Misplaced Pages

User talk:Hipal: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:37, 8 April 2015 editHipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,048 edits →Reverts in "Fringe science"← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:29, 14 January 2025 edit undoHipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,048 edits archived 
Line 1: Line 1:



{{User wikipedia/Non-Administrator}}
{{Off and On WikiBreak}}
<br>

<!--
{{wikibreak
|Hipal
| back =soon. If all goes well, he will probably be back a lot earlier while making some small edits every once in a while anyway.
| align =left
}}
-->
<br> <br>
<br> <br>
<div id="talk" class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align: left; padding:1em; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE"> <div id="talk" class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align: left; padding:1em; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">
'''Welcome to the Misplaced Pages user discussion page for Ronz.'''<br /> '''Welcome to the Misplaced Pages user discussion page for Hipal/Ronz.'''<br />
To leave a message on this page, click ''<br /><br /> To leave a message on this page, click ''<br /><br />
'''*In order to make conversations go smoothly, please follow ] and ] when contributing to my talk page.''' Comments that don't may be immediately deleted.<br /> *'''In order to make conversations go smoothly, please follow ] and ] when contributing to my talk page.''' Comments that don't may be immediately deleted.<br />
'''*I will respond to your comment, and try to do so promptly, on your talk page if not here.'''<br /> *I will respond to your comment, and try to do so promptly, on your talk page if not here.<br />
*'''I am usually open to holding myself to ] if you think it will help a situation.''' Just let me know.<br />
'''*Sign your post using four tildes ( <nowiki>-- ~~</nowiki>~~ )'''<br />
*Sign your post using four tildes ( <nowiki>-- ~~</nowiki>~~ )<br />
Thanks for taking the time to read this.<br /> Thanks for taking the time to read this.<br />
</div> </div>


{{User wikipedia/Non-Administrator}}
<!--{{Off and On WikiBreak}}-->
{{Contentious topics/aware|9/11|a-i|ab|acu|ap|blp|cc|covid|ipa|med|ps}}



<!--Template:Archivebox begins--> <!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
Line 22: Line 33:
---- ----
{{collapse top}} {{collapse top}}
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}
</div><!--Template:Archivebox ends--> </div><!--Template:Archivebox ends-->


== Walnuts thank you == == Question about Ad Fontes Media ==


Why is the article for Ad Fontes Media controversial? I see there has been some discussion about whether or not their rating are suitable RS for Misplaced Pages, but I don't quite understand why there is so much energy about the article itself. Is there something in the article's history? ] (]) 17:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement to have this article revised. Sometimes these articles can sit as be without review and if someone does attempt a revision reverted in whole and labeled vandalism. My attempt was not meant as an absolute but rather than wait for someone else to go at it did a quick rework and left it for someone else to make the refinements that can include content removal.] (]) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
:And thank you for all the work on the article! --] (]) 00:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC) :The political issues (]) with rating media, more prominent with ]. --] (]) 18:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


== Happy New Year, Hipal! ==
==Talkback==
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">
{{talkback|Talk:United States Senate election in Maine, 2014|ts=17:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)}}
]]
] (]) 17:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
{{Paragraph break}}

{{Center|{{resize|179%|''''']!'''''}}}}
== Thanks for info & tips ==
'''Hipal''',<br />Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable ], and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.

<br />] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)<br /><br />
Hello Ronz - New to editing on Misplaced Pages and learning the ropes as I go. Thank you for the reminders and tips.
</div>
--] (]) 19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
:Glad to help.--] (]) 19:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
{{clear}}<!-- From template:Happy New Year fireworks --> ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

== findagrave ==

Going through archives, I think I had seen you commenting about this link, consider checking ], Thanks. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 02:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:Responded there. --] (]) 16:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

==Clarifying external links, spam, etc.==
Hello Ronz,My Name is Kuldeep, and I'm regular reader and contributor of Misplaced Pages since long. I've Edited some links for the quality content of Misplaced Pages but i got a message that you removed link, .

it'd be great if you can give provide me details for these links so that i can keep it in mind from next time.

Thanks. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:All the links appear to have been added in an attempt to draw traffic to the sites. The relevant policies/guidelines include ], ], ], ].
:You're a regular contributor? Were you using a different account in the past, or just editing without logging in? --] (]) 16:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

==Omez==
I see you've been helping with restoring the Omez redirect to Omeprazole in line with other proprietary forms of this drug. Do you think the page should be Semiprotected -- and if so -- can you help do this. I've struggled with the unclear instructions!] (]) 19:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:I don't think such protection is called for at this time. So far it's just been two ] editors. If ip's or other new accounts join in, then semi-protection would be helpful. If either of the two continue, then they would be facing a block fairly quickly.
:What about the instructions is confusing? I've done it so often that I don't pay attention. --] (]) 19:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

== Linkfarm ==

Thanks for your contributions.

