User talk:Hipal/Archive 31

Lactagen

Thank you for your edit to Lactagen. Would you mind looking at this edit if you have time? I feel that it is borderline promotional. As I mentioned at Talk:Lactagen, the user who made those changes has not edited any other pages on Wikipedia. Rather than assuming bad faith, though, I thought it best to wait for another editor's opinion. Cnilep (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of borderline promotional problems with the article. There are only three independent, reliable sources on Lactagen. I can't find a copy of the Today's Dietitian article, but the author's other work seems to be good quality. The Washington Post article is a bit short, but the best we currently have. The DMNews article is focused on their marketing efforts, so it could be argued it's being used improperly. Overall, it looks like the article has been written from promotional material from Ritter Pharmaceuticals, and sources were brought in to support their viewpoint. The article should be rewritten, but I don't think there are enough available references to do so properly. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Independent_Order_of_Odd_Fellows#Linkfarm

I've removed the list of lodges per WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, you're quite right. I think I've addressed (started to address?) the issues you have raised. If not, please explain here rather than reverting. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit tedious. As discussed, you have NO justification for removing the table. If you continue to be fussy about the links, then perhaps you have some justification for removing the links, but NOT the table. And given that there's an ongoing discussion on the matter, it's somewhat customary to discuss such an action on the talk page, and gain consensus, BEFORE making that sort of edit. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is this way. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And how is that an either useful or relevant response? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'll assume you just need to take a break to gain your composure. Come back when you can answer your own questions. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Really. Take a break. If you want to pretend to not understand what dispute resolution is, then you have no business on my talk page discussing this or any other dispute. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're upset, maybe confused, I don't care at this point. Continue as you have done, and I'll assume you're just being disruptive. Get some sleep, and try a different approach in the future.--Ronz (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not upset - I never have been with respect to our poor communication. Confused. Frustrated. Disappointed. Yes, all of those. But never upset.
But I am still somewhat confused.
You, however, DO seem to be upset. Honestly, I really don't understand what is that you are upset about. Clearly, we have different frames-of-reference, and I don't understand what yours is. I'm keen to communicate with you, understand your POV, and come to some mutually acceptable outcome. However, I'm not sure how to do that. My attempts seem to be interpreted by you as offensive. As that is the opposite of my intention, I'm not sure what to do next. I have had a try on the article talk page, but you haven't responded yet.
I await your responses. In good faith, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not offended.

Your continued comments about me are disruptive.

"And how is that an either useful or relevant response?" It's a reminder that there are many ways to address disputes, and that repeatedly personalizing a dispute is disruptive to dispute resolution.

As I pointed out, the second paragraph of your recent comment on the article talk page is appropriate and appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia photo permissions

Hi Ronz,

I'm messaging you because you're experienced here, and I don't know who else to ask. :) I'm the owner of the photo on Joshua Pellicer's bio page and I didn't give my permission for it to be used. In fact, I was never compensated for my work with him and don't want the photo used in the bio against my wishes. How can it be removed?

Thanks, Jenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.98.144 (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, let me look a bit. --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The image is here. It's attributed to Jenny Januszewski. The copy on Flickr is gone. EdrevEpac (talk · contribs) uploaded it originally. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time figuring it out. Instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for help. I can't figure out how to do it without the need for a Wikimedia account, which I don't have. --Ronz (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Credit score (United States)

To be as transparent as possible, I work for the credit bureaus. In that capacity, I developed a Web site that attempts to provide factual data surrounding various issues in the public policy arena. In providing edits to the above subject (and to Credit Score) I linked to this Web site. Since we are not a corporate entity and are not selling anything (other than the fact that we are a repository of data and statistics on a number of subjects) I thought I was within the suggesed guidelines of Wikipedia. Rather than linking to the Web site page which lists source material dealing with the statement, would it be preferable to link to the document within the Web site? Or simply footnote the source and link to it outside the parameters of the Web site?

--Vaheterdu (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Take a look at WP:COI for details on how to properly present and defend your interests.

WP:COI issues aside, I don't think the site would meet our reliable sources criteria.

"would it be preferable to link to the document within the Web site?" I'm not sure what you're asking. Your site lists and links sources that would probably meet our WP:RS criteria. You could certainly add those sources as references if that's what you are asking.

As an aside: When I was looking through the articles you've been editing, I noticed and noted that some are primary sources. Such sources should be used with care.

I can explain in more detail if you'd like. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please not delete the reference to the bagels in argentina

is really really find to find them in Argentina. This will help people to get them and its just an external link.

All the best Diego —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmacadar (talk • contribs) 05:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If you continue adding the external link, you will be blocked and the link will be blacklisted from Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Pet Trust

Thanks Ronz, I am definitely new to Wiki and am still learning the ropes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampsonhm (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I figured you just hadn't seen the message yet. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Affiliate Marketing

I'm sorry you feel that the content I had on affiliate marketing was promotional. I am not affiliated with vidaff in anyway. I encountered it and though it was notable enough to include in the list of affiliate marketing types. I didn't link to it within the article, I merely used it as a reference to confirm its existence. I'm unsure how that really promotes anything.

As far as removing things from my user page, I would have appreciated a comment or suggestion to remove them. Putting that aside, I was unaware that it was prohibited to have things like that on user pages. If you could kindly point me to the Wikipedia regulations regarding that, it would be much appreciated.

