User talk:Hipal/Archive 49

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Ronz,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. I know you think your impressive number of edits are a "meaningless statistic", but your length of time being here is worth celebrating, yes?

Best regards, LovelyLillith (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Reason for revertion

Hello Ranz, I just saw the you've reverted my edit to clear the disambiguation on Naveen Jain. If you check the source, it clearly says, Bellevue-based BlueDot pays to license research that comes out of NASA and national laboratories within the Department of Energy, so, I think there is no doubt in that. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Good catch. I was concerned about where the Viome tech was from. I'll revert, then follow up to see what I can find. My impression is that Bluedot expanded their tech searches. --Ronz (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Viome tech is from Los Alamos, so we're good. Thanks again. --Ronz (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

TRIZ Page

Hi Ron, thanks I was unaware of the COI stuff. Is there anything I need to do? I would like to remove any references to me or Trizics from the TRIZ page and to remove the Wikipedia page Trizics completely. How do I do that? I appreciate your help,

Gordon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trizyin (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gordon. Thank you very much for responding.

As far as removing all references to you, I'm not clear what you mean. As far as your account goes, I'm not familiar with what options there are. Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing seems to cover the topic. If that doesn't cover what you're asking regarding your account, I'd recommend asking at WP:HELPDESK.

As far as what is in any Wikipedia articles or other content, it probably would be best to identify exactly what you want removed and clearly describe why you feel it would be best to have it removed. If you want something beyond just a regular removal of content, I again recommend asking at WP:HELPDESK with specifics.

If you want to try to clarify what you're seeking with me further, I'll do my best to help. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing dICO References

Hi Ronz, I'm new to wikipedia. I manage some of the written content for KomodoPlatform.com We received multiple requests from community members to correct the record, as several of our community's innovations are being claimed by other groups. That includes information regarding dICOs. You mentioned in your reason for deleting the edits that I would have a conflict of interest, which I think might be correct. I'm new to all of this, so I didn't realize how things are done around here. Would it be acceptable if another member of our community came and re-posted the material? It would probably be exactly the same, as there was nothing in there that I would consider inaccurate.

Hi Siddhartha-Komodo. Thanks for following up with me.

No, it would not be acceptable to have others make the edits for you.

Please use article talk pages to propose changes so they can be reviewed by others. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, thank you for following up with me.

I don't understand how this specifically works, nor who specifically would be in charge of making final decisions. Still new to Wikipedia. Is the case that I would post proposed changes on the talk page, and then someone (who?) would make the final decision on what's most relevant? We have a lot of non-paid people in this community who would like to have their work honestly and fairly represented. -- Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, if you're going to remove references from atomic swaps regarding Komodo, then you should also remove references to any other project.

What is there now is both inaccurate, and was likely posted by someone with a coi anyway. -- 63.140.105.216 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

See the article talk page.--Ronz (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ron, I left feedback on the talk page. --Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Responded to your response there. Sorry for posting here and there. I'm not sure how notifications are formed in Wikipedia. Still new to all of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddhartha-Komodo (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I thank you for your hard work in supporting wikipedia. I don't know you personally, but from what I can tell it appears that you are simply working hard to create a genuine library. That is a noble cause.

Regarding atomic swaps, the place where we've left things is not acceptable. It is both inaccurate, and it is damaging to our business as Wikipedia is one of the first five google results for atomic swaps, and thousands of people are searching for atomic swaps right now, for investment purposes. Furthermore, the Cryptocurrency Task Force to whom you reached out for support is full of people with conflicts of interest. Some of the members are on the Factom and Gridcoin project, and all of them will probably have bought Bitcoin in its infancy. Atomic swaps remove the need for Bitcoin as an intermediary source, and therefore Bitcoin's value will likely drop as atomic swaps enter public awareness. As a protector of my community (and we number well into the tens of thousands), I cannot rely solely on the Cryptocurrency Task Force to be an arbiter of historical accuracy in this regard. What I suggest is that you simply remove anything at the end regarding any specific project. The information that is there now is verifiably false, and appears to have been put in place by our competitors. I will leave the other page, Initial Coin Offering, alone for now. But the advent of decentralized ICOs, which we invented, are a game changer. The Forbes (i.e. a non-cryptocurrency news resource) article specifically references this. You can bring that Forbes article back into the discussion if you wish. It does not mention Komodo by name, and you can leave that part out for now. However, you should also then remove the obvious advertisements for Ethereum in that page. (i.e. the lines about Ethereum's ICOs etc.) I look forward to your response. Thank you. --Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If you would point out specific problems with the article on it's talk page, I'll try to address them.

The Cryptocurrency Task Force is no arbiter, just a group with expertise in the area that I thought would respond quickly. Since they have not, let's find other ways forward.

My suggestion is to get some good discussion going on the article talk pages (specific proposals, clearly identified possible references, etc), so we have more to work from.

I left you a detailed welcome message on your own talk page so you could have a better idea of how Wikipedia works, and to give you an idea of what other options we have.

As for many other editors possibly having conflicts of interest: Yes, it's obviously a problem that's difficult to manage when there's such hype and financial speculation going on in the industry.

On a side note, do you have any thoughts about Airdrop (cryptocurrency)? --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to look into this. I will leave notes on all three pages (atomic swap, initial coin offering, airdrop). --Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Feedback provided on all three pages. --Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ron, it's been several days since this began, and the situation is still not resolved. Would you like to be involved with the resolution? If so, if you can please make it a priority, I would greatly appreciate it. --Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Looks like no one has responded anywhere. That's disappointing. All I want to do at this time is get some experienced editors to help. I've tried with WikiProject Numismatics this time, which is more active than the Cryptocurrency task force. I'm not sure what else to try. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Would simply removing references to any project on the Atomic Swap page be a satisfactory temporary solution? That would at least remove the false-advertising that is there now. --Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. You may also want to remove the next sentence (the one that mentions Decred, Komodo, and BitcoinAtom). It doesn't make any sense, it appears to be put there by someone from the decred team looking to advertise, and it's just going to cause further issues. A page that simply states what an atomic swap is by definition and nothing more is probably most appropriate for the time-being. Thank you for working on this and bringing your Wikipedia experience to the issue. --63.140.105.216 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

rv my edits on atomic swap

How is filling out references (probably admitedly badly) a coi when the guy adding komodo things with komodo in his name isn't? --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 17:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're referring to. Let me see if I can figure it out. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit summary is a bit confusing. I reverted Siddhartha-Komodo's edits, along with your edits to fill in the references in those edits. I will run Reflinks again. Thanks for catching this. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi neko-chan. You may be interested to read my comments above. I am new to Wikipedia and am just trying to figure things out. We have a lot of volunteer people in our community who would simply like to have their work honestly and fairly represented. I am on payroll with Komodo, so apparently that would be a coi, and I support Ronz in removing the edits until we can sort this all out. -- Siddhartha-Komodo (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Herobust page

The beginning paragraph on the herobust wiki is copied directly from the herobust official website. If I add that as a source, do I need to source every sentence too? -- IamJstncrdble (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi IamJstncrdble. Thanks for following up with me.