I like to clear linkfarm and whenever I had any doubt about the links, I would simply add them to my list. Check ], it may be hard but you can surely help. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 07:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! == == A barnstar for you! ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The No Spam Barnstar''' |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for being so vigilant about spam, linkfarms and the myriad of related problems plaguing articles! The work you do too often gets overlooked, but we do notice. ] (]) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC) |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for de-escalating the situation and for doing what you did. I appreciate the way you handled this after initially getting off to a rocky start. ] (]) 00:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
|} |}
:Thank you! Glad to have helped. --] (]) 23:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


== Threats == == You are correct ==


I won't use unreliable sources next time. ] (]) 18:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
LOL, wtf is the threat? You've been editing since 2006, presumably you know the rules. 3RR and all that. Blanking an entire article like that, a longstanding one without controversy, during an AFD, is bad form. I'm normally quite well-composed, but get upset by uncivil behavior like that.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 19:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
:It got some substantial discussion going, which is what is needed. I'd already said I didn't want to take the route of actually enforcing WP:BLP to that extent while the AfD was open, but it seems other editors would rather ] than collaborate.
:I appreciate your comments on the article talk page. How about removing the threat and focusing on the content/policy-related discussion? --] (]) 19:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


== Questions ==
== Re: List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 ==
Hi Ronz. You may not remember me (until a few hours ago I could not have recalled the ] where we had crossed paths), but a few Wikipedians asked me to intervene in the dispute at this page.


Hello. I had a few questions about your recent edits on the Ed Young page that I am perplexed about.
First, let me say I've looked over our record in the two years since our last meeting, & you clearly are not the person I encountered then. It's clear you have taken on some difficult issues & handled them -- better than I would have. You are clearly an asset to Misplaced Pages.


1. Why did you remove pieces of the bio include ‘writer, speaker, artist’? Is he not an writer/author or speaker?
However, in this incident it's clear you & a number of other editors have greatly different opinions about this article, & I don't see where a compromise can be found. You took this article to AfD, & the result was a keep. Your further attempts to work on it are only causing frustration on both parts. My suggestion -- one I vigorously suggest, but I'm still leaving the choice to you -- is to walk away from this group of articles & let them be. A few unsatisfactory articles will not destroy Misplaced Pages, so there is no harm walking away from them. According to the front page there are over 4.5 million articles, so there is no lack of other articles that could stand improvement from your attention. Do that, & in the long run I think you'll do better at Misplaced Pages than sticking it out at ] & dealing with the consequences. -- ] (]) 23:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
:Much appreciated all.
:I'll give it careful consideration, and in the meantime start with a month away from the articles. --] (]) 00:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


2. Why was the New York Times Bestselling Author section of the bio removed? You claimed ‘SOAP, COI editing’ but did not attempt to find any sources for what you removed or verify the sources that were currently there, you just removed it all? Seems more detrimental to the page than verifying and editing.
===The related external links problems===
For anyone paying attention, I realize that my starting ] in conjunction with might be seen as cutting it too close to what I agreed to above. Let me know what you think. --] (]) 22:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
*More than too close.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 13:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*:Thanks for the response. Could you elaborate so I could understand where you think I should draw the line? --] (]) 17:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::*To elaborate, if you have a question about whether its too close, its probably too close. Here, any involvement with the same article, or playmates generally for that matter, will be used against you. Its only likely to draw you back into the same stuff, with the same editors, and very unlikely to be productive!--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 17:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Very good points. Thanks.
:::My concern was with the warning to him, and I'll definitely draw the line at any further such warnings.
:::Hopefully, that will be the last time it anything remotely close even comes up. --] (]) 17:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


3. Could you explain why "50 Shades of They" by Ed Young, published by Creality Publishing and available on mainstream platforms like Amazon and Barnes & Noble, was removed from the bibliography? Given its relevance to Young's work in relationship counseling and its broad distribution, shouldn't it be included in his Misplaced Pages bibliography?
== AN/I notice over your editing behavior ==


4. I’m confused as to why you added back the lifestyle section but removed the part ab Ed Young denying the report. You claimed it was an ‘interview’ in your edit. There were other editors in the talk section who agreed that this source was relevant and good prior to you removing it and it helped bring neutrality to a controversial section of a BLOP.
* ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 00:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


I’m genuinly trying to understand and i appreciate you helping me become a better Wiki Editor. Thank you ] (]) 01:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
== Semir Osmanagich -bibliography ==
:Once again, you're repeating yourself without apparent understanding of previous discussions and policies. Continue like this, and ] might apply.
:You are a ] account working on an article where you're following in the footsteps of many editors with a clear ]. You say you don't have a COI, but your behavior so far is indistinguishable from them.
:In light of and , you need to rethink what you're actually doing here. I strongly suggest you walk back what you wrote in that second diff.
:The lifestyle section is back because the references are good. Removal of properly referenced content is a POV violation. We've been over this already, to the point where it looks like you're not reading what others have to say, nor understanding the relevant policies.
:The other questions deal with ] and ] issues. I'm just doing some initial, simple cleanup of all the COI editing that has gone on. --] (]) 16:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


I've removed your response as failing the instructions at the top of this page.
Finaly I found the way how to communicate with you about the editing on Semir Osmanagich.
you wrote:"we don't provide a directory of his writings but rather highlight those related to his notability or are otherwise prominent".


If you're not going to walk back your statements , please tread extremely lightly. --] (]) 18:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
How do you know which books are related to his notability and are prominent


Thank you for letting me know you stand by your comments at RfPP. Given that, I suggest you find other articles to work on, avoiding ] where editing limits apply. --] (]) 23:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
if you don't know even language in which they are written, like German, Turkish, Croatian..