Regards, Washburnmav (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. Examples are not references. WP:UPNOT covers userpages, as I mentioned in my edit summary. I assumed they were all edits made in good faith, hence the comment on your talk page rather than a warning. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Raw Milk

Ronz,

The current text of the raw milk debate implies that the FDA and the CDC are world wide regulatory agencies. They are US govt. agencies, and have no jurisdiction outside of the US. So, they are examples of US Govt. agencies, not world wide regulatory agencies.

Further, The opinion of US government agencies on this topic, do not represent the diversity of both domestic and international jurisdictional, regulatory or scientific opinion in the world on this topic.

These are reasons why there are point of view problems in this article on the raw milk debate as it is currently written. I attempted to fix these but you seem to have changed them back. I assume you have reasons why you think your wording is more neutral. Please explain yourself.

Thanks,

Snopeaks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snopeaks (talk • contribs) 01:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

United States raw milk debate must be summarized neutrally in Raw milk. If similar pasteurization debates take place elsewhere, they must be properly referenced with reliable sources and presented in a neutral manner as well. See also WP:FRINGE.

It would best to continue this discussion on the article talk page, so others can more easily join. Perhaps you could start by listing the references from foodrightsalliance.ca that you feel are useful? --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source

You questioned if rivington.net was a reliable source for additions to wikipedia on Rivington, the site is that of the local historian and one with over 30 years research experience of that areas history who works in association with another historian David Owen M.A with over 60 years research experience, further you asked if any of the article derives from that site - it does and is in fact based on that site, hence creative commons SA 3.0 notice.--Rovington (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. You should be making this clear on article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In spite of Rovington's protestations I have substantially rewritten the article without reference to his personal website and research and referenced it to verifiable independent sources. The attribution to his website is not required.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm not watching any of the articles, but I'd be happy to help if these problems continue. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been happening for weeks. I really don't understand what he means by Creative Commons notice but lots of the information on his site (Which on the Rivington Pike page included text written by me!), except for some antiquarian stuff, can be accessed easily online. Appreciate your interest.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! He's gone over the deep end, requesting mass deletions of articles. I'll clean up. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The insistance on removing the attributation is the cause of the problem, the above is a clear illustration of the problem itself, my web site is archived online (waybackmachine) from 2002 to 2005, yet this person claims its his work, removes attributation, this is why I am pulling my work off wikipeda.--Rovington (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone insisting on removing attribution. What I see is insistence on proper attribution.

I also don't see anyone claiming another's work. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have loads of stuff I am using for an article on listed buildings. I can help.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm documenting my steps on his talk page, because he's expressed concerns about legal rights to what he's written. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started on Rivington Unitarian Chapel and will be happy to do the buildings and Rivington Pike but I don't know anything about the Willoughby's or other families. Some of what he claims to be copyright is from the VCH. Does that mean all the stuff he has "referenced" can be eliminated?--J3Mrs (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What/who is VCH?

If the material is verified with reliable sources, there should be no problem at all. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, Rovington on my talk page is accusing me of, well I'm not sure what, would you look to see if you can fathom it out? --J3Mrs (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your reply should suffice. I don't understand his perspective either. I hope he'll explain himself at some point. If you're still concerned, I suggest taking it to WP:ANI. I'm holding off from ANI at the moment, hoping the situation has run its course. If it continues, I'd like to have others review the situation that have more experience with copyright and original research disputes. --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

the deleted articles on her Barons

Ronz, rather than bother taking them to Deletion Review, I shall undelete them tomorrow and userify them in your user space so you can fix them up also, and then, just move them back. Done this way, there is no need to ask for permission. I'll list them below when I do them DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Already being discussed at WP:ANI. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz! (see the link)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XLinkBot#Incorrect_reversion_by_XLinkBot_to_the_page:_Anne_Rice_.3F

81.157.114.243 (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help. --Ronz (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coolhunting&diff=368647009&oldid=368645793

Hi Ronz

I refer to you regarding the deletion of above article section. I herewith give you two sources where the deleted descriptive text was (similar) published and printed:

• Research World magazine, September 2006 issue, p.30, www.esomar.org
• Neo2 magazine, March 2000 issue, p. 21, www.neo2.es

We apologize to have added a weblink to different lemmas. It was an unaware co-worker. It will not happen again.

The text that was deleted has been there since 2005 - unchanged. Our website and concept of open-source coolhunting exits since Dec. 1998. We were the first to bring coolhunting and open-source online.

May we ask you to undo your deletion with these above references?

Many thanks and best regards, David Friedland

David Frieds (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm unable to find the actual references online, which I assume is why you didn't provide links to them. If you think the references meet WP:RS criteria, then this is definitely worth pursuing. My concerns would be that the references cover both coolhunting and trendguide.com in some depth, and that they are not press releases or press releases with very minor edits. If you think the references meet these criteria, then at minimum we need the full reference citation (in addition to what you've provided the author, title, and page numbers). It would be best if someone else verifies the information as well. Could you scan the articles and place them online temporarily? --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

no conflict of intrest

im a 1) professional editor and 2) professional garden writer

I was just trying to fix the article to make it more a) readable b) useful Koibeatu (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'm confused as how you could think you do not have a conflict of interest. You added material from one of your works that won't be published until November. This violates our original research and verification policies. Please take another look at WP:COI. You obviously have much to offer Wikipedia, but you need to take care that your editing doesn't conflict with Wikipedia's policies. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

open-source coolhunting

Hi Ronz

We can scan the global research article next week. Do you have an email address? The article in the Research World magazine was “A fine nose for hype” written by Robert Heeg, p. 30, September 2006 issue.