You shouldn't be copying directly from anything, and should always identify the sources you use. His official website might be used with care following WP:BLPSELFPUB, but you'll need to find far better sources to prevent the article from being deleted outright. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have cited much of the info on that paragraph, I also cited the management info. What else needs to be done to prevent the page from being deleted? I've been working on it for the past 3 days. (will site the discography later) --IamJstncrdble (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC) IamJstncrdble (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look, and respond on the talk page for the article. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Contributor

Dear Ronz! Thank you for the information you sent me on my talkpage and thank you for your extreme attention to my contributions. No doubt, you are so careful towards to others new BLP contributors. I really appreciate your long-term hard work. I applied to Help Desk and will continue to consult and ask for Help. It would be an honor for me to get Your Help and advices in future. Best regards, --Lidiia Kondratieva(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to get you some help with your editing. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Herobust page again

I didn't see any responses on the herobust talk page so I thought I'd leave another message here just so I know what to do to prevent the page from deletion. IamJstncrdble (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I answered your questions in the talk page. Hope that clears things up. --IamJstncrdble (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Hello, Ronz! I didn't understand what did you mean here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greg_Fischbach&diff=prev&oldid=821621165 . Could you please explain it in some other words? Thank You beforehand. Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC) + And are there the same strong requirements for soursces where from I want to verify only date of birth? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greg_Fischbach&diff=prev&oldid=821620678 ) Thank You! Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page concerning the notability concerns. I did some further searches and didn't find anything, so perhaps it's nothing.

There are always strong requirements for sources when it comes to biographical information about living people. Mylife.com is not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

K12

I don't know if I walked on you with my edit on K12. Rhadow (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. I started some work, then realized I didn't have time to do much, so I just reverted and left the first round of trimming to you. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

K12 (company) is now admin protected. It doesn't get much interest, but for one SPA, who I suspect of having a COI. Please put Talk:K12 (company) on your watchlist. I trust you to be a reasonable voice in edit discussions. Rhadow (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

SOAP?

Hi, Ronz! Here I just mentioned about direction of the singer's activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olivia_Hime&diff=822151196&oldid=822151014 Could you please provide me more information that it's really "SOAP"? Thanks Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. WP:SOAP, the use of Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia articles should be written from a historical perspective. Highlighting recent touring like that is simply showcasing their tour. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Mindfulness at work

Dear Ronz Sorry you feel there is a conflict of interest in the text I contributed to Wikipedia. I was in a hurry with first set of amends, so i can see why you came to the conclusion you did. I have uploaded more content which i have ensured is adequately cited and verifable.

I act as an expert advisor to the UK government on mindfulness at work. I do not feel that what I have most recently posted presents a conflict. Please could you review and reinstate? Mindfulness in a workplace context has grown and expanded in recent years and content on this is lacking on wikipedia.

Thanks for your consideration

Kind regards ~~mindfulnessatwork~~

Thanks for following up with me.

What you describe is a conflict of interest.

Please discuss and make proposals on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Mention of you on my talk page

Just to let you know, you were mentioned on my talk page. Also probably lots of other places, possibly too many to count :) MPS1992 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Why does this remind me of Whac-A-Mole? --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

SealFAQs and William Calmes Buck

Just to clarify a few things: Although my website, SealFAQs, does include a blog, the website contains a substantial amount of technical information about end face mechanical seals, including a section on the history of end face mechanical seals. It is a worthy source for information about end face mechanical seals. Hard to believe that you deleted the link to SealFAQs but kept the link to a commercial site. Take a closer look at SealFAQs.

Just because William Calmes Buck was my 3G grandfather does not mean that I cannot write objectively about this notable man.

I'm not sure where to reply to your question about the link to a commercial site. In SealFAQs, under the Reference section, the first entry is * What is a Pump Seal? This links to http://www.pumpseals.net/ who are manufacturers and distributors of pump seals. The site includes an option to purchase a seal.

I'm retired now and seals are just a hobby. I get no income from SealFAQs.

I'll copy and paste this response elsewhere to be sure that you see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonsbuck (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Gordon (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• End face mechanical seal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs lots of work, and you're correct the link is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Adopt - a User Project - apologies

Hello - I must apologise for having just had to edit one of your archived talk page - not normally something I would ever do. However, you had a very old "Adopt offer" template present in one of them which was skewing the Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. I'm trying to get this scheme more operational again, and need to delete around 70 old templates lurking in the forgotten userpages bits of the Wiki. Out of interest, did you ever take up the adoption offer? How did it work out for you? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The template you removed (not a problem), was made in jest.

As for the real attempts, I can't imagine it going much worse that it did. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Undue "weight"

It's always a pleasure to work with a reasonable editor, even if we may sometimes disagree over what constitutes undue "weight" (and height). Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nicole Eggert & Scott Baio refrences

Thanks for your note for stating that the reference at above 2 pages from popculturefan.com was not reliable. However, I was not the one that used that source, another editor did. However, I did use this source https://theblast.com/nicole-eggert-scott-baio-minor-charles-charge/ which I noticed it has been removed as well. Please note that first of I don't care what reference is being used because this news has been covered in multiple news organizations, but the reason I used this particular one is because it is the only source that contains the full video interview with Nicole Eggert from 2013 stating the sexual molestation. Since the most important part of the reference is not in writing, then it cannot be considered unreliable. You can see the video and then decide. I do not want to bring the reference back myself and be accused of vandalism, so please bring it back. I like to add that actually the whole section on Nicole Eggert page has been removed by another editor and I do not know why! I think the page is under protection, so maybe a higher up editor needs to add or approve it. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. This should be discussed on the article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking for some help

Hey Ronz. You are the first person to leave me a message about my submissions. Which I'll get to editing as soon as I get some time. But I was wondering since you've taken an interest if you'd be willing to help me out going forward with maybe some proof reading, and giving tips or advice? I currently have a very specific issue that I've created a section for on my user page. Maybe you have some input on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopCultureSuperHero (talk • contribs) 02:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure. --Ronz (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Awards

Awards from XBIZ, AEBN, NightMoves, Exxxotica, Penthouse, and High Society each have their own Wikipedia article in addition to several of them, 11 other awards, from these same sources are already on this article and elsewhere. Demonstrating that they are not significant is an uphill endeavour. 156.194.53.205 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm copying your comment to the article talk page and responding there. --Ronz (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz. 156.194.53.205 (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Ronz, Thank you for letting me know that famousbirthdays.com is an unreliable source. I was unaware of that consensus and I can see how this is an unreliable source now. Thank you for linking me to the notice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information

I've searched a little harder for sources regarding this person's birth year. Thank you for your feed back, I will get onto fixing that source ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonton 5722 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi.