Please stop reverting. I've responded. Until you can make far greater efforts to follow TALK and AGF, you're at very best wasting time. --] (]) 23:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I see wrong information for ex. in this line below:
*And now the typical accusations of a "personal vendetta" etc have turned up. We know what they mean: "Lovely work, Hipal!" ] &#124; ] 03:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC).
::Thanks for the help. I wasn't looking forward to a COIN report and the further drama that would likely result. I don't like what drama occurred, but at least it was relatively contained. --] (]) 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


== John Mearsheimer bibliography dispute ==
* Sam Osmanagich, " Alternative history - traces of Atlantis "- Indrija, Zagreb (385/1-370-7688)


Notifying you I have requested a third opinion ]. ] (]) 01:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
right spelled this line is below and you can check it


== Biased user ==
"Alternativna povijest - tragovima Atlantide" – Indrija, Zagreb (385/1-370-7688) ili Sveznadar ()(language:Croatian)


Ratnahastin has an anti-BJP and pro-INC bias, and engage in edit war. Their edits are a mix of content removal (sourced), POV pushing, censoring, and misrepresentation of sources. Refer the edit history and talk page of ] in early April this year, also check the edit warring in ] from 31 March where the user tag-teamed with Rzvas for content removal without even providing a valid explanation. The problem in those articles still prevails.--] (]) 15:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
(by chance I was born in Zagreb and could read and understand this line)and see that it is the same ISBN.)
:Thanks for the note.
:I'd rather not expand my scope of editing at this time into more ] until a few more broad enforcement actions take place. Be sure to document the problems will on the appropriate article talk pages and noticeboards to help with enforcement. --] (]) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


== More soon ==
Old line in English is misleading readers who don't know..and trust that Misplaced Pages provide right information.


I know we're mid discussion but I got Covid Monday :/ ]<sup> ]&#124;]</sup> 14:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Why someone from Germany could not find information that there is Osmanagich's book written in German language,
:Get well soon. I hope you can get access to an antiviral treatment if necessary. --] (]) 16:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::I'm ok. Just sleeping for 3 days! Thanks for your thoughts. ]<sup> ]&#124;]</sup> 10:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Are we good (in your opinion) on the current version? I can live with it. ]<sup> ]&#124;]</sup> 21:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Welcome back. I hope you've recovered.
::::It looks like good progress. Thank you for your help. --] (]) 22:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I had a mild case, and aside from sleeping 60 hours straight, no symptoms (thanks Advil + Tylenol!). No antiviral needed, and I'm back to my usual workload. As for the article, I think it's getting much closer to not being able to tell whether a proponent or opponent of FM wrote it, which is a good sign. This is the way of compromise. I appreciate your willingness to accept certain changes, albeit not ALL of them! :) ]<sup> ]&#124;]</sup> 22:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


== Reverted contributions? ==
or Turkish person to know that there is in Turkish language.


Interested in specific feedback as to why the recent contributions to Diamandis were reverted – as well as preferences for making meaningful contributions to the page. ] (]) 23:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Can we give just ,facts, right information to readers?
: {{tq|PROMO - please work in smaller edits with clear edit summaries}}
:I left some detailed feedback on your talk page as well. --] (]) 23:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


== Regarding Eric Jacobson article/talkpage message ==
..without much personal judging (as there is so here in this article,generally, as I feel.)--] (]) 14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi Hipal,
:Hi Indija! Sorry you had such difficulties contacting me.
:It would be better to discuss this on the article talk page so others can easily see and contribute to the discussion.
:I was using "notability" to refer to Misplaced Pages's Notability policies, specifically ] in this case. Osmanagić is notable for his claims of there being pyramids in Bosnia, and his efforts to promote these claims.
:By "prominent" I was referring to Misplaced Pages's Neutral point of view policy, specifically ]. Usually prominence is determined by the amount of coverage a topic receives from ] sources. For instance, a number of sources have mentioned Osmanagić's book ''The World of the Maya'', and claims in that book.
:From what you've written, I'm not clear what information is wrong, nor do I understand what the numbers are. This would be best brought to the article talk page. --] (]) 15:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Earlier today, you removed a section from ] -- to be clear, I agree with your edits and reasons. I did not write the section. However, I would like to address the you left for me afterwards. While I can see that this was a copy/paste "welcome" that I'm sure you've left for others (likely in many cases that warranted it), I'd frankly just like to be clear: I am familiar with the policies you've linked and have done my best to adhere to them in my edits, despite being a "new" editor. I have recently boosted articles, such as ] and ], with copy-edits/clean-up, formatting, sources, and general expansion. I welcome you to compare their current versions and their states prior to my edits.
== what is this Ronz? ==


I believe the message was unwarranted in this scenario. ] (]) 18:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I hope that this 2 links below my talk on your User talk are not from you


:I made a mistake, the talkpage message was right before the article edit - but I'm still assuming it was correlated, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Hopefully you'll find that my contributions align with the policies you mentioned. ] (]) 18:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
.. they are without signature..and appear after my talk
::I'm glad you are familiar with the policies.
::Therichest.com is a poor source, inappropriate for BLPs, and probably not reliable at all. . --] (]) 18:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)


== Thank you for the revert ==
and they are non-related to my talk ..what is this?..spam?
--] (]) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
:The links below are references mentioned in previous discussions, similar to the references you see on an article talk page. --] (]) 15:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting . Obviously 2022 is 8 years after 2014, not two years prior to 2014.<br> My bad. ] (]) 04:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
== regarding my edits on head/tail breaks wiki ==
:Thanks for clarifying what happened. We all make mistakes. --] (]) 16:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


== Jeffrey Sachs ==
Hi Ronz


Hello. I come to your talk page because you have in ] arguing it is promotional.
Thanks for your comments. I am Digmaa. I don't want to promote anything, just putting a link which directs to Github respiratory which stores the implementation of head/tail breaks theory and this is approved by Binjiangwiki who created this page. This time I put the link in External Link section, hopefully it is ok. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Thanks for contacting me about this. Unfortunately, such links are generally not appropriate. --] (]) 15:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