Research World has an edition of 150'000 ex. - see http://www.esomar.org/uploads/rw/RW-media-pack-2010.pdf

I think below text is not a unsourced advertisement because of the following reasons:

- in http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/trendguide.com you can see the record creation date: 2nd Dec 1998 - in archive.org you can see our oldest page: http://web.archive.org/web/20000511020140/http://www.trendguide.com/ - the Wikipedia section doesn't say we were the first online coolhunters, but the first open-source online coolhunters. Contributers and site visitors have until today free access to your trend ranking/findings whereas all other firms in this fields publish expensive report. - the Wikipedia section description can also be found on our website. It's the same company concept ever since. - If you see advertisement in the text, you are free to neutralize these passages.

Thank you!

Open-source

- Coolhunting turned into a global online project when trendguide.com was launched in December 1998 to be the first open-source lifestyle trend database with rankings based on users' votes, uploads and comments. The global project was started by a Swiss research team led by Michael Hänni, creating a global virtual network of coolhunters. The concept of trendguide.com (democratization of trends: give free access to trends reports and base trend reports on inputs from all around the world) changed the former trend business field where reports, that are created by few individuals, are sold at high prices.

David Frieds (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and try my Wikipedia email. I'll look through this in detail later. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, can you tell me how I can access your email address. I'm new here, can't find the path. Thanks for an URL. David Frieds (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a link in the column on the left: E-mail this user --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to the Research World article. Relevant text is highlighted:

http://blog.trendguide.com/wp-content/uploads/A_fine_nose_for_hype_September_2006_5.pdf

The above text about open-source coolhunting (not the text of the article) was online on Wikipedia for about 4-5 years. If it would have stated wrong facts, it would have surely been changed or challenged by our coolhunting competitors. Thank you for your consideration. David David Frieds (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The text from "A Fine Nose for Hype" Research World magazine, September 2006 issue, p.30 is:

Michael Hanni applies an entirely different method.

Operating worldwide since 1998 from an online franchise platform, his Trendguide.com compiles brand ran kings from the votes of a young audience. From that, recommendations can be made. But Hanni is cautious about his company's predictive powers. "When Siemens created a hype around mobile phones that looked and were meant to be worn like jewellery, the product scored in our ranking. Yet the phones flopped. We call it the Darwin principle: only the strong survive. But such things can only be established in

retrospect."

--Ronz (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

---yes, this article underlines the starting date of our concept and our personnel setting. Our concept can be seen/read on our website. It remained the same ever since. I hope these clarifications (also above) helps. David Frieds (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

--Hi Ronz, any suggestions on how to proceed in our subject? Am unfortunately still not able to authenticate my email with Wiki system. Regards David Frieds (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Sorry I hadn't followed up on this. I've copied the quote above with the ref to the article talk page. Let's take the discussion there so it will be easier to get others involved. Copy anything important from this discussion to the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, please answer to our email, 27th June, or give here exacte instructions what's to be done with what target. Thanks David Frieds2 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Research World article is verified, and the relevant quote copied to Talk:Coolhunting. Please, let's move this discussion to the article talk page. No need to copy anything from here if you don't want to. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Better late than never

Please see User:GRuban/Dell Schanze and comment, before it goes to main space. If the comments are short, you can put them on my talk page, where we discussed before; if they're long, they'll probably be best on the "article" talk page. Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing Fishing in The Woodlands links

Ronz,

   Why did you remove the external link to fishing in the woodlands?  

It maps out and discusses all ponds and lakes within The Woodlands and up until the link was removed 2 weeks ago was very popular link to follow and be used. The site has no advertising and is simply a resource to fisherman in the Woodlands. Did you even look at the link?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.147.3 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 June 2010

Thanks for following up on my comment to you. In case you missed it, the relevant policies and guidelines are WP:EL, WP:NOTLINK, and WP:SPAM. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, your killing me. I read the associated policies and comment but I don't see how there is a conflict. Yes I am affiliated with the site, however, it is simply an information resource much like Wikipedia. The site has won praise from quite a few people in the area including park administrators and is strictly based on user contributions(just like wikipedia). If users of wikipedia followed the link and stayed in the past(it was there for over 6 months) are you not doing a disservice to people looking for information on The Woodlands and are also interested in amenities this site describes? The Trees, Parks, Lakes and Ponds are one of the primary reasons people live here and essentially define "The Woodlands" experience. There is no advertising or products being pitched and/or sold.

I read another comment regarding article discussion(talk page) and added a recommendation to add the link there. Can I assume if another individual follows up on that recommendation at some point in the future the link will stay? Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.147.3 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job in trying to resolve this. If no one responds, WP:THIRD would be a good next step.

Basically, we need to develop some sort of consensus on the matter. --Ronz (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your call on how long we wait. It looks like the article is fairly closely monitored, so I'd give it a day at least. I'm happy to write up the WP:THIRD request if you like. --Ronz (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, I appreciate the help. This has been very enlightening, I had no idea Wikipedia was this organized. I have signed up for an account to remove anonymity, and have been doing some additional research on your policy concerns. I think I understand your concerns and can address many of them, it is just going to take a little more effort on my part to provide appropriate support. I noticed my effort on the discussion the page has already received one positive response, I am curious what others have to say as well, and there is really no rush. Rchaag (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see the situation moving along so well.

Welcome to Wikipedia! If you need any help, let me know. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, took a stab at your concerns on the discussion page. Look forward to your input. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Woodlands,_Texas Rchaag (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply and for reminding me! I'll respond there. --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Dowsing ELs

Hi Ronz, the EL section at Dowsing ended up pretty clean, thanks. I'm happy with the currect state of the section and will chill with my zealous remove-section edits ;) I still have questions about three links though. I do not plan to take part in a longer discussion about the specific links, since these kind of links are far too common. It's more about the broader discussion which links to include generally.

