Since there's still some confusion: My comment was moved out of the RfC. That's what my edit summary referred to. You subsequently moved it to a better location. I moved it back to the RfC. None of this was about you at all. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Do you ever actually read what people say to you? I did not move anything out of the RfC. You added a new section, not a sub-section. I moved the section to above the RfC to allow the RfC to be the clear item at the bottom. If you meant to add what you typed as a comment within the RfC, then next time don't add it as a new section, then double down on accusations against others who have followed accepted practice. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Multiple Edits - mostly foxchronicle.com
Ronz
Thank you for your help. I see that you are a very experienced editor so I am thankful for feedback and I know you are also acting in good faith. The source is reliable and you seemed to have deleted several of my edits without thorough review. The edits are supported in other reliable sources as well on Wikipedia. For example, a similar statement was made on Billy Corben's page, the director of the documentary, Cocaine Cowboys:
"After a limited theatrical release in 2006, Cocaine Cowboys became the highest-rated documentary ever on the Showtime cable network.[4]"
This has already been on Wikipedia and is supported by the studio Magnolia Pictures and it is supported by the producer and network - how can we get more reliable than that?
You may not be familiar with the source and I did many helpful and good faith edits quickly. You seem to have judged too quickly because you believe I am a new editor. The source is very reliable and is quoted for writing political, religious, and educational news as opposed to entertainment news.
I would appreciate if you would revert these changes. I can demonstrate the same information for the multiple deletions and I hope that is not necessary.
SaltySnow (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)SaltySnow
- Hi SaltySnow. Thanks for following up with me. I did go over your edits quickly, and saw that another editor had already notified you about the use of unreliable sources, specifically Wikitia.com, which you added again after being notified. Other edits of yours were removed by other editors for similar reasons. Seeing that, I looked closer at your remaining edits, and removed much of them. I'm uncertain about foxchronicle.com, but I don't believe it was used anywhere until you added it.
- You can use WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help find better sources. --Ronz (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
You are correct. That was my error. I simply was not aware that other wiki pages were not reliable and I didn’t notice the edit. I appreciate your guidance and I will make sure it doesn’t happen again. I guess that’s the only way to learn.
SaltySnow (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd like to get other editors to look at foxchronicle.com, as I left it in a few places. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#foxchronicle.com --Ronz (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Question: Why do you think ANI is the best place to sort out a content dispute? CassiantoTalk 19:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Cassianto:. Thanks for looking into it. To answer your question: I don't. Sorry that I gave the impression otherwise. Could you point out what made you think I did, so I can refactor and clarify? --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- So why have you posted your dispute with SchroCat there? CassiantoTalk 19:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Again, is there something that needs clarification? --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'll ask again, why do you think ANI is the best place to sort out your dispute with SchroCat? CassiantoTalk 20:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I believe my first and last sentences make that crystal clear:
Disrupting an RfC
I'd like dig through the potential refs offered by Isaidnoway and SchroCat without the constant harassment
- Is there something that needs clarification? --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- (Refactor per WP:TALK --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC))
- So you thanked me for the refactoring. Are we done then? --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've refactored again.
- Thanks you for the civil response. Repeating yourself while ignoring what I've written gets us nowhere.
- I've answered your question. I've asked if anything needs clarification. That should be enough. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'll ask again, why do you think ANI is the best place to sort out your dispute with SchroCat? CassiantoTalk 20:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Again, is there something that needs clarification? --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- So why have you posted your dispute with SchroCat there? CassiantoTalk 19:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Fox Chronicle
I did some digging and I found this - I think its credible but you are definitely more advanced than me.
About Fox Chronicle Fox Chronicle delivers award-winning original reporting and sharp opinion in the area of politics, pop-culture and humor. The Fox Chronicle is based in Luxembourg and was originally funded by RTL Communications and Switchover Media of Italy, under the Fox Kids Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltySnow (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Where'd you find this? Please bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#foxchronicle.com, along with whatever information you have about it, including who that information is from. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for delayed response. I am back. It was a link on the bottom of the privacy policy page.
https://foxchronicle.com/privacy-policy/ https://foxchronicle.com/about-fox-chronicle
I am not familiar with the companies listed on the About page. I wasn't able to really find anything on Fox Kids Italy but I was able to find something on Switchover Media.
comment added by SaltySnow —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Flipp Dinero Article
Greeting Hipal, I noticed your reply to my article editing on the hip-hop artist, Flipp Dinero. I am contacting you in response to this. I would like to inform you that, yes, I am a newcomer and I am enrolled in a COM 482 course at my Univeristy in Seattle Washington. This course has an assignment called, "Project #1" in which we're to edit Wikipedia Stub articles for hopes of improving them. As I worked very hard to draft this edit, but also I am still trying to understand all the spects of Wikipedia as it is not easy to grasp all at once first hand, so I appreciate you pointing out things I should be aware of. Based on your feedback, I am understanding that I should remove my references of iTunes, YouTube, Sound Cloud. At first I thought this was okay since I looked at many other articles of artists and most seemed to include these types of references as well. Anywho, let me know if there's any other explainations you could provide me with on what is there I should adjust. Thank you. Blasianmanda (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Hipal??
What the t¿≠}{\¶‰¢¥”, Ronz? Bishonen | talk 11:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC).
- "Hip Al"? "Hi pal"?
- Does someone have a script to auto-rename renamed accounts so they look like the old account - all this account renaming is too confusing :-) ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with Bish, fwiw. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- LOL. Yes. I put this off way too long. I'm sure there's much more fun and confusion to come. X^P --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with Bish, fwiw. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Reiki dispute resolution
- == Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Peacedove.svg/60px-Peacedove.svg.png)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding NIH definition. 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 "Needs Work".The discussion is about the topic Reiki. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Pamxz (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Janet Dubois
The sources may differ on year of her birth but if she had a child (Raj) who died in 1987 at age 36, it means Raj born around 1951. So most likely 1932 is correct year, because the odds of her giving birth at 19 is more realistic than at 13 or 6. Also Raj must not have been the youngest of 4 kids (as listed) unless Janet had 4 kids by the age of 19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6A48:9700:1828:C6F4:CEE7:CB63 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- The place for this discussion is the article talk page, where you will see the same argument and the response that as far as we know he could have been adopted. But, yes, primary sources which we should not be using alone, suggest 1932. Too bad the New York Times punted on her year of birth. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Mark salling edit
I don't see why you reversed my edit on mark salling, he's not a living person so it didn't violate the blp guidelines and it was a true fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuclamgo (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- While BLP doesn't apply, WP:NOT, WP:POV, and WP:OR certainly do. If you want to continue to dispute the removal, the place to do so is on the article talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Undeleting a Wikipedia page
Hi Hipal/Ronz,
Thanks for the welcome message from where I got link to this talk page.