I consider it important for readers of Sachs' biography to know which political ideas and parties he supports. I agree nevertheless that the reference I used as source is clearly partisan (the Green Party itself) so I propose to reintroduce the text with , which is Sachs' piece endorsing Stein.
== Semir Osmanagich ==


Looking forward to your reply ] (]) 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Reference nr 11 is dead link.
:Hi Hispalois. Thank you for starting a discussion about this.
I don't understand why an old version of this site cannot be edited?--] (]) 21:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, it is a dead link. You want to edit something? I don't understand what you are referring to. --] (]) 16:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC) :Briefly, it requires better sources that are clearly ] of the subjects for us to say it's important enough to include. See ], ], ], and ]. --] (]) 20:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for pointing me to those policies. In BLPPRIMARY, I see that it is ok to use Sachs' own statement: "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if..." (and I think my reference matches all points). The policy I do see as problematic is that my edit can be considered Recentism. To counter that, I propose expanding the sentence to all of Jeffrey Sachs's public endorsements: Bernie Sanders in 2016, Sanders again in 2020 and now Stein in 2024. What do you think? ] (]) 17:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I disagree. By including it without an independent source, we are promoting Sach's political viewpoints and his support of Stein. --] (]) 19:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::You are correct @], it is acceptable, though many BLP patrollers prefer to interpret the last sentence of ] as meaning you can only use it if you cannot find a detail in independent sources, and only if it is essential to the biography. You don't need to worry as much about that for normal biographies, but this one is more politicised. If you are unsure if an article is politically relevant in the present, look for clues like, in this case, "He has been criticized ..." in the lead or the presence of a multi-subsection "Critical reception" section.
:::So it is safer to cite this: <nowiki><ref>{{cite news |date=2024-04-29 |first=Richard |last=Winger |author-link=Richard Winger |title=Jeffrey Sachs Endorses Jill Stein |url=https://ballot-access.org/2024/04/29/jeffrey-sachs-endorses-jill-stein |newspaper=Ballot Access News}}</ref></nowiki> instead. The more relevant policy is actually ], where so long as the article is not {{tq|based primarily on such sources}}, it merely has to fulfill the following criteria: (1) {{tq|it is not unduly self-serving}}; (2) {{tq|it does not involve claims about third parties}}; (3) {{tq|it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject}}; (4) {{tq|there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity}}. I have swapped sources and moved the statement to "Personal life". ] (]) 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks! ] (]) 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::(Ivan, your commenting here is probably a bad idea, especially so soon after your being blocked.) --] (]) 02:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I disagree with Ivan's solution. The ballot-access.org ref demonstrates no weight or encyclopedic value. It's not even an article, rather just a mention that Sachs made an endorsement. It doesn't even rise to the level of warmed over press release, which would also not be enough. If ballot-access.org doesn't give it more coverage, we certainly shouldn't.
:::::My rule of thumb is to look for content in the references that demonstrates historical importance of the event/topic/etc for the subject of the article where it could be included. --] (]) 02:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)


== Please explain why you undid my edits to Jeffrey Sachs' bio. ==
== Semir Osmanagich ==


Could you please explain why, on Sept 4, you removed my edits on Jeffrey Sachs' bio page. I included links to and a few quotations from articles that Sachs wrote about the war in Ukraine. I figured that the section on the war in Ukraine should, at least, explain Sachs' views!
Thank you,Ronz,for kind answer. I am new on Misplaced Pages and it takes little time in my orientation where and how to ask and answer.I go to site discussion.--] (]) 21:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Thank you, Don ] (]) 17:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
== Osmanagic ==
:My apologies for not responding to your comment on the aritcle talk page. Doing so now. --] (]) 01:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)


== Joey Skaggs Advert Code ==
I was going to warn Indija about edit-warring, but that's a bit tricky as you are at 3RR - permissible of course but it would look odd to a newbie. ] (]) 20:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
:Let's see if we can get some discussion going. I think we've a language problem on top of whatever concerns the editor has. --] (]) 02:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


Can you explain what areas need work, revisions, removal, and so on that cause this issue? Or alternatively change these elements to aid in correcting the page. I have reviewed and edited it multiple times but am struggling to find the specifics that have not been pointed out for correction or clarification. Thank you for your help! ] (]) 01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
== Nofel Izz ==
:Hi Mr-asthmatic. Thanks for starting a discussion about this.
:I've not looked closely at all the references, but my impression at this time is that a total rewrite might be necessary.
:I suggest you follow the recommendations I already made on your talk page.
:If you insist on continuing to work on the article, I'd start by removing all the self-published sources and associated content. --] (]) 16:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)