• The Skeptics Dictionary
• James Randi on Dowsing

James Randi and The Skeptic's Dictionary may be authoritative, but honestly I've no idea. I believe both links fail ELNO#1, since they pretty much discuss what's already in the WP article. In addition, there are other authoritative writers/organizations that not are linked, I don't see how these two "deserve" being linked as exceptional.

• "Beyond Science" video

Same story, this is just one of many videos on the subject.

If you have time, any comments are appreciated. jonkerz♠ 05:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

Both randi.org and skepdic.com can and should be used as references. I haven't looked at the video yet, but just updated the link.

I think the article has serious NPOV problems which I'd like to start working on once I have a bit more time. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Luigi Legnani - Reverts

Hi Ronz. The reverts that were made on that specific article, also took away facts that improved the article. Please be careful before reverting. John Rocher (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC) PS: To be perfectly honest, I'm really "not amused" by this; but tried my best to leave a respectful and kind note above. I hope it's appreciated. :)

I'm happy to restore any properly verified information.

As discussed on your talk page, editors are concerned with your repeatedly embedding external links within the body of the article.

What "note above" are you referring to? I don't see any other contributions here by your account. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do restore information, or I'll take the issue elsewhere. John Rocher (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I was refering to this note above. John Rocher (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy

Please note that by reversing my edits, you have restored inaccuracies and bad sources to the article, without giving any concrete, specific reasons in Talk. TickleMeister (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You were bold. That didn't work so well. If there is any merit to concerns, please explain on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Solera Networks

Doesn't speedy delete db-g5|db-banned trump notability?

G5. Creations by (a) banned or blocked user(s). Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qingqingwopigu (talk • contribs) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It has substantial edits by others.

I see no problems with the article, other than it could use more sources and the article could be easily expanded upon given the amount of news about Solera. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

LInks

Thanks for the feedback. Just looked through the external links, spam and COI guidelines. For Thwack, the goal was to add an internal link so the article wouldn't be an orphan. Also to update the list of features on the community (in this case, a blog). Still unsure why these aren't appropriate changes. After reading the external links guide, it makes sense to remove the Thwack link from the SolarWinds article. I initially saw the connection and linked them but get what you're saying after rereading the guidelines. Jinxynix (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me on this. Sounds like you're figuring it out on your own. Let me know if you need further help or clarification. --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ankylosing Spondylitis Answers removal

Ronz,

Please clarify for me why the link to answers.ankylosing.org was removed, while the link to spondylitis.org (SAA) remains intact. We are both non-profits serving people with this disease.

Thank you. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbennett468 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Thanks for pointing out the improper link. I've removed it. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here between you two, but Ronz, I'm still looking for an answer as to why one non-profit serving this disease can be listed but we cannot. I would appreciate some clarification. Chrisbennett468 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the distraction. Have you seen your talk page? The notes and links there should explain everything.

Looks like I thought you meant ankylosing.org when you actually were referring to spondylitis.org. My mistake. Spondylitis.org is being used in the article as a reference (http://www.spondylitis.org/press/news/326.aspx). It should probably be replaced with a link to the interview it links (http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/musicradar-interview-motley-crues-mick-mars-165974).

The internal link to SAA goes to a WP:STUB article. If you feel you organization deserves a stub as well, you can follow the instructions there on how to start it. Please be mindful of WP:COI when you do. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Tangential discussion

Aside Dear Mr Ronz, I would really like understand how to best communicate with you in a manner that is acceptable to you, informative to you, and will lead to a response by you that is useful and informative to me. Do you REALLY think your response above is in some way related the the polite question you were asked? For your information, this is intented as a serious question - not as a "personal attack". I would really like to read a relevant response from you so that I can understand your POV and hence actually COMMUNICATE with you in a manner that is useful to both you and me. My expectation is that you will completely ignore my request, and that you will revert my questions. I REALLY hope that you prove me wrong. I really hope you will suggest a method by which we can usefully interact and come to a mutually acceptable solution to our communication problems. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you for fairly civil comments. There's nothing special to understand: Simply be civil. If you're unable to do so, clean up after yourself. "Do you REALLY think.." Not very civil of you. What happened is that this editor identified a link added by a very problematic spammer. I started investigating the extent of the spamming, but didn't have time to finish, nor write a report. Sadly, I never followed up here either. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. You seem to have missed most of my intent - clearly, I did not explain myself well enough - but I think there has been some communication, and that can't be bad. Again, thanks for the reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC) If you're expecting more, attempt to clean up after yourself and let me know that you've done so. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I suggest you focus your attention on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_and_harassment_by_Pdfpdf Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_by_Pdfpdf. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Food processing

Ronz as far as i know the aim to add useful content such as informative external links to Wikipedia not to delete content. YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

If I understand you correctly, then I have to say no. The aim of Wikipedia is to create informative articles. External links, other than those being used as references, are purely secondary to this aim. The one you restored is the one I had the least concern about. It's a bit off topic. If it's removed again, it would be best to discuss on the article talk page and keep in mind that the burden of evidence is with the editor seeking to add the link. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Checkpoint

Howdy! I've lost track of what the current status is.
Are we in a state of "equilibrium"?
Or are there outstanding issues raised by you that I haven't addressed yet?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil comment. It's a very nice and unexpected change from you. I have no interest in continuing to interact with you when you behave otherwise, and when you are unable to clean up after your outbursts.