This is Ramesty. I was just wondering, on my Abdallah Smash article (draft) what was wrong with the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.23.219 (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Besides what's in the discussion I linked, or does it need further clarification? --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, what have they been know for that makes them un-trust worthy? 69.18.241.212 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The question should be: What have they done to demonstrate they independently fact-check their articles, and have they established a reputation as a reliable publisher? --Ronz (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Before we continue this conversation, something I did not notice is that you left me a message in my talk page, so let me read it first. Ramesty (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That explains a lot. Sorry. I was assuming you had read it. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Demetrice Nguyen

Hello, I was thanking you for letting me know about the reliable sources. I had a quick question. How does the page look so far? Is it acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Original Know It All (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.

As far as getting the article accepted in any form, it's best to focus on finding references that demonstrate his notability (WP:BIO criteria). I don't see any references currently in the article that meet such criteria, and I'm unable to find any with quick searches.

Once you have notability met, the article needs to focus on his past more, with little if any mention of upcoming events in his life. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits for pain control reversed

I believe the edits made to the pain control section regarding use of acetaminophen with ibuprofen are an informative addition to the entry. 1. It's cited from a randomized control trial from a reliable journal. 2. The section on moderate to severe pain only lists narcotics and opioids. Interested individuals that read the wikipedia entry on pain control should be aware those are not the only options available.

If the information which was posted is not relevant to the section I edited, perhaps you can suggest another section it could be entered.

Appreciate your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elasticknowledge (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this.

Did you look over WP:MEDRS yet? My concern it is a single, recent study. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

sources

Hi, Ronz! No advices from you for so long... I am concerned if everything is good with my contributions? Thank you for your prior help! Today, editing an article I doubted if the sources are reliable, so I decided to ask you if you don't mind.

first source seems to provide an accurate info: http://realbiographies.cf/people/ava-acres-actress.html

second one looks like some news: http://frostsnow.com/ava-acres

Thank you beforehand! Together we will make Wikipedia better! Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I've not looked at any of your edits in a long time. I'm hoping that other editors can help you.

I'm happy to look over articles or references when I have time.

Frostsnow is unreliable: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_219#Jessica_Yellin's_biography_/_personal_information_source:_FrostSnow.com. It looks like a group blog of some sort.

Realbiographies.cf is much worse and should not be used. --Ronz (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, thank you very much! :) Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, is it not a news site? http://frostsnow.com/trump-calls-oprah-winfrey-insecure-twitter They publish information not only about celebrities. How did you realize it's not a RS? Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I linked a WP:RSN discussion about it above. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Jared Taylors case against Twitter

Hi Ronz, further to your recent edit, I have raised the issue of whether or not to include details of Taylor's case against Twitter in the Talk page. Please feel free to add your opinion Jono1011 (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

I apologise if anything I did wrong. Thanks for your contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Net800 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Your message on Dynamic Applications

Dear Ronz,

first of all, thank you for your message informing me about the Conflict of Interest Policy. To be honest, i am not sure whether i have done something wrong or not. For example, i have edited a page about System Dynamics Archetypes here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_archetype

and i have added a picture there that i have found on German Wikipedia and found very relevant. And so, i have created the english version and also i have added the colouring (green/orange/red). I have also created a slide about this for Dynamic Applications, that i am using here:

https://dynamic-applications.com/about/system-dynamics/

so i have removed any remarks of my own organization to comply with the Wikipedia rules at that point. I hope that was ok? - My question is: should i have / could i have added a quote to the original source (as listed above)?

The 2nd example i remember is that i have added Dynamic Applications to the following list (as far as i remember):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_system_dynamics_software

It seemed to me that this is relevant, because the idea of Dynamic Applications is that we try to create the most simplistic form of a System Dynamics software that there is, and we're deploying it through more than a thousand freeware pages around the globe. And so Dynamic Applications is maybe the most influential organization about System Dynamics from the number of users. Now you could find this relevant or not.

My question is, how should i have edited that page to describe or announce a change. I am not demanding by any means to be allowed to edit the page directly, however, some information about this is probably only known by me (in being the Inventor / Founder of that organization). So how can i create or start a discussion page about it? - that's what i have not understood.

The central values of Dynamic Applications are Transparency, Privacy protection, and Participation.

So your comment is very helpful to me as i have probably made a mistake (not intentional, and i didn't know whom to ask). We have recently published detailed informations about the number of supporters of Dynamic Applications on the following page, to be in line with our own value system of Transparency (towards others), while protecting 3rd party customer information as good as possible. As you can see we estimate more than 125 000 downloads right now. From my perspective, it's probably more, but i am not 100% sure. It is almost impossible to count through 1100+ freeware pages and count all the download counters. If you have questions let me know, and i can provide proof.

https://dynamic-applications.com/downloads/hall-of-fame/

For the time being, i'd be a little more careful in mentioning Dynamic Applications on Wikipedia anymore. From my perspective though, we're facing the Innovator's dilemma here: the applications are eventually genius in theory, but most people seem not to be able to understand what it is. I have experienced this for a hundred times straight from 2016. People ask me on Twitter "hey you, what's that?" - "i've seen your page. what are you doing there, man?" - that's also why i wrote the F.A.Q. page on our website.

So this brought me to the thought that my work is probably of some relevance to the people, but i have to explain better what it is and how it works now, as a major effort and contribution. And so, if i have invented something new because i have seen some article on Wikipedia which was insufficient (last example: "Crowdfunding" - inserted a quote on Participative Teamworking) and i have solved that problem already, what should i do about it. In the given example, i see now that that was wrong, as there was a conflict of interest in myself (you could see that as self-promotion).