== Promo? ==
Hi Ronz. I saw your question about Nofel Izz on Johnmoor's talk page. I'm aware that one editor was recently hired by Nofel, and looking at who has been editing that article, I'd guess that at least four editors were hired. I'll go through it later today and see what I can clarify - I have a lot of teaching commitments, but once I knock them off I may have a bit of time. I had warned some of the editors about the new disclosure requirements, so that may require following up, unfortunately. - ] (]) 00:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
:Just quickly, I can confirm that Nofel Izz recently hired four Misplaced Pages editors. I had suspected a fifth, but at this stage I have to assume not. I'll handle the warnings and remind them that they need to disclose their relationship with the client. - ] (]) 02:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
:To update, there's a fifth very likely paid editor (definitely a paid editor, was recently hired, but I can't definitely confirm it was by Nofel). That one I'll block as a sock of a banned editor. The final editor does do paid work, but I have no evidence that they were hired. Normally a maximum of 3-4 get hired - this is the first time I've seen 5 or 6, but I gather Nofel Izz understands WP well enough to play hard. - ] (]) 07:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
::Would it be helpful to share what evidence you have before they try to hide it all? --] (]) 15:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, making it publicly available would involve outing, so I can't share the evidence. However, all six editors (I've confirmed the 6th now) were hired by the same client. Nofel hired BiH, Renzoy16, Anupam, Inlandmamba/InlandmambaPLU, Johnmoor and Anishwiki12. I had been intending to block Anishwiki12 anyway, as a sock of banned editor Kavdiaravish, so I've taken care of that now.
:::It is frustrating to see that many editors hired to skew an article. - ] (]) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
::::If Johnmoor is one, he's not been hiding his identity (see ]). He has tried to hide the fact that he's a paid editor though. If he's back as a paid editor, he should be blocked. If he's back to his old editing habits, I think there's a good case for blocking him regardless. --] (]) 15:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::I'll revisit Johnmoor in the morning - I'm curious as to how he will respond. I've got a couple more ducks to line up before I handle the last two in the list, anyway. - ] (]) 15:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::Bilby, Your suspicion or conviction about me being a paid editor has been on for years already.
::::::Ronz, I wonder how you would use your administrator privileges if you ever become one.</br>
::::::Thank you.—] (]) 00:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


I am intrigued by the instant removal of study buddhism on Berzin's article - it basically removes any sense of what he has been doing in the last ten years or more is gone - do you ever consider re-writes? ] 01:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
== Category:Psychedelic drug advocates ==
:I'm rather baffled by your comment given your editing history. It's a BLP article, BLP content, sourced to a self-published reference. The solution is to either find a BLP-quality source that's independent of the subjects, or leave it out. --] (]) 02:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:: In turn I find many editors are ready to tag/remove, but never actually edit or improve articles. Fair enough, keep up the good work. ] 02:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::: I find it problematic to work from such assumptions, especially with well-established editors. --] (]) 02:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)


:::: my apologies then, I understand your BLP policy issue re self referencing without RS <small> I even remember when the BLP issue almost took WP down </small> , and have no problem with that. As to the rest, ... ] 02:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for removing those additions from so many articles. This is probably the third or fourth time this editor or a sock has done this. And tucked in amongst all the bogus claims are one or two legitimate ones. Makes me crazy. Thanks! ] (]) 00:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
:Glad to help! --] (]) 16:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC) :::::Thank you for the apology. --] (]) 20:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)


== Re: Conflict of Interest == == Need your help ==


Please visit "Cradles of civilization" article and settle the "Indus/India" dispute ] (]) 15:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
You are correct that skyhooks are a subject I am very familiar with. I have also been working very hard at being as neutral as possible in what I write on the subject. If there is something that I have written that appears biased please point out the specific statement or passage that concerns you and I will do my best to address it.
:Hi Qaiser-i-Mashriq. I see that Hypnôs has already provided you with good advice on your talk page. I've left you some general information to supplement it.
Thank you for your time and your comments ] (]) 16:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks for responding. I wanted to be sure that you were aware of the policy and let other editors know that you've been made aware. --] (]) 16:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC) :Unfortunately, I don't see myself having the time to assist with the article directly. The topic is under special editing restrictions (]). Please take care with how you continue. --] (]) 16:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)


== RE Brahma Kumaris article == == AP Political Bias ==


Hi, how are you?
Hi Ronz,
I was a bit disappointed to see , coming from such an experienced editor....I'm not sure if you know the history of this page, but it basically gets regular ambushing from ] accounts on both sides. While it's not really our problem except when it gets so lame it starts to discredit Misplaced Pages (and I agree with you the article needs work), I thought to check if you had read the edit comments from the person you are encouraging? So far they have just deleted lots of RS - material from other encyclopaedia's without legitimate explanation. If it's so obvious to everyone that it's advertising, why is no one able to specify the offending text rather than just launching a chainsaw operation.


I see that you undid my addition to the AP News article that AP News has a slight left of center bias. I read what you wrote as to why you removed my edit, but I did not understand it. Would you be able to explain further what was wrong about my edit? ] (]) 19:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
It's also , yet they are clearly not a first timer, which begs the question why they aren't using their previous editing account/s....anyways, hope you don't mind me saying. Regards ] (]) 08:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
:I was only commenting on the state of the article. Sorry if I made it sound like I had reviewed and was encouraging his edits. --] (]) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC) :Thanks for notifying me. I'll respond in the talk page discussion. --] (]) 21:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


== 1RR ==
== Regarding CoQ10 wiki page - inclusion of ubiquinol ==


Hey you violated 1RR . ] (]) 17:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Dear RonZ:
:And you violated the sanctions that apply to the article.
:I've subsequently modified the content. What do you suggest? Revert to the previous version and make a proposal? I'll do that. --] (]) 17:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


== Dan Abrams Page ==
Thank you for taking the time to send me a line on some recent edit(s) on the CoQ10 page.
I have chosen to factually include the information that ubiquinol is part of the CoQ10 family. As you know, CoQ10 is comprised of ubiquinone, ubiquinol, and partially reduced form (ubisemiquinone). Ubiquinol is a member of the CoQ10 family just like Texas is a state of the USA.
Let me give you an examples of the text that you removed on the basis of "soapboxing", which hinders the reader's basic understanding of CoQ10:


Hi Hipal,
'''Example 1'''
Your text: Coenzyme Q10, also known as ubiquinone, ubidecarenone, coenzyme Q...