I'm awaiting response at ANI on my original concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your reply. Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I now see you don't have your outbursts under control. Clean up after yourself. Demonstrate a respect for our behavioral policies. Afterward, we can work on consensus-building again. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you focus your attention on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_and_harassment_by_Pdfpdf Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_by_Pdfpdf. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament

I added a reply to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Found an article in article talk. I'm not qualified to compare the versions or evaluate whether they are suited for mainspace. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --Ronz (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

IOOF Incident Notification

G'day Ronz, Re the delay in response - I've been on the road and I couldn't get decent reception last night hence the delay in my editing. I did not say that you wouldn't accept an alternate viewpoint, I said that I had not seen evidence of it and that I was not confident of it but hoped that I was wrong. I was quite careful to avoid stating it as an assumption of bad faith, whilst at the same time expressing my concern and a hope that my concern was ill founded. I apologise if I conveyed the wrong impression with this. I should note that I had also checked both the WP:ORGZ and AfC pages prior to posting and did not notice any related activity there beyond my original request for a review of my categorisation on WP:ORGZ which I posted several days ago (and which remains unactioned). My objection to your lack of editing on the site is based on a belief that if one is going to be critical of the way things are being done, then one ought to be prepared to pitch in and assist on improving things, particularly in scenarios similar to the present one where there is contested ground - if nothing else, it helps avoid creating the impression that one is just trolling (your wider contributions to Wikipedia are clear evidence that you are not trolling). My main purpose in posting on the incident page was to ensure that Pdfpdf's position was put in to a broader context and that he wasn't taken to be just a troll. His low tolerance threshold can result in him being his own worst enemy sometimes, but notwithstanding, he is genuinely working to contribute positively to Wikipedia and I thought that it was important that this be understood. I would really appreciate it if you removed the additional tags as I don't believe these are essentially not separate issues to you main concern of length/notability, in essence it is double dipping and, as argued I don't even think that they can be sustained, regardless of the concerns on length/notability. I will be updating the talk page shortly as I have a comparable example to throw in to the mix that may help convince you on the overall issues. Please note, I will copy the additional argument on the standalone list page back to the main page as the list has been re-raised there and it will help keep the debate in one location. In my view, the fate of the standalone list depends on the outcome of the overall debate. No sense in having two lists with identical purpose. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please just read WP:AGF before you dig yourself in too deep. The whole point is to assume good faith when you don't have evidence to assume otherwise. You've repeatedly stated you're doing the opposite, that you are assuming I won't be cooperative while specifically stating that you don't have any evidence for making such an assumption.

"if one is going to be critical..." Again, AGF. I'm addressing what I see as a problem. My involvement in other issues is completely, totally unrelated.

Don't make the "troll" reference by another editor into something bigger than it is. He was simply suggesting I back away from a problematic situation.

"No sense in having two lists" Agreed. It was a good way to come to an understanding and agreement on what to do next. Eventually, we have to address both lists.

Again, I'm hoping we can move on from here. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Customer experience

Thanks for the note. I left you a note on your talk page and started a discussion on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he's done a great job promoting his new book. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for "making negative assumptions,"--thanks for clarifying. 16:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You're new here. I figured you hadn't seen any of the comments yet. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--and you're right--I was looking at the top of the talk page not the bottom... now that I've further documented it, would you consider accepting the work I put in now? I think it fits, is relevant (his concept of anticipatory customer service, which is behind the success of The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Zappos, and other masters of the customer experience), and is a very contemporary reference. If The Salt Lake Tribune quote isn't your favorite, I can provide one from his book (published by the american management association) or from a different expert or whatever, but I thought that was a good brief one. 18:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerbreeze45 (talk • contribs)

Let's discuss this on the talk page.

Before you do, it would help to review the policies and guidelines that have been brought up, WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:PSTS. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

AT

Thanks for your efforts on the attachment sock, DPeterson et al. This has been going on for years and he usually posts when I am offline in the UK. It's relieving to see an admin involved who can do it all properly. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help! --Ronz (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Theres another one here. His user name is a combination of two names of people who have criticised his therapy and claims of "evidence base" in the real world! I don't know how to start an SPI though. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I filed the report. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah! let me look and see how to do it. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that there's one in the new format, it's easy to add onto it. All I did was go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Submitting_an_SPI_case, replace "SOCKMASTER" with "DPeterson", then add the new socks account name and a quick description of the problem. I manually updated the "Cases" list, but it's supposed to update automatically eventually. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Yworo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You've been popping up on my watchlist a lot so....

Hi, since I keep seeing your name I thought I'd pop in and say hello, hello! :) I hope all is well with you these days. We don't seem to cross paths these days. Well take care and keep in touch ocassionally. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Doing OK here - avoiding drama best I can. I keep meaning to drop you a note. Hope you're well. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to dropping you an email. Things here have been very busy to say the least. Talk soon, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unclear why I was emailed?

I'm confused by your message. Do you work for Wikipedia? I'm a journalist and I've actually seen this school's curriculum and also contacted them for information about their admissions process. I sought out a number of students of the school and spoke with them independent of the school's knowledge and was satisfied that a more well-rounded view of CCNH should be available for the general public, particularly minority applicants.

If you are merely the author of this piece, it's a little libelous, I think. I'm surprised that the school and its regents haven't sent you a cease and desist letter. But I think if you are truly fair, impartial and without agenda, you should allow other people's material to be added to the page for a more balanced view. I also noticed that the references cited are from the same organization. That seems like an agenda to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by NikosSimpson (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

I'm assuming by "emailed" you're referring to the comment I left you on your talk page. I'm unaware of anyone sending you any email.