Finally, if i may dare to compare Wikipedia with Dynamic Applications, in my humble opinion the basic difference is that Wikipedia is displaying information so that people can learn by reading it. In contrast, Dynamic Applications are interactive. So they work much like an eLearning application (my central area of work as a Ph.D. for Fraunhofer Institute 2000-2004, so i have a little background there). And so, Dynamic Applications are more educational (education-creational) while Wikipedia is more like a book (education-display-tional). In using Dynamic Applications you train to think over time, so it creates a new level of conciousness. It is not new from the Wikipedia standpoint of course, as most of it was developed by Jay W. Forrester and the System Dynamics Team at MIT, but still a billion people or more on this planet will probably be no expert in it.

As Benjamin Franklin once said: tell me and i forget, teach me and i remember, involve me and i learn.

My final question is do you see it "allowed" or possible if other people would publish Dynamic Applications to prove certain aspects, like i did for example with Photovoltaic System (a self-contained system that explains the work of a PV System, including relevant aspects of Network Electricity Trading, and that also tries to be minimal in itself.)

For example, there seem to be simulations on the central "System Dynamics" page, that have probably been created through a competitor's software, or by a competing organization. There is a guy called John Sterman named as an author who seems to be working for MIT in Boston at that time. At Dynamic Applications, we have never taken any money from a public organization though, as i didn't find it justified to have the gouvernment charge other people to work even harder, just so that i can do funny experiments and inventions as people from all over the globe find them important. And so Dynamic Applications are financed by my own savings and the contributions (crowdfunding) of our followers, but we are not financed by public law of a certain state.

And that is because we are working from a higher ethical perspective as the "standard" scientist (that's how i see it, but of course you don't have to share my point of view). In being the founder, i am developing the organization from this point of view as a question of reliability and trustworthability. If we claim that we do Business Model Calculations, and then we develop Business Planners for every person on earth free of charge, how could i demand from any Gouvernment on Earth to fund our expenses? - as far as i have understood what i have created there so far, this is some kind of an NGO, that will naturally result in a global open gouvernment initiative in due time. However, as i am also a living person on earth, i have also went to the local "village hall" and got myself a trade legitimation for 20 Euro. So that i am not put in jail directly just because i am operating a NGO and pay no tax. This also explains why we got www.dynamic-applications.com and www.dynamic-applications.org and both of them resolve towards that same website.

And so the question i am asking is who should be allowed to publish Simulations on Wikipedia if not the people who are developing Dynamic Applications. Forgive me if you find this exaggerated, i am really wondering about and trying to understand how to do it correctly, and i am new here and i am sorry for raising the question and consuming your time, just at the moment i know no other Wikipedia author in my village. Sometimes i just think this may be relevant and so i posted before you send me that Conflict of Interest policy (please forgive me and don't ban articles just because i didn't know how to do it right... i am open to any advice how to do it better).

If you could give me any hint in that question (may the people post Dynamic Applications on Wikipedia?) - i could then explain that in our F.A.Q. and so we can both try to avoid future problems here. At the moment i am confused so i don't know what to write as i have not fully understood what makes information "true" or "wrong" (as it seems). From my perspective, an information is true if most people believe it is true. But everyone can create a new reality from today. So for example Albert Einstein quantified the relation between mass and energy and then he used pictures to describe his thoughts that were so impressive that a thousand other physicians have re-written and adapted their formula according to be in line with his theory. But it was never proven that the Theory of Relativity itself is true. It was merely a definition (the formula) and that was funded in a lot of Theorems as i see it, and those have not been proven up to today as they are Theorems.

A more simple example would be 1+1=2. Most people would probably see this as "true". But from the mathematical standpoint, it is merely a definition and the number theory then includes an order of digits 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. And then there is a definition that creates 10 from 9+1. And all these then create all other numbers and we have defined addition (defined what addition is in itself). And from all that, you can then conclude that 2+1=3 is certainly true from the logical perspective.

So 1+1=2 is not "true" from the mathematical perspective (it's a definition) and it is only true by "public vote" if we make a survey with people around the globe (that's what i think). And so the question is can i write about this on Wikipedia or not, as it certainly relates heavily with the concept of Dynamic Applications calculators (values and quantification in form of value targets). If not, i would rather stay away from any mathematical questions on Wikipedia, as my knowledge is inferior and so i may not write again.

Thank you so much!

Martin Bernhardt Founder

P.S. most of the time i speak of Dynamic Applications in the "we" form, as every person on earth is already allowed to publish their own works in Dynamic Applications. I am just writing the website as a consequence of the user feedback. The method is agile, so i just go a step and then i step on driven from the crowd or user feedback, as it occurs. The one problem that i can not solve is to determine the exact number of users of Dynamic Applications if we are gathering no data at all. So i am merely citing 3rd party information without knowing is it true or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate all the thought and time that has gone into your reply. I wont be able to respond in such detail and address all your comments, so you may want to use other venues to get help. I've left a detailed welcome message on your talk page that gives you many options for how to seek help.

You have a direct conflict of interest, so you need declare your conflict of interest and work from edit requests on article talk pages rather than editing articles.

There's no question that your edits to date have been problematic, even if you didn't have a conflict of interest.

I strongly advise that you spend more time learning about Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies, especially in how they relate to the purpose of Wikipedia and Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Birthday reliability

Thanks for the notice about birthdays. No need to respond.Eschoryii (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: Ethnicelebs.com as a source

That's fine, I didn't know you couldn't source them. I know the website does do research though, do you think the family trees linked to on the comment section of the Norman Reedus Ethnicelebs page could be directly sourced here instead? Theo (contribs) 01:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

I'm not sure what family tree websites are generally considered reliable. I recognize a few that unreliable, so I personally wouldn't waste my time checking them all. If you want to try, use the search capability at WP:RSN. If nothing else, you'll learn what editors are looking for with such references to determine their reliability. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The first one ([1]) needs you to be a member of the website, which I'm not, but it apparently has the records showing his paternal great-grandmother was born in Riesi, Province of Caltanissetta, Sicily. The other sources ([2], [3], [4], [5]) are to show other paternal ancestors, John Joseph Butare was born in Calabria, Italy, and Mary Baldassarre was born in Naples, Campania, Italy. Ancestry.com is a fine source. Theo (contribs) 01:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry.com has user submitted material, especially the family trees: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_189#Ancestry.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I see, feel free to add any of the above family records as a source to Norman Reedus page if you find them to be reliable. Calabria isn't very specific though, it would be useful to know where in Calabria, and if possible, where in Naples. Theo (contribs) 02:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I just want to thank you for advice about my editing. I appreciate it very much. Usually i didn't add any edits without references to the sources I took the information from and I am learning wikipedia rules and principles every day. But I will pay a huge attention to the sources I use from now forth for them to meet the wikipedia rules about Verifiability. Thank you once more. Lyupant (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. You can always search WP:RSN to help determine if there have been past discussions about a source, and ask at WP:RSN if you don't find anything or are unsure. Doing so would also help you learn what criteria other editors are looking for in sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you prefer more or less editorial content on Wikipedia?