I hope this email finds you well. We noticed you flagged Dan Abrams' page for reading like an advertisement. I work with Dan, and we've been trying to improve the accuracy of the page; currently, the impression is that Dan is first and foremost a TV person when he is first and foremost a media company owner. We're happy to get rid of anything that might be promotional while still being able to update the content to reflect Dan's work. Do you have any suggestions for what we can do to make this happen? We'd love to be in touch with you so that we can make sure that we make changes that work in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies. Thank you!
My text (which you removed): Coenzyme Q10, also known as ubiquinone, ubiquinol (unoxidized form), ubidecarenone, coenzyme Q...


Best,
'''Example 2'''
Zoe ] (]) 16:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Your text: In its reduced form, the CoQ10 molecule holds electrons rather loosely, so this CoQ molecule will quite easily give up one or both electrons and, thus, act as an antioxidant.
:Hi Zoe. Thank you for reaching out to me concerning {{la|Dan Abrams}}
:Briefly:
:You should take time to properly disclose your conflict of interest. Instructions are on ].
:You should be making ] on the article talk page rather than directly editing the article per ].
:Misplaced Pages articles should be written from a historical perspective (see ]). It may be very difficult for you to find that perspective given your relationship with Abrams.
:Generally, articles should be written from references that provide broad context for the subject matter. The Abrams article appears to have been written from press releases and similarly promotional sources that have little context beyond whatever is being announced. --] (]) 18:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)


== Ethnicity ==
My text (which you removed): In its reduced form ubiquinol, the CoQ10 molecule holds electrons rather loosely, so this CoQ molecule will quite easily give up one or both electrons and, thus, act as an antioxidant.


Hi Hipal. Just to let you know, many sources cite Carson Wentz as German from Russia. Horvat is about the most Croatian Name you can have. Scherzer seems pretty obviously German. I don’t like all these ethnicity rollbacks. Stating someone’s ethnicity is important ] (]) 01:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for following up with me. Especially with living persons, high-quality references are required. We should not be editing articles based upon guesses or assumptions. Sanctions apply to these articles, so we need to be cautious. I hope you understand. --] (]) 02:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::It’s not a guess. It is a fact. These rules are ridiculous. I personally believe players that do not state an ethnicity should be banned for life TBH ] (]) 03:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::Also, Bo Horvat is an obvious one ] (]) 03:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::If you find the rules to be ridiculous, then you should rethink why you're here. --] (]) 17:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Should also let you know that I am autistic, so I sometimes find these things a bid hard ] (]) 03:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::You may want to look over ] to familiarize yourself with some of the venues available to ask questions and get help. --] (]) 16:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Done deal. I couldn’t find anything about Bo Horvat identifying as Croatian, or Carson Wetnz or Max Scherzer identifying as German. I'll be honest, it’s very possible that Bo Horvat, Carson Wentz and Max Scherzer only care about people knowing that they are Canadian, American and and American respectively. It’s just that I have some relatives that identifies strongly as Scottish, and might have mislead me to believe that people identify with their ethnicity. It actually might be quite rare. I think I have figured that many people in Australia, Canada and the United States identify as just Australians, Canadians and Americas. In New Zealand (Where they are from, not me though) it is more common for people to identify with their ancestral home. Sometimes we make mistakes. And we learn from our mistakes. And let’s not make assumptions, or at very least not publish those assumptions ] (]) 15:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
This removal of the word ''ubiquinol'' from the definition of CoQ10 is factually incorrect and not undue soapboxing. Though I can undo your edit, which is not a mature option, I prefer to approach you on a scientific basis so that you may, yourself, decide to undo your edit.'


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
I hope this is reasonable and I thank you for your help.
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
] (]) 04:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Committed Molecules
:Please ]. You're clearly interested in promoting the substance, and appear quite defensive about your personal preferences. Please try to cooperate with others instead.
:If you can provide reliable sources to support your changes, especially ] sources for anything health-related, then do so on the article talk page and I'm sure we can come to some quick agreement on changes. --] (]) 15:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== etechnologytips Linkspam? ==


</div>
Hi ronz,
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->


== Science of identity formation ==
We want to know why our website etechnologytips considered as linkspam. We're already linking it from couple of months ago and the others not having a problem with it. Maybe you can tell us so we can improve our website for a better result. Thanks


It's being repeatedly vandalised since Tulsi's nomination and it's controversial practices removed falsely in the name of NPOV. Please do something. ] (]) 08:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Regards,
:Thanks for contacting me about this. Yes, we should expect attempts at whitewashing the article. Best to identify the problems with the references, on the article talk page. I'm trying to keep an eye on the article. --] (]) 18:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
James <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hi James,
:Thanks for contacting me, as I was going to recommend the site be blacklisted if the spamming continued without some sort of communication.
:Multiple editors have been removing the links, almost as fast as you add them. It's pretty clear the links are to articles that aren't ], nor are they to material that cannot be found in reliable sources and added to the article as references rather than external links per ].
:To exasperate the matter, I think it is a fairly safe assumption that they are being linked to drive traffic to the website against a ].
:If you disagree, it would be best to take up at ] or ], depending whether overall you feel it is more suited to being an external link or a reference. --] (]) 21:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


== Change to Modification == == Thanking note ==


I thank you that you removed false claims on the article ] and wrote what is write, rather than the ideological form.
Hi Ronz,
Regards,

'''Ved Sharma'''{{space}} ] (]) 06:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the trouble - didn't mean to go against Misplaced Pages policy. I'll try to do better with future contributions - thanks for your help. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It was the direct outcome of the article talk page discussions, noticeboard discussions, and the recent RfC. --] (]) 18:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

== Re: Links ==

Hi Ronz,

You recently left me a message about removing links I had added and you invited me to reach out with questions. Please could you let me know why you felt these were inappropriate?