I believe the article is fairly well referenced and balanced. If you disagree, please discuss it on the article talk page, and take a look at the past discussions there on this topic.

As already noted on your talk page WP:NPOV and WP:OR are the policies that cover these issues. If you'll read over them you'll see that "balance" doesn't mean picking two or more sides and presenting them as if they were equally worthy of note. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Akashic Record Reading

Hey Ronz! How're you? I'm not sure if you could help with the above article, but you were the first person I thought of! The above article has been written with lots of POV etc. It's already been put up for deletion! -- Xxglennxx ^★talk_{contributions★} 15:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.

Are you familiar with the article subject? Do you think anyone could find some good references for it? If not, I think it should be deleted. It looks like the new editor and the ip are doing little more than promoting a website. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of external link from Carbonade flamande

I do not understand why a link to a recipe on my blog was deleted from this page. A large majority of external links on cuisine related websites link to blog and other recipe sites. I am not a commercial site and I do not receive any monetary compensation for my page. Thank you Aktormedic (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC) aktormedic

Sorry that other, inappropriate external links led you to adding your own. Such links are inappropriate per WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:NOTLINK. Additionally, you should take care editing against a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your statement, but it's hardly a conflict of interest to link to a recipe on a page. I can understand that this may apply when adding on controversial pages, political topics or items that directly bring money to the owner when either linked to or purchased from. By definition, a COI creates a lack of neutrality when one is desired, usually in a legal sense, and onlywhen a neutral stance exists. Adding recipes with correct citations on the pages does not meet this definition. From reading both articles I respectfully disagree with your determination of both spamming and conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aktormedic (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You said "my blog" so it's a conflict of interest per WP:COI, and "you should avoid or exercise great caution when"..."linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)."

WP:ELNO #11 specifically excludes blogs from external links.

If you want others' opinions, I suggest starting at WP:ELN, but WP:COIN would be appropriate as well per our dispute resolution policy. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That page's only statement is to "avoid" the posting of blogs. I am sure that this is intended to prevent people getting money from click throughs via Wikipedia. My blog does not fall into that category. As it does not state that such activity is prohibited, I will repost my link and discuss it in the talk section of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aktormedic (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The burden is on you to justify it belongs. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, I don't get it. I read all of the things you post, you tell me to justify it belongs, then you re-delete my link and threaten to stop me from editing after I post it in the talk section for each page. Either a policy is enforced strictly or not at all. When a policy states that "it should be avoided" it does not mean that "it shall not be done". Spamming is the wrong definition for this, conflict of interest even less applicable. I am not promoting anything by linking to recipes. I am not spamming. I posted the links into different talk sections and you are the only one that seems to have a problem with it. (inappropriate comments removed --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)) Aktormedic (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC) aktormedic

I didn't delete the link this time. Someone else did. As it mentions in WP:ELBURDEN, the link should not be re-added until others agree.

I suggest you wait for other editors to respond to your comments. I'll comment further when I have the time. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand WP:COI. You have a coi with the content you've added. That's an undeniable fact.

No, we don't recommend avoiding links to blogs solely because of financial incentives.

"Either a policy is enforced strictly or not at all." Every policy and guideline specifically states otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a strong understanding of what a COI is. As I stated above, in order to have a conflict of interest, one must be violating the neutrality of an article by using one's biased opinion to sway the readers perception of said article. The only part of the COI for wikipedia that I might even brush against is the "self-promotion" section, and I am not promoting myself per say, I am giving a recipe. Hardly conflicting with anyone's interest. Please tell me from where I am straying in my perception of this policy? Aktormedic (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Take it to WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Could use you opinion

Hi, would you take a look at this and let me know if this is a reliable source for a BLP article? I am having serious doubts about it for use in an article esp. BLP, but I am second guessing myself, I hate when I do that:). Thanks for any input you can give me on this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they just republish others' news reports. If this is correct, while they might be used as a link to a report, the attribution and reliability of the report would fall to the original news source (AP, etc). --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I should have given you more information to go on. It is being used at the Susan Sarandon article. So should I look for the original news source or do you think it's ok to keep it as is? Sorry, I know you're busy, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the source there verifies nothing in the article. I'd argue for removal of the reference and the external link. --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The link was spammed to the External links section by 68.173.30.173 (talk · contribs), so I removed it from there. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I thought so but darn, I double thought myself. :) I should have gone with my instincts. :) Thanks again, you're always so helpful, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know I had to revert back some edits of a confirmed sock puppet and an IP editor that didn't help with their edits. I did give you credit for removing the one EL though. There were two EL's that aren't reliable source so I removed them too. Just thought I'd let you know. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help! --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of external link from JIA

I had recently added some information in regards to JIA and pain and sleep disorders. I also had linked an external website (OThealthliteracy.ualberta.ca) on the main page, and I received a comment saying that it was not appropriate for me to link to this website, and that all my information I had posted had been deleted. While I agree that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to advertise or to promote outside sources, I also believe that the OThealthliteracy website provides valuable information to the population, and that the information on pain and sleep disorders in JIA should not be edited out completely, as it is now. Instead of linking the webpage in the article, would it instead be ok to reference the webpage? The OThealthliteracy page is a University-run website, and not for commercial purposes. Many families are not aware of how to access these free resources and we feel that providing information and resources to health care providers and to families of children with JIA is invaluable to the treatment and management of pain and sleep disorders in JIA. Thank you very much for your time, Research87 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my comments.