Hi Ronz,

The word "unwarranted" which you removed from my edit implies that the proper amount of doubt that is warranted is known by you or any other.

Doubt is doubt, and whether or not it is warranted depends on many factors that are not possible to be summarized into a single sentence. The article stands just as strong without the judgment of others' doubt.

Universeman (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have much to say beyond what is in my edit summaries and my welcome on your talk page. It appears to me that you're trying to change articles under ArbCom enforcement to suit your personal viewpoints.

Let's take this to the article talk page, and please provide sources to support your edit proposals. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Katarina Rodriguez wiki

Hi Ron, thanks for the info. I'll take note not to use imdb and famousbirthdays.com as reliable sources for Draft:Katarina_Rodriguez. Shenalyn2018 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Notes on Bryan Dyson's article

Lidiia Kondratieva has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

Hi, Ronz! Your cookie as promised:) Thank you for participation in the stub. As I noticed you have some doubts about the year of birth. Can we use this site to draw full date of birth?

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Dyson,_Brian_G. Thanks beforehand, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubts. All I did was correct the mistake in the article.

Astro.com is generally not reliable.

I've looked for other sources, but didn't find any that we could use. I would expect there were profiles written about him in the 80s or 90s, but they may be difficult to find.

You've not addressed the RSN discussion, other than to remove one of the three poor sources. Do you not understand why all three are poor and inappropriate for the content they are being used to verify? --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, my dear teacher:) Thank you for reply. Yes, I think I undrestand and I'm happy you payed attention to my contributions.

Can we use this source to verify a birthdate? https://prabook.com/web/brian_g.dyson/44846 I've found some more RSs to fix the article.

Are all birthdates in BLP articles verified by reliable sources as the NY Times? Please explain why have you decided it's possible 1934 year of birth (not only 1935)? I've not addressed the RSN discussion as there you asked for other editor's opinion, not mine. Thanks, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Prabook is not a reliable source.

The only reliable sources we have simply give his age as of a certain date, allowing his birthday to be possibly one of two years. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the respond:) Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Dasha Taran wiki

Hi, thanks for sharing the info.

Bee Pollen

Dear Ronz,

I see you have reverted the bee pollen article to its previous state. The current state of the article misses some very general points. Moreover, all of the information from the latest edit was based on a number scientific researches from scholars from all around the globe who explored and tested bee pollen's properties. May I ask the reason for undoing what I have written. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atanas.angelov.12 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me. My concerns were that the rewrite violated Wikipedia's policies for advertising, promotion of fringe beliefs, and biomedical information.

I suggest you start a discussion in the article's talk page, pointing out the very best independent, reliable sources that you'd like to use. For any health-related claims, clearly demonstrate how the sources meet criteria for biomedical information as well.

Please disclose any conflicts of interest you have with the subject matter, so we can get such concerns put aside right away. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Problem With Editors

Hello, I feel like user “SamHolt6” is purposely adding violations to an article I created “DreamDoll” because I removed a problem that didn’t seem right, after that I woke up to 6 new violations the following day, I fixed every issue and was wondering can I have them removed. I feel like i’m being personally provoked and and if it is issues can you fix them for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmissvoodoo (talk • contribs) 04:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.

That many tags might be overkill, but I have to say the recent work on the article is very helpful. We should be able to trim back the tags shortly.

Please discuss this further on the article's talk page, so others can easily respond. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? Failure software

Hi Ronz, I received a message about conflict of interest with regard to some links I added. I'm curious as to why linking to the software or company referenced is a conflict of interest. In most cases, my company was the only one that wasn't linked. I'm a little confused on the policy, I suppose.

So could a third-party create these links?

I'm curious what the rationale is here.

Thanks,

Chuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck.smith.hbmprenscia (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please review WP:COI more carefully. If you still have questions, I'm happy to answer.

I've only reviewed one of the three articles you edited, Physics of failure. Please note what I did there. I plan on getting to the other two soon. --Ronz (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I did some cleanup for Design Review Based on Failure Mode. It certainly could use help from someone with your expertise. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

And I finally got to Failure mode and effects analysis. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The COI Policy - virtual research institutes for independent scientists

I added the names (without links or adjectives) to the two biggest virtual research institutes that exist (to my best knowledge; and made a note that I was connected to one of these institutes). The information about the biggest of them was however deleted despite the fact that I had no connection to it at the time of editing the article. It would not be feasible to employ the COI policy retroactively on all articles. The current sentence seems incomplete to me, to mention that such institutes exist without mentioning a single example. Thus, I suggest we include at least the name of the biggest institute (I cannot add it again myself though because I am affiliated with it since a few weeks back). Rmwillen (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rmwillen. I share your concerns about how the article stands at this moment. Do any virtual research institutes deserve any mention at all? You bring up the size of the institutes (without any references). What do the clearly independent, reliable sources actually say? My impression from the Nature article you added is that it would be best to focus on what scientists working for such organizations have produced, not the names of the organizations or their size. But that's just from a brief skim. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.

Please follow up on the article's talk page so that others can easily join the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

citations

Hi Ronz, thank you for your comments. To be fair, when I was creating new Wikipedia articles, I was referencing other existing Wikipedia articles with similar content such as Ebac and Elkay. In fact, the author of the respective pages were using third-party websites and even their own website (such as Ebac's case) as a source for its company history. Perhaps those citations should be removed on their pages? The problem is that there seems to be very inconsistent standards all around. I often look at the community portal to find new pages to be edited for grammar and formatting and very often I see plenty of approved articles without even proper sourcing.

Clarevoyance (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, both articles have problems, including coi-violating editing. --Ronz (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Usability Testing and Expert Review

Hi Ronz,

I was looking at the Usability testing page, and was surprised to see a section on Expert Review. This is a topic that I would expect to find on the Usability inspection page instead. If I'm reading the page history correctly, then it looks like your account may have been involved in adding that section? If so, I'd be interested to know, please, what you would think of moving it to the newer page.

Kivi Jkshapiro (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That addition was by an ip.

If Usability testing is supposed to be only about methods where users are involved, then I'd agree. However, it appears that "usability testing" might mean evaluation methods in general. What do the sources say? --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Starting out on Wikipedia

Hi Ronz, thanks for the advice; Yes, I have just started editing on the spanish section and I'm still not familiar with all this. I got no relationship with the topics I edited.