Thanks.
] (]) 20:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks for following up with me.
:Basically, the links you were adding were examples rather than ] or proper ]. Additionally, adding examples in this manner appears to be ] in nature. --] (]) 22:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

== Raksha Bhandan ==

Dear User:Ronz, I just wanted to thank you for on the Raksha Bhandan article. I've had the article on my watchlist for a long time and it's good to see positive changes there. Have a great day! With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 12:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks! Glad to have helped. --] (]) 16:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

== Bradley C. Edwards is no Nofel Izz :-) ==

Hi Ronz, Thanks for your anti-fluffery work over there on Nofel Izz. Based on your comments on the Bradley C. Edwards nomination for deletion, I have the feeling you may think the Edwards article is similar to Nofel Izz. In case you do, I'd like to argue otherwise. Like I said in my "keep" comment, Edwards is ''the man''. He is as solid & notable as Izz is flakey & puffed up. He's the major figure who got Space Elevators (real ones) moving in the early oughts with ''thorough'' design and engineering. His article is stubby and doesn't reflect his impact, but that's only because he ''hasn't'' been puffed like Izz. Notability is required for the subject, which Edwards has in spades. So, there you go, just in case you didn't know.<br>
] (]) 17:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:I have no idea. The problem is that the editors are not backing their opinions with information that others can verify, hence the concerns of both myself and others. --] (]) 20:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

..hnnmmm...So, if I may ask you, Ronz, why would you not vote on this—]? I supposed that you equally avoided this one—], did you not? —] (]) 21:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:Why do you ask? --] (]) 01:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Ronz. It's hard to back up opinions with evidence when the subject was so quickly put on the chopping block. That takes some time. Usually, notability debates start on the talk page, then move to the AFD after some debate if there is some validity. Here, it looks like someone without a background saw the article, got pissed off that the subject appeared to lack sufficient notability by the article, so it was submitted summarily to WP:PROD. When that failed, it was immediately submitted to AFD. There was no discussion on the talk page at all.<br>
Yeah, the article ''is'' in a sorry state and it does lack evidence of notability. I can see how someone who isn't familiar with the field and it's history could look at the article and question notability of the subject. It shouldn't be too hard to fix that impression in the article with a little bit of research, but time is needed, and maybe a little talk on the talk page. ] (]) 04:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

== Struck a gold mine ==

Hi there, I just have put together some real sources ] for the "List of villains bought by the oil industry to put disbelieve in the great truth of global climate change put on be Nobel prize winner Michael Mann and other Great Prophets". ] (]) 12:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks for letting me know. I don't have the time I'd like to help. I'm not sure what can be done with those sources. --] (]) 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

::: Point is, there ae various articles that claim the IPCC consensus IS the mainstream assessement. Those mmay be edited ;) See . I would like to have the intro to be based on Grundmanns findings, and Hulme and Curry be included in the list. ] (]) 17:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

:::: Is there any portal for wp authors that oppose_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming? I see now how it works at the ] talk page and have taken that for while from my list. Sigh and nice weekend ] (]) 21:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

::::: If you like, have a look on ]. Its about the list as well. I made a bold move and used my content in ] ] (]) 23:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

== Edit warring on ] ==

] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
Please be particularly aware that ] states:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''.
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''{{Break}}Contributing to Misplaced Pages is not about ], so do not be ] when your contributions are challenged; most contributors do not agree with you here—]<!-- Template:uw-ew --> —] (]) 20:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:I fail to see what you're complaining about. --] (]) 20:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

== WP:ELN ==

Hi, Ronz. Would it be helpful to post the material in ] to the discussion in WP:ELN? I don't want to clutter up the page, but I think it's important to the discussion. ] (]) 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

== External links on Amharic language page ==

Ronz,
I agree with you that there were too many external links to the Amharic language page. Some were about the script, not the language. But I was surprised that you recently removed a link to a medical dictionary. In the list of written sources, there are dictionaries and grammars. This medical dictionary should be consulted more often than Armbruster's old grammar, which is safely listed. If it was a broad, general dictionary would that be more acceptable to you than a medical dictionary?

We both want this page to be useful and in conformity with Misplaced Pages's policies. Please tell us what you think would be acceptable for external links for this language related article.

Please remember that I have not been involved in any comments about where people are writing from. I am only trying to improve the article about a language that is very important to me.