The content and the manner in which you added the material suggested you were more interested in promoting the website than anything else.

If you'll notice, I left the non-promotional material in Cerebral palsy, noting that it should be better incorporated into the article. It seemed too far off topic for Juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

It looks like you have access to a large amount of research that could be useful for expanding both articles. I'll hope that you'll consider such additions, and I'll be happy to help.

If you think the link might be useful and appropriate as an external link, it should be discussed on the respective article talk pages first, given your conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I have discussed the removal of the information on the JIA talk page, and am currently waiting for a reply. We still feel that including information on pain and sleep disorders for various conditions such as JIA are vital for proper treatment and management. I would like to request another addition to the wiki article by making appropriate edits to my original entry, such as deleting anything that could be considered promotional material, referencing the appropriate web page, and including references stating that pain and sleep disorders are very much relevant to JIA. Would it be best to edit my addition on the article’s talk page, or to write it on here? Could you also please clarify what you mean by expanding the articles? Thanks again, Research87 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If we don't get a reply quickly, there are numerous ways to proceed as discussed in WP:DR. WP:THIRD should get a quick response.

Yes, that sounds like what I'm thinking, adding well-referenced information that way. Go ahead and try. You might want to look over WP:MEDRS first to get an idea of what types of references are preferred. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why Delete

Why do you delete the link to the adobo recipes at adoboloco? It's a great resource? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.202.181 (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it appears to be WP:LINKSPAM, as I indicated in my edit summary. See WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I read those before and just reviewed them again. How is that WP:LINKSPAM? Yes most of the recipes are of Filipino origin but the resource seems to be growing to cover most cultural versions of Adobo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.202.181 (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have read them, then you'll realize that you have to convince others of it's value per WP:ELBURDEN. If you want to try, use the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.202.181 (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I just added the info to the talk page. Also noticed that there is a lot of information missing from the page like "Ingredients". I can add these. Let me know if you need help with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.202.181 (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Socking

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_puppeteering. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Could use your help again :)

Hi, I don't have the heart to comment on this anymore with the comments made to me in edit summaries and esp. the talk page. Would you mind taking a look at this? These two sections are questionable to me but I'm second guessing myself at this point again. Please see the the references used like this one. I don't see most of what is commented about in this reference plus I'm in doubt whether it's a reliable source. Anyways, if and when you get time would you mind taking a look at the last two bullet points, esp. the last one, that my first reference shows you? I'd appreciate another opinion on this. There is no rush so take your time.  :) Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what's going on. I'll look into it in more detail later. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I must be missing something. The source appears reliable enough to link the article with the movie. There's no need to go into details of the movie unrelated to the Zodiak Killer though. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you gave me an outsiders view of things which is what I needed to stay honest. The editor kept putting this in first with bad references and/or no references (not sure off the top of my head sorry.) Anyways, I was looking for someone elses opinion so that I could maintain a fair focus on things which is what you just did. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Art of Living Foundation

I posted a call for better sources on this article's talk. Evidently, I hadn't adequately explained the problem, as references continue to be added (or reinserted) which self-reference the organization's website for even extraordinary claims, and new reference to news clippings, some of which could be based entirely on press releases from the subject of the article. Since you commented there before, you might want to revisit and make a clearer statement than mine. I will also be posting a notice on WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group asking for input. • Astynax ^talk 18:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, I've noticed the same thing, plus lots of soapboxing and promotion. I'll follow up on the article talk. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Barrett and psychiatry

Hi Ronz. I think you're being way too enthusiastic in protecting the founder of Quackwatch from BLP attacks. The attacks, whatever their truth-value, are an essential part of the criticism being made of Quackwatch, and they're made concisely and politely. Your removal of them makes the criticism harder to understand and invite the charge of one-sided censorship. Barrett investigates and comments on others' medical qualifications; others should be able to investigate and comment on his. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. This has a long and nasty history. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a place to attack living persons. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This topic is under arbitration enforcement per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz on this. Take a look at the dif he provides so you see the very long history of all of this. Right now they are at it at the Barrett and Quackwatch page trying to insert the same BLP violation and are being reverted by multiple editors. HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unconditional Surrender

Well, I got that one completely wrong. (In feeble self-defence: It was hard for a newcomer to work out what's what.)

I'm temperamentally inclined to hammer quacks and defend quackwatchers, but that's a separate issue.

And now (or rather then), from the Wacky World of Art, this. Now (if you'd like a little break from watching the quackwatch watchers), take your pick among Unconditional Surrender (2005), Unconditional Surrender (sculpture), and Unconditional Surrender (statue). -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. BLP is very different from our other policies.

I'll take a look at these other articles. --Ronz (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ronz, you're already sounding a lot more willing to think and to discuss than one person who chose to involve himself. (I'm waiting to read "mistakes were made".) -- Hoary (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What a mess. The articles need to be merged, and the related section in Kitsch needs to be trimmed to a short summary. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I regarding Clayton College of Natural Health

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Clayton College of Natural Health discussion page. Thank you. This is purely a courtesy notice, as Mavery94 (talk · contribs) neglected to notify you. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I commented here after watching an editor try to edit war the same edit you reverted which I agree with you that it is a WP:BLP violation. I think that both Barrett and Quackwatch need protection like you suggested since I don't see this stopping any time soon. I tried to revert the BLP violations 2x's but had ec with Quack Guru both times. :) I guess I'm too slow these days. :) Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at WikiDan61's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frozen Ark

• • Reply from alexm1313 ** Dear Wikipedia editors,

Thanks Ronz, as I understand you are trying to calm it down. I genuinely didn't realise I was supposed to answer questions, I just thought the page was messing up. My sincerest apologies of any offence to any of you :)