New to wikipedia and have done only 2-3 pages. Got a page deleted entitled "Shweta Shalini" for being promotional about Biographies of Living Persons.
Can you help to retain it back so that I can rectify my mistakes ? Or guide me to who deleted it so that I can request for the same
Praveen u menon (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Praveen u menon, already explained to you at [4] DBigXrayᗙ 21:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
That certainly went from 0 to 100 quickly! Please see User talk:Johnuniq#Advice on RfC proposal for more details on what motivated my initial deletion of the promotional content at Edison, New Jersey. If you'd like to collaborate on crafting an RfC I'd appreciate it. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm interested. I think this is a small incident of a very large problem.
- WP:NOT is not well enforced or well understood when it comes to determining when information is appropriate for inclusion in articles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices for an RfC that's mostly just about applying NOT.
- I'd check WP:CITY, WP:PRIZE, and related projects to see what consensus has been reached on similar issues, and review GA articles for relevant content or discussion.
- Yes, awards promote both the award givers and receivers, and often contribute little or nothing to the encyclopedic understanding of either. I've seen consensus, mostly in BLPs, that editors need to be very careful in selection of what awards to mention at all.
- I don't believe NOT goes far enough to emphasize the need for independent sourcing, and sources that provide detail beyond the trivial. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Let me have a look at the RfC and other documents and put something together. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Michael Greger
I don't understand why you are removing what I've added on Dr. Michael Greger's page. I have been following his work for years and his nutrition research has saved family member's lives. I noticed that his Wikipedia page was missing a lot of information - I was under the impression that people could update the page. I have not added any false information and everything I added is cited. I spent several hours working on this and finding all the proper sources, why remove it all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamBellaRosa (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I already explained on your talk page: User_talk:IamBellaRosa. I can give further details if you'd like.
- I suggest putting aside working on this article, and learn your way around Wikipedia first. Wikipedia:Tutorial and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure are good ways to start. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Andy Gross
- Andy Gross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am confused why you decided to revert my edit of this article to a misquoted and incomplete older edit. The page, as it currently stands, is not only far less informative of the events that transpired and made national media headlines, but is also blatantly false, a fact you would have been able to determine by actually reviewing the sources I added. Everything on the page was properly cited and factual, again qualities that are not shared by your edits. I wish to settle this dispute in as civil of a manner as possible, which is why I am writing to you rather than simply reverting your edits.Nucleartaco123 (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Nucleartaco123. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for following up with me on this.
- To me it seemed like far too much coverage and detail for a single event that has apparently no lasting impact.
- That said, it certainly could be written better, and the references formatted. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have re-written/corrected the statement in the article you mentioned on my talk page. Regards.-Kthxbay (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
proposed changes on Heterodox_Academy
Hi, As you requested I proposed a change on that page. Please let me know if you need any more information.
- I already have. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you so much Hipal and Ronz for the warm welcome. You are appreciated! Roccie (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)roccie
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
I will do what I can to follow your great example on Wikipedia. Roccie (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC) |
Arbcom Notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up with this. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Ja`net Dubois/birth info
Actually I do have a source of referenced info but I failed to include it in the edit at the time.
Ms.Ja`net Dubois`s official death certificate was made public and confirms her date of birth to be 08-05-1932. With this confirmed information, Ms. Dubois`s date of birth should no longer be an issue for confusion.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willona1938 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. You're referring to the one from TMZ ( https://dam.tmz.com/document/c5/o/2020/03/11/c524058645cd44c19325454b899ffb73.pdf ), right? We've discussed it at great length at Talk:Ja'Net DuBois. It doesn't look reliable for much, and there's a good possibility it's a hoax. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Bhad Bhabie
Why do you keep removing my edits on the Bhad Bhabie page? Everything that I put on there is truthful and 8 even added references to please you, yet you still take it all down. If you so want to, you can find her single Get Like Me on every streaming platform, it’s even on her discography list so don’t take it from her career. You can download her game “Ride or Die” on google play or the App Store now, and you can find her freestyle “Yikes” and her song “$” on her YouTube page. It is all there with truthful references, why do you keep taking it down? It is important information as someone might want to know her recent singles, and with the facts on the page right now they would think that it is “Spaz" when it is really "$". They might want to know about her hiatus and if it has ended or not, with the current information on the page there isn’t even ANY mention of a hiatus except for the title “2019: Bringing Up Bhabie and hiatus". Key word - hiatus. If here was a mention of hiatus which was my edit that you deleted, they would know that she wore box braids on an Instagram live that got her backlash for cultural appropriation and she took a mental health break, but she later returned with the “Yikes” freestyle. You might want to know if she has a game out or not, by the current information there is no mention of a game, but really she has one out now. Please stop changing my edits as they are very helpful. BhadBhabie123 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi BhadBhabie123. Thanks for following up with me. Did you see the welcome I left on your talk page, because there's a partial answer there already,
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.
andIf you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.
- Basically, the sources you used are not of the quality required, nor close. Please remove the material or find independent, reliable sources. If you need help, let me know or use some of the means of assistance that I also left on your talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Trish Regan
- Trish Regan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ms. Regan did not say cv-19 was a Democratic hoax; she said the Democratic response to the virus was an attempt to impeach the president. The header was updated to reflect this. (refactored - this sentence was originally the title of this section --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC))
I am not sure why you changed my entry. The change I made was not a "change in emphasis"; it was a change in fact. The original stated that Ms. Regan was calling the pandemic a hoax perpetuated by the Democrats. However that is not the case. She was stating that the Democratic response was a hoax, not that the pandemic was a hoax. These are entirely different, and not simply a change in emphasis.
The reference was included because it had a transcript of her remarks; it was done in order to verify that the original (and now current) write up is incorrect. I agree it is a progressive rag, but that is the point; if it were a conservative site, one might dismiss it. And, of course, the header states that references are needed.
I would be interested in your take on this.
Thanks,
- Hi DesertStormVet. Please work to get consensus on the article talk page.
- Please note nowhere in the article is "hoax" even mentioned.
- The use of the word "dismissing" vs "labeling" does seem problematic. I'm going to review the high-quality sources.
- Thanks for bringing this up. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- "Dismissing" seems fine given the NYTimes ref, and the change in emphasis seems contrary to that ref. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Gold Dinar, Modern Gold Dinar
The article referenced is of direct relevance to the these pages... please kindly reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuqud (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding.
- "Direct relevance" isn't what we're looking for, especially when it looks like promotion of one, non-notable individual's perspective. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Interview request
Hi, I am a freelance journalist who has written regularly about Wikipedia for The New York Times, Slate, and other publications. If you're interested, you can read some of my work here: https://slate.com/tag/source-notes
I saw that you weighed in on the issue of whether the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory should be classified as "pseudoscience" on its Wikipedia article which is an issue that I find interesting and am researching for an article for Slate.