I just wanted to asked a question; How do I know if a commonly used source on the spanish Wikipedia will be or not accepted as reliable on the english section? like the newspaper Página 12. Thanks!

Agustin6 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have little experience with other language versions of Wikipedia, but my impression is that there are sometimes huge differences. WP:RSN is a good place to search for past discussions and ask questions. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert of Net Worth source and/or NW for BLP?

Hi Ronz, thanks for the info. While I have been a Wikipedia member for over a decade, I don't edit too often and am always looking to improve. Sounds like you are stating my source is unreliable (if so I can find another source, there seems to be a lot) but why rv and not just tag it as such? I searched the RSN page you refd and don't see celebritynetworth.com specifically noted, so am assuming it's the type of source (eg. celebrity gossip). Or...are you saying don't include Net Worth for some types of BLP? I also read the RS page refd for info on what types of BLP should include NW (eg. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett) but that isn't clear to me either, since NW is included in many BLP articles. I'm guessing it's some combo of the two (BLP and source). Pls confirm.Lance (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like celebritynetworth.com has been mentioned at RSN for years now, but there have been many discussions [6], this being one of the most recent and includes discussion of alternatives. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays

I just used it for information on her age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankanspelar (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP strictly requires reliable sources, and even has a section on birth dates. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable Source

Thanks for checking over my edits, after looking at the source again I realize that you are right. I will find a new source for the information that I found and change it accordingly. Cole Phinney (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad I could help. --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

An extended welcome

Very nice. Is that something you wrote, and is it a template or just text? Doug Weller talk 04:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I wrote it, influenced by some messages that I've seen from others. I've been meaning to get some feedback on it and look at possibly making it a template.

Suggestions very welcome. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Sam Chui

Ok do I needed to do any more improvements is the draft qualified for article? Vnk414 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is unimproved since the last review, so, yes, it needs to be improved.

I think it would be best if you put the article aside and spent more time learning Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson

I filed a request, see WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson#Intro_discussion Rwbest (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I responded there. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Native Strength mentioning of documentaries.

    The 1st episode of Native Strength was shown at a the 2017 Mocs & Docs Film Festival in The Bug Theatre in Denver, CO based on the reference given. This has been on Hypatia's wikipedia.org page for weeks. It got deleted. Yet, the Sundance Film Festival in Utah is recognized by Wikipedia, refer to 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Film_Festival . Sundance film festival films are mentioned on it's wikipedia.org web page.

   Fairfax Public Access has shown Native Strength per the reference https://www.fcac.org/schedule?channel=10&date=2018-04-09 based on this reference
given. According to Wikipedia.org's description of Fairfax Public Access, refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfax_Public_Access, is a "

a non-profit Public, educational, and government access (PEG) cable tv station based in Fairfax, Virginia". Yet, the Native Strength entry stating it has been shown there was deleted.

   Wikipedia.org's American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) page, refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company , has in it's "Daytime" section: 

"Daytime Main article: ABC Daytime ABC's daytime schedule currently features talk shows The View and The Chew, and the soap opera General Hospital,"

mentions current programming is mentioned.

  Both of the entries used viable sources and were not recognized. Yet, documentaries from a bigger film festival and current programming from a major TV network are considered acceptable. Not fair.

Please Respond

ProgressivelyAdding (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the comments I left on your talk page? --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ronz

Dear Roz

I apologise for using unreliable sources every now and then. I am not a full time editor on this website, so I didn't know it was as big of a deal as it is. But with all that said, was it really necessary to delete the rest of the information I added to Jason Marsden's page that didn't require any references? I'm just asking.

Please, let me know if I can help with any other errors I have committed.

Traptor12 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

The answer is already on your talk page, User_talk:Traptor12#January_2013, but to be clearer, WP:BLP states, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"

Simply, if you are if you are unsure if a source might be reliable, use article talk pages or WP:RSN rather than adding a questionable source. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Changes to UCW

Hi Ronz - thanks for your message. I noticed that edits to a UCW article I posted, a school I have a conflict of interest with (updated on my user profile) seemed to be focused with negativity rather than covering other interesting and newer updates that have been covered in the media. To that end I posted information about a more recent piece of activity with a First Nations leader, properly citing this media coverage. I saw that you considered this not to be relevant and thought to reach out to you to better understand why. Thanks again.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MenoPorsche (talk • contribs) 14:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for following up with me.

If you were following WP:COI we wouldn't be having this discussion here. Please declare your COI on all article talk pages where you'd like to see changes, and use edit requests on those talk pages.

Please review what I wrote in context of WP:NOT, use of Wikipedia for public relations campaign [7]. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

MenoPorsche, I have added you as a connected contributor to all the talk pages of the articles you have edited following your somewhat ambiguous COI declaration on your user page. However, if your employment includes editing Wikipedia articles on the GUS subsidiaries and on GUS itself, then you are a paid editor, not simply one with a "conflict of interest". If that is the case, you need to use the template {{Paid}} to make that explicit. In either case, given your seriously problematic past editing here, you should restrict yourself to making edit requests on the talk pages of the relevant articles and not edit the articles directly. Incidentally, I am in full agreement with Ronz's removal of the PR material you had added to UCW. Voceditenore (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Soapboxing and promotion

Hi, there. Thank you for sharing the soapboxing and promotion articles. I’m new to this and genuinely want to understand where I’m going wrong, so please bear with me if you could because I don’t want to be banned. I’m trying to flesh out the article about me with more detail and believed I was citing references with enough third party media sources. Was linking to other pages the problem? For example, if I produced a series for a network and both have Wikipedia pages, should I not link to them? If I create another draft in my Sandbox could I get your feedback specifically before I post? I really appreciate your help and want to get this right. Wilsoncleveland (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.

I'm concerned that you've rather blatantly violated the terms of your account being unblocked:

You were blocked in 2006 with the comment, all contribs have been adverts.

You successfully appealed the block in 2013 via an email request. I don't have access to your request, but it almost certainly communicated that you understood the policies related to promotion and that you would follow them carefully if your block was lifted.

My assumption then is that your continued use of Wikipedia for self-promotion violates the terms of your unblock request.

What am I missing? --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You're correct that I was blocked in 2006 for creating two articles for the same client that repurposed content and images from their website which was my only cited source. Obviously promotional and copyright violating. I didn't know any better at the time.

I don't recall what I communicated in my 2013 unblock request and would happily share it with you if I could locate it. I must have used the Unblock Ticket Request form because I can only find the response email: "Hello Wilsoncleveland! I have unblocked your account as I have deemed that the block is no longer necessary. King of Hearts English Wikipedia Administrator."