• This is my reply on my page
  

I am glad we can talk on this, sorry about previous non-communication, I am new and I am sorry if I offended you. Ok, I have taken your comments on board and I agree with some of them. I am a Scientist called Alex Marshall at the University of Nottingham, in the UK.
(1) What is your level of Scientific experience to be able to make some of your comments? As in who are you guys exactly? Are you scientists? If scientists, then you would have a full appreciation of just how important the Frozen Ark is.
(2) Credibility of the Frozen Ark: BBC news article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3928411.stm
If you aren't from england, this is pretty much the best for scientific news if it makes the BBC.
(3) I agree with removing the donation section, as I checked out the cancer research page, and they don't have it. Apologies for that.
(4) As for a conflict of interest, isn't it appropriate that I do write it? It seems wierd for me not to write it, as I know a lot about the project. I do not understand the problem with that. If this is an issue, I can find someone else who doesn't have a conflcit of interest to write about it instead.
(5) Regards to promotion: this isn't about promoting the frozen ark. It is just a really important scientific development in terms of saving the DNA (genetic material) from animals that are becoming extinct. This is essential for genetists, and if you are biologists, you would understand that. Professor Bryan Clarke is a top prize winning scientist whose project should be able to have a wikipedia entry for such an important development.
Best wishes,
Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexm1313 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alex. Thanks for the comments. Getting to the most important ones first:

4) Just be careful to follow WP:COI when you edit. If it's clear you're being careful with your editing and working with other editors, there shouldn't be any problem. When in doubt, propose changes on the article talk page rather than making them yourself.

5) I understand. I sounds like a very important development indeed. However, we need independent, reliable sources that support such claims when they are added to the article. Otherwise they can be removed per WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Segovia Museum external link deleted

Link to "The Segovia Museum - Fundación Andrés Segovia" deleted. Why? (If you're going to follow policy and delete things... then use discretion and delete the least important things. Do you think we can include this in wiki's policy?) Segovia was (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it looked like an appropriate cleanup of the external links section by another editor. --Ronz (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

List of universities with industrial engineering faculty

An article you contributed to (despamified in 2007), List of universities with industrial engineering faculty is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please consider sharing your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Thank you for your time.--Paleorthid (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your guidance, I am new (obvious statement I know) to posting on Wikipedia. Sorry if I wasted your time! Hpaulhpaul (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Let me know if you have questions. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your help on Jeff Halevy

Can you please help me rewrite the Jeff Halevy article? I have whittled down sources that adhere to verifiability, notability, WP:BIO etc after spending a few hours digging through the criteria. I would appreciate your help. Thanks Chad hermanson (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. Starting in your userspace first, maybe? If we can't find anything references specifically about him (as opposed to briefly mentioning him, or just using him as a source), then we'll be stuck with a stub article. From what I've seen, stub biographies tend to be deleted. Maybe we could get help from WP:BIOG. --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll get to work on it. Thanks again.Chad hermanson (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chad_hermanson/jhalevy and tell me your thoughts. Thanks again! (PS I further discovered that Halevy is part of a congressional candidate's running platform and added that in as well)Chad hermanson (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for reviewing. I responded to the questions at hand. Thank you. Nolongeranon Rob (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've added it to my watch list so it will be easier to discuss. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nolongeranon Rob there was nothing there from you... I just posted though.Chad hermanson (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrés Segovia

Hi! Thanks! Yeah I know, it was awful. It really was the best thing that could have been done with it. I found the article dreadful to read and completely unfocused and a lot of it irrelevant or the quotes unencyclopedic. It may now be a third the size but it is more more to the point now which is what an encyclopedia article should be, it looks so much cleaner now. Gradually I hope it can be expanded again but in the right way using solid source and keeping it relevant. There is however an ip address who inists on reverting it back. I'd be grateful if (you haven't already) put in on your watchlist and if you spot somebody restoring it to the "spam" version to revert them. If I have time I'll try to build it gradually. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been on my watchlist for some time now. It should be easier to herd the spas and ips in the right direction now that we have a clean version to work from. Thanks again. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Strauss

Before you click 'downgrade' check the validity of the information.

The profile is very outdated, and the information I added is public knowledge and substantiated by the company site. It is a false representation as the profile stands, making it look like Strauss gave up pick up artistry, which is not at all the case. He continues to have a presence in the media and makes a lot of money from selling pick up artist coaching and products through his company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldon653 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia we're writing here. This is not a venue for advertising. --Ronz (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy case study

The case report about hearing loss is very interesting since the causes of hearing loss are not well known and recovery from hearing loss is very rare. So please do not remove this case report again! Nopedia (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that you restored the information.

I'll be removing it again, when someone else doesn't beat me to it. It's a case study. It fails WP:MEDRS.

If you'd like to see it incorporated into the article, start a discussion on the article talk page explaining why it is worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

follow up

hey ronz,sorry for my late follow up to your feedback at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grandia01&redirect=no#Coral_calcium it's just not easy to get internet access here as i used to.i'll just refrain from editing that page any further,thanks for the advice!!Grandia01 (talk)

fitness trainer

If your not busy, fill out a sock investigation for the creator of the two articlrd, this new one Rob something and the old one User:Chad_hermanson, I sent it to afd agsaain what a waste of time, you should have got an admin to delete it straight away, Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. It's because of situations like this that I avoid AfDs. I prefer to avoid SPI unless there's obvious sockpuppetry, or the disruption is much worse. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)