Would you be open if I interviewed you by email or Skype about whether MBTI should be described as "pseudosience" on Wikipedia? The interview could be anonymous or under your name, whichever you prefer. You can contact me via the "Email this user" functionality. Thanks for considering. Stephenbharrison (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Archiving
Hello! After you commented on my talk page, I realized that I actually have a question you could probably help out with. My Talk page over the years has, understandably, gotten very crowded and I have sometimes made the decision to clear notifications. I would prefer to archive in the future, rather than clear. I have spent years on Wikipedia, but have never learned this skill... Could really use your help! PickleG13 (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- From what I've seen other editors using, there are very good tools to automate it. Unfortunately, I've never gotten around to investigating. WP:AATP covers the topic. I'd be interested to know what you find. Good luck. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Please do not remove sourced information from this article without a consensus on the talk page to do so. Also, please review WP:TWITTER and note that citing "BLP" is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card which excludes your edits from being reverted if they are inappropriate, as they are in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no. BLP requires it be removed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Josh Olson
- Josh Olson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"Best I not make edit to the Josh Olson Article"? Excuse me what did I do in error? Maravelous (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's a suggestion. I was easily able to find multiple references for the content. Your other edits to the article, your edit-warring, and your talk page comments all indicate that a break from the article would be a very good step. Alternatively, you might want to try working only from the article talk page with edit requests. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- There has been no edit warring, and I note you have not cited any violation on my part Maravelous (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're incorrect. I hope it will stop, so no further action will be needed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- There has been no edit warring, and I note you have not cited any violation on my part Maravelous (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- How can I be incorrect? Name one thing I have done that has not been cited correctly? Maravelous (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- You have been edit-warring. Claiming otherwise is incorrect.
- Please drop it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- How can I be incorrect? Name one thing I have done that has not been cited correctly? Maravelous (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Welcoming new editors
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For taking a moment to welcome new editors: Thanks! ProClasher97 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC) |
Hi- I got the notice for the page about it being written from a fans POV and have been working to edit out extraneous information and make it better; do you think I've changed it enough or should I work further? Any suggestions? Thank you!
LeelooMultipass (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)LeelooMultipass
- Thanks for your work. I was concerned the most of the sources were press releases and the like. As with any subject, the article needs high-quality references written from a historical viewpoint. It may be some time before I will be able to look carefully over the article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll look for more non-press-release references and start to sub them in as well; thank you! LeelooMultipass (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Prager Edits
Hi Hipal,
Sorry, I'm a newbie to this, so I don't know if this is the right way to reach you.
Anyway, you reverted my edits to Dennis Prager's page. However, I think they are necessary for context. I personally am center-left, so I do not support him at all. Nonetheless, I feel strongly about ensuring that everyone's views are fairly represented. --Mcaser131 (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding.
- Please look over the welcome message I left you.
- This is an encyclopedia we're writing. We rely upon reliable, independent sources to determine what viewpoints have clear encyclopedic value worth noting. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
MBR
Hello Hipal, I am trying to modify the article about membrane bioreactors for an university project; may I know why have you removed my modifications? Thanks a lot, regards, Giancarlo Esposito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giancarloesposito (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Responding on your talk page, where I already placed much of the information you need. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Membrane BioReactor
Hello Hipal, I am from the university of Tarragona (Universitat Roviri i Virgili), attending a Master's degree in Chemical Engineering; the aim of the project for the course of Membrane Separation is to improve the wikipedia page of Membrane Bioreactor. Me and my team selected also references from marketsandmarkets, gminsight and the aim of the section was not only about the future perspective, but also on the past/present (based on data which can be consulted from the references put into the wikipedia section). The proposal is to improve the market frameworks, since we have seen the sentence about previsions in 2010, we thought that the aim of the section could have been the future forecast, but now is clear that we need to focus on past events and give an historical perspective. Our idea is to create a section based on past and present information, describing the market of MBR that we thing it could fit very well in wikipedia. Thanks a lot, we hope for your answer as soon as possible because we have a deadline very soon. Best regards, we appreciate your comment Giancarlo Esposito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giancarloesposito (talk • contribs) 09:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Glad I could help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Approve and Publish Sandbox Page
Hi Ronz, Can you take a look at my sandbox file for approval and publishing? Thank you - Roccie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roccie (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've responded at User_talk:Roccie/sandbox --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated!
I understand that those admin privileges are few and far between. I appreciate your feedback and will do what I can to make adjustments. Yes, I will need help to publish. Take Care and Be safe/healthy. Roccie (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Roccie
- No admin privileges are needed. I'm just not familiar with that type of work, while there are many editors who specialize in working with drafts and new articles. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Welcome Message
Hi Hipal, Thank you very much for the welcome message. I am still learning the ropes here. I do appreciate your kind help. I will go through the links you sent me and learn to feel my way around the site. I am trying my hands at lots here but I certainly do need to be guided! I did a draft article yesterday and sent in for review. I hope to learn from the corrections I will receive as sometimes learning comes from doing. Please keep me in your view and correct when I go wrong. Thank you! 07:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfricanLibrarian (talk • contribs)
Welcome Message
Hi Hipal, Thank you very much for the welcome message. I am still learning the ropes here. I do appreciate your kind help. I will go through the links you sent me and learn to feel my way around the site. I am trying my hands at lots here but I certainly do need to be guided! I did a draft article yesterday and sent in for review. I hope to learn from the corrections I will receive as sometimes learning comes from doing. Please keep me in your view and correct when I go wrong. Thank you! 07:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfricanLibrarian (talk • contribs)
Unreliable source indirectly funded by Big Tobacco
Philip Morris International created and financed the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.[1]
References
It is "funded through a grant from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World."[5] Knowledge-Action-Change has ties to the tobacco industry.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
New discussion for source. See Talk:Philip Morris International#New source for Research section. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- At a glance, I'm not seeing the full connection between the organizations. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- The gsthr.org organisation is ran by the Knowledge-Action-Change and receives money indirectly from Philip Morris International through the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. See "The report is published by Knowledge-Action-Change, a company dedicated to the promotion of harm reduction to improve health, and funded through a grant from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World."[7] The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World was started and funded by Philip Morris International.[8] QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yikes. Can you summarize this on the article talk? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- The gsthr.org organisation is ran by the Knowledge-Action-Change and receives money indirectly from Philip Morris International through the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. See "The report is published by Knowledge-Action-Change, a company dedicated to the promotion of harm reduction to improve health, and funded through a grant from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World."[7] The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World was started and funded by Philip Morris International.[8] QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
- CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
- Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
- QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
- I am formally notifying anyone who was originally named as a party in the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
...A lengthy welcome
Hi Hipal
Thanks for your message, I appreciate your advice. p.s. Is't ok to reply here?