My understanding has been that I could contribute to articles I was connected to provided I wrote in a neutral tone and cited quality third party sources - which is exactly what I hadn't done in 2006 when I was blocked. I sincerely believed I was doing this the correct way. I've seen many in my peer group with links in their Filmography sections and I thought that's what you were supposed to do. At this point all I want to do is make a few minor factual and formatting edits then leave it alone. I just don't want to be banned. Wilsoncleveland (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

To address your concern, I'm not going to pursue having you banned at this point, unless something changes radically. I've not looked at your edits closely, and hope there's nothing worse than what I've seen the article about yourself.

Wikipedia's policies for editing with a conflict of interest have changed dramatically since your block was lifted, as has enforcement of policies related to conflicts of interest, biographical information, and promotional content.

A good step forward would be for you to disclose your conflict of interest on the talk pages of all the articles you've edited where it applies.

Also, please use edit requests for Wilson Cleveland, and consider using them for other articles and content where you have a similarly strong conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on unrealiable sources

Thanks for your recent comment about my post on Lauren Jackson. I was unaware of this section, and even after following the link I cannot work out how to check on whether an individual source is reliable in the future. I have been making great efforts to ensure that all my posts are appropriately referenced. I guess the common sense approach requires that if the source you use is an aggregation of facts, it must follow similar rules to wikipedia by linking to an original source. But I fear I may get caught again on this. Blue Moses (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not enough that sites link to original sources. When in doubt, check the source at WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Melanie Wright

I saw on my Facebook that Cole and Dylan Sprouse mother was listed as Melanie Wright, which comes up as a swimmer for Australia. However, her age is 31, while the boys age is 25, meaning, she must have given birth to them when she was 6? Is this correct? Can you please review both pages? I believe their mothers name is correct, however they linked the wrong person.NikkCartwright (talk)

I'll try to get to this within a week, hopefully much sooner. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Melanie Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dylan Sprouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not seeing any links between them. Maybe they were removed? --Ronz (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

About my page, march 2018

Hello, Ronz! Thank you for message me about my page. I created this page. I created it on the basis of an interview with this person from articles on the Internet. But I was finally able to contact this person. and she said that a lot of information unfortunately is not really true. I'm trying to fix this as soon as possible. Don't cancel my fix on this page. half of the text was deleted due to the fact that so much wrong information on this page. Nedika (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

So you admit to having a conflict of interest and editing to it? I'm afraid you're going to be blocked if you continue like this. I gave the article a quick pass and tagged it for improvement. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We didn't have a conflict of interests. I spoke with this person and she will give me the right information. she wants me to keep on writing about her. Can I edit information or now it forbidden to me to do this?Nedika (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are here trying to change the contents to meet her interests.

If you can provide independent and reliable sources, you should be able to avoid problems. Avoid anything that could appear to be adding poorly sourced information or removing properly sourced information. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for answer. At the moment, the text that has the source is in this article. Now I will not add anything. Maybe I will add something later when there will be fresh sources and in the further I able to avoid problems.Nedika (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi

I've been editing for 13 years or so, I know how it works and everything just fine and dandy. We all make mistakes though which I did on the Sally Bretton thing. Cheers for the uneeded help though. -Malice1982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malice1982 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You've less than 500 edits and you made the edit without an edit summary. Regardless of the span of time you've edited Wikipedia, I thought a friendly heads-up on important, relevant policy would be received better than a warning. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Titodutta's talk page.
Message added 17:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Titodutta (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have posted another reply. Kindly have a look. My response might be a little late, although I'll try check soon. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have added a response. --Titodutta (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• +1 message on my talk page. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Alicia Silverstone

I didn't even think I was involved in an edit war with you; never my intention, and to be honest, it's not even an interest to be involved in one. I thought it would be appropriate to mention her other film roles as a whole timeline. As for her stage credits, the woman has constantly starred in plays, so I thought it was also noteworthy. I'd love to add something else in the lead, as it only addresses specifically her film trajectory until her Batgirl role, and her 'Golden Globe nomination' sentence seems a little isolated. Hope we can agree on something and warm greetings to you, regardless of my miscommunication. 190.249.179.87 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The lede should summarize and introduce, identifying why she's notable. She's done a lot of work, but she doesn't seem to get much press or other coverage beyond initial publicity campaigns. Disputes over what should belong in the lede have been a huge problem with article for a long time. Quality references are scarce, especially anything written from a historical context. I'm happy to help you, but I'm mostly just keeping an eye on the article so we don't backslide with the latest publicity campaign or controversy. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy to leave it up you, Ronz. I saw he was edit-warring and making unexplained major changes, so I thought it prudent to pull back on them until they could be discussed, as is happening now. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

thank you

Hello Ronz!

Thank you very much for the message you sent me about ten days ago. I'm not online often, but I do enjoy editing here whenever I can. I noticed that a part of my last edit (on cryptocurrency airdrops) was deleted.

Could you please explain why this was done and advise how to avoid such things in the future?

Thanks!

Jugoplastika (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you are spamming an unreliable, promotional source. I'd recommend avoiding any editing related to blockchains and living persons, while you learn your way around Wikipedia better. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

About Removal of Extra Section in the 'Colourblindness' Page

Dear Ronz,

I have noticed that you have removed my first paragraph as 'it doesn't appear as a reliable source'. Could you expand on that (point to specific areas) so that I could improve on my citations or whatever that needs to be rectified. As you have noticed, I am new to editing Wikipedia and this was my very first edit so I would really appreciate if you could assist me on my mistakes.

And thank you for sending the information about wikipedia, it's very useful but there is a ton of reading material to get through so it will take me a while to get through it.

Yours sincerely,

MaciejScience — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaciejScience (talk • contribs) 07:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi MaciejScience. Thanks for following up with me.

Clivemaxfield.com appears to be a blog, so it is self-published. I don't see how the author has any expertise in the subject matter.

Ideal sources should clearly indicate scientific consensus on the subject, and generally follow Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences). --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit Reversal in Gokhele Method

Hi,

You recently reverted an edit made to the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gokhale_Method#Reception_and_analysis

Specifically, someone made a small edit regarding the scientific sources, where they reviewed the citations, and found that the research papers cited were being slightly misrepresented. Upon review of the sources, I believe the edit in question was accurate, as we can clearly see a pattern of less industrialized countries having lower rates of back pain.

Also, even if we couldn't see such a pattern, I still do not see where in the sources that the authors of the research state that lower back pain rates are not significantly different between industrialized and non-industrialized societies. So in conclusion, unless the authors of the research themselves state that there is no difference in lower back pain rates, it is not correct to extrapolate that assumption from one's interpretation.