Regards, Panda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panda0271 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Dan Pena
Hi, I am working on the Dan Pena page as I wanted to research his background after I saw him on the Joe Rogan podcast. Any help you can offer would be appreciated.Tom (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I have no connection to Dan Pena or any of his companies or services.Tom (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Tread with care and use descriptive edit summaries. An editor with a declared COI was recently blocked. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the Welcome
Hi Hipal,
Thank you for the helpful information that you put on my talk page. So far my only mistakes seem to be finding references that are not approved by experts, but I'm sure as I get bolder there will be more mistakes which I apologize for in advance. Carlislejp51 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Circular Source
About the Hugh O'Brian lineage. The last source I used was the Ethnicity of Celebs page, https://ethnicelebs.com/hugh-obrian, and you took it out and said in might be a circular source. I assume that you mean they may have gotten their information from Wikipedia, but I looked at the bottom of the article and the sources they give are:
Sources: Hugh’s father on the 1910 U.S. Census – https://familysearch.org Hugh’s mother on the 1900 U.S. Census – https://familysearch.org
Family Search is maintained by the Ladder-Day Saints, so please let me know if you think they are a good source. I can tell you from my own experience that many genealogists use their database.
Carlislejp51 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Carlislejp51 familysearch, like ancestry is not allowed because it constitutes original research. That being said, ethniccelebs still should not be used as it's definitely not reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to find out when that line was added? I can tell you that it was added between January 18, 2016 and September 5, 2016. There is an obituary in The Guardian giving his parents ethnicity, but it was written on September 12, 2016. So it could be circular, too. Carlislejp51 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not clear what "line" you're referring to.
- Obituaries can be problematic, as they may not be fact-checked, depending upon the authorship.
- The article needs some careful review, especially: the mention of three individuals claiming to be his children, his being a humanitarian, and the information about the Foundation. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. The line I’m talking about is:
- "His paternal grandparents were immigrants from Germany; his mother was of half German and English/Scottish ancestry.[citation needed]"
- The obituary is from The Guardian written by Anthony Hayward on September 12th 2016 not long after his death. It can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/sep/11/hugh-o-brian-obituary
- I believe the line must be true, because I've seen it in so many places, but so far I cannot find a good reference. Please let me know what you think of the Guardian article. In the meantime, I'll keep looking. Carlislejp51 (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I've copied this to the article talk page. Let's continue there. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:RS/QUOTE using Roger T. Pipe's website to cite his own quotes are acceptable. I am reinstating the removal. But, of course, that action is totally open to discussion. I could always be wrong.
As for fan POV, I believe the writing editing process is still on. Getting useful sources on any pornstar is difficult. So I would request some patience. It would also be great if you could provide some guidance. Especially since pronstars are sensitive subjects. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see how Pipe's viewpoint is due any weight, nor encyclopedic in any manner. Only an independent source would resolve either. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Could be. But, I thought WP:UNDUE is not about WP:RS. Rather according to the quotation policy, WP:SPS is perfectly acceptable as clear quotes. On the other hand, critical commentary is common WP:SECONDARY for any art or entertainment article, which makes Pipe's commentary perfectly admissible.
- In short critical commentary directly quoted from an SPS should not be a problem unless it is presented as facts. You would notice that everything he said was included as WP:RSOPINION and not facts. Besides, the commentary is neither contentious nor libellous in the slightest way to be considered unadmissible. Can you help me to see where my understanding is wrong?
- As for weightage, one line of commentary for a couple of films doesn't seem like too overdue. Can you help me to see how there's been too much weight there?
- Also, is it possible to drop a line or two on what other edits are needed? This is the only pornstar article I am working on, and therefore, help and guidance wil be highly appreciable.
- Finally, I may not be coming through right. But, believe me, I really am trying to keep the article as compliant as I can. Though I know, it would never be a very high quality article due to a lack of reputed sources in the porn industry. But that should not hold me back from trying. I hope asking for guidance is not too much to ask for. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- To start, BLP requires high quality sources. If we can't pass that restriction, we're wasting time.
- I asked on the article talk page and at the WikiProject discussion for editors to identify good articles to serve as guidance. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Still a fan boy article? Rewrote a lot and still working on it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely. No new refs, and no substantial changes. Did you try to find a GA article to model it on? Try to find some better refs? Please respond on the article talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Replying to your message on my Talk page
Hi Hipal Thank you for your message on my Talk page about biographical information for living persons and reliable sources. I've recently added citations to a living person's page because an editor requested citations. One of my sources which you have undone is NME - New Musical Express - which is a well known music journalism publication in the UK, and has existed since 1952 in print and now online - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NME So I'm uncertain why this isn't a good enough as a reliable, independent source for citations and welcome your advice on this. Many thanks for your help. --IndigoBeach (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies. It looks like you found some better sources, but I'll go over it all and restore any NME refs that provide additional details. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
That's great, thanks Hipal --IndigoBeach (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm still going over it all. I'm getting the impression that the article is overly detailed, relying too much on poor and promotional sources. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 GeneralNotability (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm giving WP:AP2 notices to everyone involved in the dispute at Karlie Kloss and have imposed sanctions on the page under the same, I didn't see any past notifications for AP2 on your talk page but I apologize if you have been notified in the past year. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability, Blackfemale777 has certainly shown interest in Karlie Kloss, here, though without editing it. I've given them a BLP DS alert. Bishonen | tålk 12:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC).
- Thanks for the help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
ANI
I reported an user who was warned by you previously. The same POV and unreliable sources issue. 217.131.85.124 (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Identifying the edit where text was first introduced
Hi, I'm a newish editor, and in a comment you'd left on the WP:V talk page re: whether Footnote 9 still has consensus ([9]), you identified the edit where someone had first added that text to the WP:V page years ago. If there's an explanation somewhere of how to identify the edit where text was first introduced, would you direct me to it? Or, if it's something that you figured out on your own, would you mind sharing how to do this? Thanks! -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi FactOrOpinion. Good question. I used WikiBlame. It's a tool for editors listed on WP:TOOLS. I find it an essential tool that I use every day. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! I appreciate the info about both that specific tool and the WP:TOOLS page, which I wasn't familiar with. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I finally tried using the WikiBlame tool, but couldn't figure out how to do what I was hoping -- to identify the relevant editors and diffs in some edit warring. I posted a question to the Teahouse, but haven't gotten any responses yet, so figured I'd drop a note here in case you're willing to answer there: [10]. Thanks again -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's for finding the first addition of information, as far as I'm aware. I think it can be used to find the first removal of information, but I'm not sure. Using the date ranges might help you, but I've never tried. There used to be tools to identify edit-warring diffs, and I don't know what became of them. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
undo
i'm sorry but can you please bring back my edits on Gabi DeMartino? i spent hours on making the articles, if the problem was in the references then i'll add new links that are not youtube links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriella Grande (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly recommend you work on the draft version that you've already created.
- Please work slowly, in small edits with clear edit summaries. Start from high-quality, independent reliable sources as references.
- Working from a draft will make it easier for you to get feedback while avoiding the problems of working on an actual article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
but i've been working on a Draft:Gabi DeMartino for months, i don't know why was it wrong? but thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriella Grande (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Pictures
hello, how can i add a cover art to an album article without getting copyrighted and blocked? :| please explain to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriella Grande (talk • contribs) 10:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I'd look through WP:IMAGES for specific information on the topic, then Wikipedia:Questions to find a venue to ask for help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
no conflict of interest
Dear Hipal,
Hello, I am kindly asking you to reconsider rejecting my edits due to possible conflict of interest; there is no such thing. I am a researcher in the field of market research, and I am integrating valid peer-reviewed published knowledge into the appropriate fields for scientific dissemination. I do not promote any organization, but instead, I am summarizing real, valid and up-to-date factual research findings. If valid researchers cannot update their relevant fields of expertise, then who can do that?
Thank you for taking the time.
You can find the relevant research pieces in the links below (please see the links to the published research).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.005
https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593120920330
- Responding on your talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Who wrote that?
Hipal and stalkers, I think I'll add this here at the bottom, rather than in the thread above where I noticed you talking about WikiBlame,[11] in the hope that more people will notice it here. WikiBlame has become kind of old school. There's a much smoother new tool on Mediawiki called "Who wrote that?". You need to use Chrome or Firefox for it, though. See [12]. Bishonen | tålk 19:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC).
Cool template
Hi Hipal, today I learned about {{birth based on age as of date}}. That's a cool template, thanks for using and sharing it. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Grace Vanderwaal
I noticed that someone (Koavf) deleted all of the Awards and Nominations section on July 3, 2020. I did not see (or find) a reason for that deletion. Now, in order to replace it, it has to be done manually which would take some time to do. So first I would like to know why that section was deleted.
Re: My deletion about the negative review. I don't know why this one particular review was chosen for inclusion on the page. Positive reviews far outnumber negative ones for "Stargirl" and I felt it was unreasonable to include this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlp2451 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. Please start a discussion on the article talk page about the July 3 awards editing.
- Editors should not be deciding what is and is not included based upon their personal preferences. Such decisions should instead be based upon our content policies. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Cara Mund
Hello, I have been trying to figure out how to message you back. I hope this message finds you healthy and well. I have tried amending the citations to your criteria. I even added additional information and context from sources I found. I am just trying to update this biography. Please revert back to my past edit and let me know what more I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjkd5968788 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Extended welcome?
Hi there! I recently saw one of your "extended" welcomes on a user talk page, and I was wondering if you'd be okay if I use your wording when also welcoming new editors? I found that your message succinctly points out common frustrations new editors run into, and gives good advice as well. I could possibly find a way to attach your name or give you attribution, or I can reword it, if this idea is a little too uncomfortable.
I feel weird asking, because I don't want to take your words as my own! But I definitely want to share the wisdom :) Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Go right ahead and use it as you see fit. I made some effort to get feedback on it before making a template for it, but I wasn't getting as much feedback as I had wanted so put it on hold. The current version is User:Hipal#Advice for new editors - A lengthy welcome. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
A question for you...
...is waiting for an answer here, as soon as you can. Thanks --37.163.155.214 (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've responded, asking for more detail. That discussion is fairly old, and it's not clear what you would like an explanation of from me, nor what you are referring to when you talk about other views. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've answered to your answer in a more specific way. I am another user, not the one you were talking to, I was logged out, sorry. --Centrifuga (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank You
Thank you for your welcome, I'll surely follow the advice.--08:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)United World President (talk)
Rollback changes DPS&C FSD
Roll back your changes about the DPS and C faisalabad page. The current IG and the AVM are indeed DPS alumni as cited via the official Facebook account of the school. Dpsfsdallumni (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- None of them have their own Wikipedia article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
"SOAP" in Brain Gym International
What does SOAP mean in your edit description of Brain Gym International when you reverted my overdone attempt at editing the lead? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 03:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- WP:SOAP. Poorly referenced, promotional content. There are notability and additional POV problems with the edit as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Content and References
Hi,
I've added high quality content and references to legitimate peer review papers for several entries and you removed all of them..... Is there a reason?
I also happen to be very knowledgeable on these sections as well (somewhat of an authority)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highqualitycontent (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'd already explained on your talk page, and have responded further there. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I came after the user posted on WT:MED asking for a review - I noticed that absolutely none of the edits qualify for WP:Rollback use and you did not provide an explanatory edit summary in any of them. While I agree that the edits are not completely in compliance with policy, WP:MEDRS does allow for citing specific primary studies such as specific RCTs as long as those studies are attributed. I've readded the information that HQC added here on one page, and will be going through the rest to see if they can be readded. One thing we definitely don't want to do is discourage qualified medical editors from leaving by mass-rollback of edits they've made which, while not perfect, may very well contain valid information/sources which can be used. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- We disagree on the rollback. The editor was adding a large amount of similar and questionable material very rapidly. Anyone can see that I was removing them all for the same reason, discussed the matter with the editor, and recommended a venue to get further help.
- I'm glad that the help I wanted is being offered. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:ROLLBACK, that is not a reason to use rollback, nor to avoid an explanatory edit summary. Furthermore, I examined the edits, and none of them were such that they needed immediate undo. In fact, it appears that many (most, possibly) could've been solved simply by attributing the statements to single studies. While yes, the exact wording was not MEDRS compliant, it was a simple fix that you ended up biting a new editor by rolling back all their edits. If that had happened to me when I first started editing, there'd be at least 8 less new articles now, one of which I was told I should put up for good article. The material wasn't actually "questionable" - it was validly sourced and from what I examined was supported by the sources. My message here was only a request to maybe ask WT:MED first before just rolling back a ton of edits - because especially with new editors it may result in them leaving and being discouraged from contributing. Thanks for taking it into account. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:ROLLBACK, that is not a reason to use rollback, nor to avoid an explanatory edit summary. Furthermore, I examined the edits, and none of them were such that they needed immediate undo. In fact, it appears that many (most, possibly) could've been solved simply by attributing the statements to single studies. While yes, the exact wording was not MEDRS compliant, it was a simple fix that you ended up biting a new editor by rolling back all their edits. If that had happened to me when I first started editing, there'd be at least 8 less new articles now, one of which I was told I should put up for good article. The material wasn't actually "questionable" - it was validly sourced and from what I examined was supported by the sources. My message here was only a request to maybe ask WT:MED first before just rolling back a ton of edits - because especially with new editors it may result in them leaving and being discouraged from contributing. Thanks for taking it into account. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I came after the user posted on WT:MED asking for a review - I noticed that absolutely none of the edits qualify for WP:Rollback use and you did not provide an explanatory edit summary in any of them. While I agree that the edits are not completely in compliance with policy, WP:MEDRS does allow for citing specific primary studies such as specific RCTs as long as those studies are attributed. I've readded the information that HQC added here on one page, and will be going through the rest to see if they can be readded. One thing we definitely don't want to do is discourage qualified medical editors from leaving by mass-rollback of edits they've made which, while not perfect, may very well contain valid information/sources which can be used. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Subodh Gupta
Hi Hipal/Ronz - thank you for your guidance on the Subodh Gupta article on how to handle updates on allegations. You mentioned trimming it and pushing it back - could you help rearrange/trim as you might see fit? I can edit further based on your action; I'd just feel more confident doing it after you've set up how it can be done.