Observer haq (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)observer_haq

Welcome to Wikipedia. I left you a detailed message on your talk page on why it's incredibly difficult for new editors to successfully involve themselves in topics about living persons, where you have a strong bias, and are under special editing restrictions. I recommend the following pages to give you more information as to why: User:Jytdog/How and User:WLU/Generic_sandbox --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: Famousbirthdays.com as a source (Michael Wincott)

Hi Ronz. Thank you so much for the heads up about that site. I used it as a reference because when I don't add reference sites to the two profiles I edit, I get notices about not supplying citations. Mr. Wincott has so few proper articles about his personal life, as he is very much against it. He does, however, appreciate being included on Wikipedia, so you help is appreciated. In this case, we needed to correct his birth year, which was edited incorrectly by someone else. Since he is an actor who works internationally, it is important the basics like birthdate and his previous work be accessible and correct.

As the publicist for him and his brother, Jeff, I realize I suffer from COI, but I've tried to keep the article content as objective as possible. In future, I may contact you to help me make edits, so there is less risk of deletions.

Thanks again, --Runjik23 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Laura www.runjikproductions.com

Thanks. I'll give you some details on how we can resolve this on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Rossi

Sorry, I had been reverting vandalism to the page and didn't look closely enough Unibond (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That was my guess. Thanks for explaining. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is Dan O’Keefe

Not logged in. Thanks for moving my comment on the Festivus talk page to the bottom - I couldn’t figure out how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1300:442A:9C50:83E5:B80E:CDA5 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

finding old username

Hi, I am trying to dig up my old username. I can find one phrase that is definitely mine "developed countries is DFNB1, also known as Connexin 26 deafness or GJB2-related deafness" in Hearing Loss that dates at least to "06:06, 9 January 2005‎ Ray Foster (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,357 bytes) (+5,755)‎ . . (Added info from deafness) (undo | thank)" when it was imported from deafness. But the original wiki article on deafness no longer exists. I am trying to find when this was first added and my username. Thank you. Gren0ui11e (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to get an admin to look it over because of the combinations of moves and deletions. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Reason why the edits were deleted?

Hi Ronz, Any reason why the addition on Ravi Shankar's article was deleted? Banumathy Narasimhan is his sister and she is a great contributor in the life of his brother. Vnarsimhan (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you see the information I left on your talk page?

I remove it because it was poorly sourced, highly promotional information about a non-notable person added to a biographical article where it was extremely out of place. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Seth Godin notoriety

I apologize if the additional info for [Godin's hall of fame honor was a bit long]. I tend to try to provide more information, adding context, than less. Showing others who were added to the marketing hall gives an indication of how big (or little) a deal it is. Thus, helping with prominence and notoriety. Just adding background here for my thought process. Always looking to do better. CharlieGrammar (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. As I indicated in my edit summary, the reference only mentions Godin as a recipient without any specifics at all. The award seems noteworthy. I didn't look for a better reference, and would be surprised if there weren't multiple press releases about it that had some details. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Paige Patterson

Hi Ronz, thanks for pushing me to include more direct connection between PP's firing and his stepping down from SBC posts. I think you'll find my new text much more to your liking and have no objections to it. If you do, please let me know. Thanks! --Wikibojopayne (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for working on improving it. Response on the article talk. --Ronz (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Good day Ronz

I accept that it can not be used as a source and will remember that in future. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Regards

User:Barry Ne 03:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicelebs.com as a source

Hi , I did provide another link that I found hope it's a reliable source. The video where she stated that the original French pronunciation of her surname is unfortunately copy righted I can't post the link . You may look it up on YouTube. Thanks for your consideration

https://famouskin.com/pedigree.php?name=52189+melissa+benoist&ahnum=16

-- Solidaires2 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Legislative violence in Thailand

Why did you delete the section about Thailand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.228.51.29 (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

See the article talk page and your own talk page. Your editing tends to be problematic in general, and Legislative violence needs a rewrite to follow Wikipedia's content policies. --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz,

Can you please explain why you reverted the changes to the Weston Price page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wali omer (talk • contribs) 10:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Because it was inappropriate in at least two ways as I identified in my edit summary. Please don't add links like that if you're not going to check if it is appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Mercola

Don't understand what you are trying to say. I entered an additional bullet that Joseph Mercola opposes fluoridation and supports a pending lawsuit against the EPA with references to his page about fluoridation and to the Bloomberg Law with the timeline of the lawsuit. Can't be any more factual and well documented than that. Didn't elaborate in any way.

I also took out a link to a claim that claims that wireless is armful/causes cancer is pseudoscience referencing an opinion piece and included a link to a 2017 (and 2015) appeal to the UN by a consortium of electromagnetic scientists and a 2017 presentation by a scientific organization that included and quoted a WHO/IARC scientist that the evidence is definitive - cell phone and other wireless is causing cancer. Even the Dept of the Interior protested to NTIA in Feb 2014 that there is significant evidence of environmental damage in the vicinity of cell phone towers. This isn't the place to debate it, but calling it pseudoscience and using an opinion article to support that claim is misrepresentative of facts in evidence. Here's a nice 2016 summary of science: http://www.cqlpe.ca/pdf/Hensinger_Wilke_2016_umg_Engl.pdf

Seabreezes1 (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Please review WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Mercola's article is not the place to address disputes over fringe theories, nor a soapbox for such theories. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For you comments and support surrounding edits to Paige Patterson. Enjoy! Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mahira_Khan#Puffery regarding reason. 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 "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mahira_Khan#Puffery".The discussion is about the topic Mahira Khan. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Saqib (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Typical Gamer

Listen dude this happened way back but you deleted my source and it took a long time to find one. PLease fix my article on typical gamer as he is a noteable figure or may you please get a team on making a page for him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WidgetFan1234 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's extremely unlikely that I'll have the time to do so. --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

ACLU

The reason why your content changes to the ACLU Article is problematic is because, as Wikipedia’s own policies state, the lead is for major events in the ACLU’s history and policy. The ACLU had previously unquestionably defended Free-Speech rights, famously even that of a Klansman. So when they decide to stop that it is HUGE news. To not acknowledge that is clearly a POV-pushing technique. And only since you implyed it, no I don’t have any ties to the ACLU or any group opposing the ACLU, I just want the article to reflect reality. Seriously, why not include it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajackson12 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Why? NOTNEWS, OR, POV are why. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

AIV report

Now there are two 3 month range blocks of 32768 addresses each (/17). See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Spam Reverting Vandal. September might be busy... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)