Thank you! --Iamnemonic (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's unlikely I'll be able to any time soon. All the references need careful review to see what's actually encyclopedic and noteworthy. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
When you move an article into draft space, because it is an undersourced BLP or for any other reason, it leaves a redirect from article space to draft space. Please tag the redirect for speedy deletion as R2. I have tagged Patricia Newcomb for deletion. By the way, I agree with your action in draftifying the page. I would have accepted it in draft space if it were a biography of a dead person, which it is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. I don't think I've ever tried this before, so I was expecting I'd miss something. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcoming but I'm been here for years
Hi Hipal
Thank you for your comment. I've been editing in wikipedia in 3 different languages for a few years already. Unfortunately my job doesn't give the time I'd like to expend editing but I do know how WP works. As for the warning about conflictive articles, thanks once again. I have some experience in that matter also and it also happens that Kiki Camarena case got my attention 15 years ago and I have read a lot about this chapter and many others of the WoD in Mexico and USA, both in English and Spanish, so really, don't worry, I'll handle it. One last thing: please, before reverting an edition and instead of letting a default comment in my talk, better participate in the talk of the article in order to discuss the best options.
Sincerely, --Cocedi (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome.
- I'm getting help and will notify you shortly. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hipal!
This is a response to my talk page where you asked about COI for my edits on The National Interest magazine. For the record, there is no Conflict of Interest, I have not accepted any fees, and I have nothing to do with the magazine. Regarding the "notable contributors" section which you keep deleting: the first undo you did was for citing too many sources closely related to the article, which I, in hindsight, agreed with. I replaced the sources with independent third-party ones, which you've now deleted again. For reference, please look at the Wikipedia article for Foreign Affairs magazine, which is not just more renowned, but also has a section on contributors, using at times language I would deem highly promotional in nature. I tried basing my edit off of that, and compared to the article on Foreign Affairs, my edits are not a unique exception of dreamt-up COI. If you think I am soapboxing or advertising, then lets move this to the talk page of the specific article and get a third or even fourth opinion from other editors. If there is consensus reached that they prefer your edits, then I rest my case completely.
Although I am technically new here, and your time at Wikipedia and seniority is both longer and more respected, it is no grounds for you to keep undoing my edits. I suspect we're both trapped in a highly subjective opinion of what constitutes soapboxing in this article. In my opinion, contributors to a magazine are definitely worth mentioning in an objective, neutral way, because a magazine is nothing without their contributors. Although I've agreed with many of your edits, I do not think its valid to completely undo all of mine as you've now done twice. Instead, a targeted approach to solve the issues you believe exist are more valid. If you and I can't resolve this ourselves, please summon additional editors, preferably at random.
Pangaion (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding.
there is no Conflict of Interest
Great.I replaced the sources with independent third-party ones
They were replaced with a bunch of pr profiles that demonstrate no encyclopedic value nor weight.- Re Foreign Affairs: WP:OSE. If you want to compare articles, make sure they are either WP:GA-quality, or have had extensive and relevant discussion.
it is no grounds for you to keep undoing my edits.
WP:FOC.- I've suggested you avoid such articles while you learn your way around Wikipedia, and directed you to working from independent and reliable sources. Ignoring the latter will get you nowhere. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've copied this discussion to the article talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Nothing further to add. Summon the old ones! Pangaion (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thank you
thanks for the Welcome! Spector951 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I was disappointed to see all of my work on the Sandra Lee page deleted. The kwanza paragraphs do not strike me as achieving balance or appropriate weight. They seem to be a case of undue weight. Accordingly that section reads more like a sneering, snobby opinion piece by someone with an axe to grind instead of NPOV. Does not seem to be the perspective of an encyclopedia.. Rather, it looks like online "gossip girl." I am interested in your reasoning. Further, she is a person who has been recognized for philanthropy and other contributions to public life. Why did you delete all of that? 72.79.51.201 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC) now logged in. Spector951 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Responding briefly:
- Take a look at the article talk page concerning the Kwanza recipe.
- As for philanthropy, where are the independent sources that demonstrate encyclopedic value, as opposed to simple promotion? (WP:SOAP) --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I will read the article talk page concerning the Kwanza incident.
I wonder how one episode in her lengthy television career can be worthy of such a large portion of this bio. However, in due course, I will go and read that discussion. I wonder whether that discussion will justify allocating 43% of the Career section (and this woman has had a remarkably successful sales and media career over three decades) to one episode, and in that text, using primarily biased and insulting quotes from flame-throwing and unbalanced self-promoters. Does the kwanza cake episode really reflect over 40% of what she has accomplished in more than 30 years as a businesswoman? Would wikipedia's editors malign a male subject's biography in this way? I doubt it.
Regarding independent sources, I cited the Ellis Island medal with the congressional record. [If the Congressional Record is not independent source, then by that standard these servers probably could be swiped and lose 10% or 20% of what is on this site.] I deemed those awards (Eleanor Roosevelt, Ellis island medal) to have encyclopedic value; and, yes, they are also promotional to some extent. Again, I think it all is far above the bar that the vast majority of articles on the site have set.
Overall, I find this bio to be flawed. I think it exposes a dominant culture on this online site that is not particularly attractive or noble. Per the 2011 New York magazine article cited in the Article, the subject legally changed her name over a decade ago. Based on that source -which appeared *in print*- wikipedia has not even gotten the person's name correct. Spector951 (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC) revised.Spector951 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you will look over the talk page discussion, you'll see that I had similar concerns about the Kwanza recipe.
- The Congressional Record is a primary source. In the most lenient situations, it gives demonstrates little or no weight alone. This is one of the very strictest situations.
- Discussing why an article is the way it is tends to be a waste of time.
- I suggest finding much better references than what's been provided so far and bring them up on the article talk page.
- I've no idea how name changes are handled. I'd ask for help, maybe starting at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for this response. That gives me some reason to look at the talk page for this article. I also will go to the Teahouse site to pose my question. Spector951 (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravishankar1827 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Spamming 21st Century Icon Awards
Good afternoon,
May I know the reson why are you reversing the edits, when they are provided with reliable resources?--Enciclopedista100 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Have you read the message I left on your talk page? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, yes I did read the message. That's why I am asking why the contributions are being deleted when I provided a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enciclopedista100 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- It would help this discussion if you considered declaring any WP:COI.
- Having a source doesn't mean it belongs. I think I was clear that much more may be necessary.
- Poor and promotional sources are inappropriate.
- Using Wikipedia for promotion is inappropriate. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
A simple thank you
Just leaving you a simple thank you note for the warm welcome and the helpful advice.CozyHadar (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Charlie Jones (Musician)
Hi Hipal,
I see you have some issues with sources I have added within this page. I'm keen to improve this page by adding tables and citing relavant and reliable sources.
Can you assist by telling me which of the included sources are unusable so I can remove them and propose a revised update.
Many thanks in advance
80.189.102.239 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- For the tables and the inclusion criteria for what to mention, I wish I knew where to get help. Try WP:VILLAGEPUMP. There should be relevant Wikiprojects too.
- Thefamouspeople.com is unreliable and should not be used at all.
- The strangerrecords.com profile is promotional, and should not be as evidence any information is noteworthy.
- The book url didn't work for me. I didn't look to see what was wrong with it.
- The Rolling Stone article is a interview that should be used with care. Unless I'm missing something, it demonstrates very little weight, as it's only a brief mention in an interview.
- faroutmagazine.co.uk and countrythangdaily.com - unclear at a glance. Seems ok. Doesn't demonstrate much weight.
- rocksoffmag.com - probably not reliable.
- Use WP:RSN and WP:RSP to help determine if refs are reliable. I'd hope the relevant Wikiprojects have guidelines. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hipal
Thanks so much for coming back to me and giving me some decent resources to research.
I have had a look through the suggested sites and now propose to add a citation to allmusic credits for the opening sentence as the credits cover songwriting, production and playing. For the career section (para 1) I intend to use the farout magazine article for the writing and awarding a grammy for 'Please Read My Letter' . For career section (para 2) I would use all music and via Google books] for Strange Sensation.
It looks like the discography /credits don't need to be referenced to such a degree . So I intend to only retain allmusic ones or anything I can find on Worldcat.org within the new tables.
Please come back with any comments on the proposed changes.
Thanks in advance
80.189.102.239 (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's a good start. I'm not sure what depth is appropriate unless better sources are found. I'll keep an eye on the article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Hipal. I shall make some changes later today and then await any comments from you.
Thanks again
80.189.102.239 (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Ref MLM
If you won't accept the text of an expert in the field who does not do MLM himself but has the research to back up his assertions, then we're going to have to do some serious clean up to remove the POV anti-MLM falsehoods, including anything published by Taylor. The reference even goes so far as to claim the source is FTC, when in fact it is his rebuttal to an FTC study affirming MLMs. DeknMike (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- He's an expert? Says who?
POV anti-MLM falsehoods
I don't know what you're talking about. Please explain in detail with independent, reliable sources on the article talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Edit summary
Hello question if i want to edit a article what should i put 👉 Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by John cenaFUAA (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll respond on your talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your welcome!
Hi thanks so much for sending me this! It's so true what you write. From now on I will adhere to your advice, definitely - thanks so much Miles Quest (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for acknowledging your terseness!!!
I hope you can try to understand I have been working in good faith to improve the page, and I am not a vandal. Right cite (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I hope there's nothing I've written that suggests vandalism is going on at all. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia. Right cite (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Hipal: It is not an advertisement. The point of the advertisement tag is that it two-state. So your essentially flagging it up so that somebody else can take a look at it. I work on the Spam team, I know what constitutes an adverts.So its not an advert and has none of the features that are associated with a advertisement article. The references are quite decent as well. I don't see any unreliable sources. There is two references to Youtube which are the low-quality, but all-in-all they are quite decent. scope_creepTalk 15:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- What unreliable references are you talking about exactly?? scope_creepTalk 15:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- We agree on the advertisement, mostly. Please don't waste time with it.
- You don't see any unreliable sources? I'm concerned that you didn't look hard. That's the purpose of the tag, notifying that someone needs to do the work. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- What unreliable references are you talking about exactly?? scope_creepTalk 15:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
You changed your name? I liked Ronz; it always meant good news--but I'll get used to it, haha. Take care. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
My bad
Regarding this revert, that's my bad. I somehow missed this discussion on the talk page and thought it was a drive-by edit because of the topic. After reading the TP I don't think there's much more I can bring to the discussion, but I certainly wouldn't mind pinged for an RfC or such if it were to occur. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Jeffrey Sachs Page
Hi there:
Could you be so kind as to recommend where we might move the Arnhold Institute information that is not under the career section of the Jeffrey Sachs page? A fellowship isn't his career. He has only worked at Harvard and Columbia. The fellowship is an appointment and falls more under a scholarly achievement. I truly would like your input and expertise on this as it isn't appropriate under career. It would improve the page to have this in a more appropriate place. Thank you. LeepKendall (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe you could find a WP:GA that addresses something comparable. I'm wondering if what happened while he was in that position is more noteworthy than the position itself. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there: Interesting you should mention that - the statement on 'what he did' was originally based on a lawsuit document, which is not an acceptable Wikipedia source. There is also a Vice article that mentions this same thing in a couple of sentences, but the only reference for that Vice article is the lawsuit. There is no other source - one that can reliably back up the Arnhold fellowship statement. This seems very similar to your decision about my edit on his Tan Sri Jeffrey Cheah honorary distinguished professor of sustainable development at Sunway University appointment, which you said was not a reliable source. I'm trying very much to learn about consistency. If I follow your Sunway University decision, the Arnhold fellowship statement should be deleted. This article is rife with poorly sourced information, and the organization of content needs work (all volunteer created). He originally hired me to fix those things, but since changed his mind. The final thing I'm trying to work out for him is the proper place for the Arnhold appointment, and the removal of the $1M fellowship statement, which isn't accurate or properly sourced. You will note there is plenty of criticism of his work, which he does not dispute. However, this Arnhold statement is an accusation from someone with no source to back up its merit. I'd greatly appreciate your help on this. Thanks for considering. Best! LeepKendall (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- You have a conflict of interest. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, and I've declared it in multiple places. That's why I'm asking for help from a volunteer editor instead of making the edit myself according to the rules. Can you tell me the difference in the sources for SunWay and Arnhold? I would like to understand why one source isn't good enough to support a new statement, yet the questionable source for Arnhold is fine. A Wikipedia-backed explanation would help. Thank you LeepKendall (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Make a new edit request on the article talk page, and respect WP:PAYTALK. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. LeepKendall (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Make a new edit request on the article talk page, and respect WP:PAYTALK. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, and I've declared it in multiple places. That's why I'm asking for help from a volunteer editor instead of making the edit myself according to the rules. Can you tell me the difference in the sources for SunWay and Arnhold? I would like to understand why one source isn't good enough to support a new statement, yet the questionable source for Arnhold is fine. A Wikipedia-backed explanation would help. Thank you LeepKendall (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- You have a conflict of interest. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there: Interesting you should mention that - the statement on 'what he did' was originally based on a lawsuit document, which is not an acceptable Wikipedia source. There is also a Vice article that mentions this same thing in a couple of sentences, but the only reference for that Vice article is the lawsuit. There is no other source - one that can reliably back up the Arnhold fellowship statement. This seems very similar to your decision about my edit on his Tan Sri Jeffrey Cheah honorary distinguished professor of sustainable development at Sunway University appointment, which you said was not a reliable source. I'm trying very much to learn about consistency. If I follow your Sunway University decision, the Arnhold fellowship statement should be deleted. This article is rife with poorly sourced information, and the organization of content needs work (all volunteer created). He originally hired me to fix those things, but since changed his mind. The final thing I'm trying to work out for him is the proper place for the Arnhold appointment, and the removal of the $1M fellowship statement, which isn't accurate or properly sourced. You will note there is plenty of criticism of his work, which he does not dispute. However, this Arnhold statement is an accusation from someone with no source to back up its merit. I'd greatly appreciate your help on this. Thanks for considering. Best! LeepKendall (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Questions on edits
The official website of Khyber District website ‘khyber.kp.gov.pk' was launched by district administration. It became first merged district of the seven merged tribal districts to have official website.
Please advice me how this edit amounts to advert.
Karachi Kings Dr (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Females employees are required very strictly to wear headscarf with long gowns. According to bank Dress Code is introduced as cultural requirement.
This is the latest issue regarding the corporate sector in Pakistan.
Karachi Kings Dr (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Esra Bilgic is vey famous in Pakistan due to recent airing of Ertugrul Ghazi on state television network.
Karachi Kings Dr (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding.
- I'm going to copy this to your talk page, since other editors have had similar concerns. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Where I'm coming from
About our EB discussion, a little background. Diriliş: Ertuğrul related stuff has a frightening amount of fans, and many has found WP and related articles (Quite a few. They even make new ones, some of which are worth keeping).
I first added the stuff we are discussing at that article, but that didn't go my way [13][14], which is why I had those refs "on hand". And TBH I'm still a little sore about that because I still think it belongs.
So when someone added it at EB [15], I thought yeah, this should be here at least, in some form. Well that's it, see you at the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
1RR request
Re [16] I am respectfully asking you to hold to this.
Ok. I'll do my best. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Re Please keep the conversation on your talk page.
Ok. I'll do my best. I will be heavily refactoring the discussions though. If you feel I'm not responding to important comments, let me know. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
@Right cite: Before continuing the discussion further, I want to know if this is acceptable. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- If what is acceptable? Right cite (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- My responses above in this section. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Re [17]
If you can
Great. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Re [17]
- My responses above in this section. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Can we agree to mutually disengage?
Can we both please agree to mutually disengage? And take a break from each other?
Thank you, Right cite (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you need to take a break, go ahead. I suggested WP:COOL already. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can you consider disengaging from articles I have worked to improve, and/or new articles I have created from scratch? Can we both do that, together, please? Right cite (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can you? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can we both? As a show of mutual good faith? Together? Right cite (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please identify what articles you will disengage from. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. These three -- Al Seckel, List of think tanks in the United States, List of hunger strikes. I created Paul Seckel from scratch -- you appeared there 4 minutes later before it was linked to anything on Wikipedia. I saved Casey Calvert and Alexis Texas from deletion at AFD. I would like for you to disengage from those 3. Agreed? Thanks, Right cite (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the offer, I have to decline. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Why? Right cite (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I hope you will respect my request that we end this discussion at this point. Thank you again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Why? Right cite (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the offer, I have to decline. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. These three -- Al Seckel, List of think tanks in the United States, List of hunger strikes. I created Paul Seckel from scratch -- you appeared there 4 minutes later before it was linked to anything on Wikipedia. I saved Casey Calvert and Alexis Texas from deletion at AFD. I would like for you to disengage from those 3. Agreed? Thanks, Right cite (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please identify what articles you will disengage from. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can we both? As a show of mutual good faith? Together? Right cite (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can you? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can you consider disengaging from articles I have worked to improve, and/or new articles I have created from scratch? Can we both do that, together, please? Right cite (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
How did you come by new article?
How did you come to find a new article I wrote from scratch, Paul Seckel, four (4) minutes after article creation, before it was linked to anywhere else yet? Right cite (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Why do you ask? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Because it is disturbing and stressful to experience such a happenstance, and I am asking for it to stop. I think it would be mutually beneficial for us both to disengage, please?????????????????????????????? Right cite (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Expect that editors are going to join your work when you don't expect it (and that they may not join when you would like them to). --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Because it is disturbing and stressful to experience such a happenstance, and I am asking for it to stop. I think it would be mutually beneficial for us both to disengage, please?????????????????????????????? Right cite (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay how about if I disengage myself?
Okay how about if I disengage, myself? Can you agree to drop off one (1) page only, Casey Calvert, and I'll disengage from the above mentioned pages off my watch list? Right cite (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate the offer, but I have to decline. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Why? Right cite (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I hope you will respect my request that we end this discussion at this point. Thank you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Why? Right cite (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay what if I disengage from everything?
Re [18] What if I disengage from everything?
I'm impressed that you'd consider walking away from them all. Thank you. How about you simply disengage from a single article, your choice, without any other terms? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Re [19]
Thank you for your kind words. I'll disengage from them all, if you'll agree to...
I appreciate it, but I cannot agree to your terms for me, which is why I suggested you not making any. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)- Me not making any ... what? Right cite (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry that I wasn't clear.
...without any other terms
, without the dependency that I do something in return. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry that I wasn't clear.
- Me not making any ... what? Right cite (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
If I disengage from everything, will it increase at least the likelihood that you will stop following me around?
If I disengage from everything, will it increase at least the likelihood that you will stop following me around? Right cite (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)