Pete unseth
:As you know, we've a discussion ongoing on the talk page, which is where this discussion should be as well.
:Yes, a general dictionary would be more appropriate, because the topic of the article is the language in general. --] (]) 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

== AN/I ==

] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 13:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
:I looked at his block log yesterday. Seems he just won't learn. --] (]) 18:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

== the hidden wiki ==
Mind having a look at the revert after block expiry ... --] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
:I don't understand... --] (]) 16:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
::Edit warring editor, I blocked for 31 hours. First thing he does on ] is revert his link back in (sorry, am on mobile, less admin tools etc.). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

== Gokhale Method Page ==

Hi, Ronz! Thank you for your helpful feedback! I have read the relevant sources you shared with me, but in reviewing the material in question I do not see how the article in question contains (a) promotional content (b) content representing a non-neutral point of view or (c) inappropriate external links. I recognized that some of the information in my first draft could appear as promotional material, so I removed that information, and I removed adjectives that seemed to represent a non-neutral point of view. The external links cited are the source's book, the source's website, and numerous articles from reputable sites about the source. I have looked and have not been able to find any articles written in opposition to the source, but I agree that they would be a great addition to the article if they become available. Could you please help me understand what specifically in the article strikes you as (a) promotional content (b) content representing a non-neutral point of view or (c) inappropriate external links? I would be happy to improve the article. ] (]) 01:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
:I started a discussion on the article talk page. Given the article is up for deletion now, it would be best to focus on ], which is the first item I brought up on the talk page. --] (]) 15:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
::Hi Ronz! Thank you for your reply! I have read the notability section that you linked to, but given that the subject of the article has been written the subject of an article in The New York Times, has delivered a talk at Authors@Google, has given a TEDx talk at Stanford University, and is a published author, on what grounds is the topic considered non-notable? Please help me understand what specifically makes you feel that there is an issue of notability. Also, I thought that the first issue you brought up was that the article seemed to be written as an advertisement, since that was what you had commented on the page. Given that classifying an article as an advertisement signifies that it is (a) promotional content (b) content representing a non-neutral point of view or contains (c) inappropriate external links, I will restate my question as to why you gave the article that designation. What specific material do you see as (a) promotional content (b) content representing a non-neutral point of view or (c) inappropriate external links? And then additionally, why specifically do you see the article as a non-notable topic? Thank you, ] (]) 17:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
:::As I pointed out, I already started a discussion on the article's talk page. Let's keep the discussion there so others can participate more easily. --] (]) 19:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Okay, thanks! I have made the revisions you suggested to the article and explained what I've done on the talk page for the article. Cheers! ] (]) 23:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

== Deleted Content ==

Hi Ronz, you sent me a message saying you deleted some of my content. I'm just curious as to what I can do to make the content less promotional. I believed that the content was important for consumers to know, and the page seemed to lack information on variable annuities. At the same time, I do not want to violate Misplaced Pages's rules. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->



That's completely understandable, Ronz. My boss has written a book published by the American Bar Association (http://shop.americanbar.org/eBus/Store/ProductDetails.aspx?productId=214487). That should be a reputable enough source, right? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Did you look over ]? --] (]) 16:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
:I'm having a difficult time identifying exactly who the authors are, but I think the book would be a suitable source. --] (]) 16:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

== Esther Gokhale ==

Hi Ronz, thank you for your constructive feedback on the page I made about the Gokhale Method. It was the first page I made on Misplaced Pages, and even though you were telling me things I didn't want to hear, once you explained your reasons I learned a lot from you. I took your suggestion too and created a page about ] instead, since that page had more solid notability. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing it if you get a chance. I think I made this one better. Thanks ] (]) 02:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:I'm glad you're giving it another try. I'll definitely give it a look. Feel free to remind me if I don't get around to it quickly as I catch up. --] (]) 16:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
::Okay, thanks a lot Ronz! I'll check back and remind you if I don't see anything on the page in a bit. Thanks again for your help ] (]) 15:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

== Open Kanban Mention ==

Ronz, you deleted the Open Kanban mention on the Kanban development page, the reason you mentioned was related to marketing material on Misplaced Pages. This makes no sense whatsoever, the actual mention in that page is about Lean Kanban University Kanban, a fully paid, non open source, proprietary Kanban. One that has several paragraphs, and reads like an ad. Yet you did not delete that one, you deleted the mention about a free, fully open source Kanban method! Please stop and learn a bit more about this subject before deleting anything. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Are you the same person that I already discussed this with, or someone else using the same account?
:The matter has been discussed on your talk page, and you said you'd find better sources before adding it again. Sorry if you'd forgotten. --] (]) 15:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

== re: functional medicine ==

The article on FM fails to note that the Cleveland Clinic, which is about as mainstream as it gets, just opened a functional medicine institute.
] (]) 03:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
:Correct. This is an encyclopedia. As I pointed out on the article talk page, I don't think it belongs per WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS. --] (]) 15:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


Thanks Ronz! I am still trying to learn how to use Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure how to message people, so hopefully this message reaches you.] (]) 21:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:I'm looking forward to your comments on the article talk page. --] (]) 21:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


I would argue that the opening of Cleveland Clinic's FM Institute is big and informative - so would like to see it somewhere on WP.
"Newsy" and related news: a woman chiropractor in Virginia recently filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the Virginia Board of Medicine which had previously fined her $25K and suspended her license for practicing FM. The board comprises all MDs. The one chiropractor on the Board of Medicine did not participate in the decision to fine and suspend the license. The hearing in Arlington, VA is scheduled for December 2014. (Petrie v. VA Board of Medicine)
] (]) 13:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:Agreed. The opening of the Cleveland Clinic FM Institute should be mentioned somewhere.] (]) 13:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

== Naming compliance ==

Can you check that the username QuackWatch and its type of organization complies with WP rules, and tell me why?
Thanks,
Heather
] (]) 13:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry, but I don't understand. There is no user named "Quackwatch" nor is it an acceptable username, if that's what you're asking about.
:You should change your username, or create a new one. Your current username is problematic on many levels. --] (]) 17:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

== Functional Medicine ==

Hi Ronz! Sorry, I am new and still learning how to use this interface. You reverted an edit that referenced several news articles discussing the launch of a new center for functional medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. Primary sources were also listed. This seems like a very relevant piece of information that should be listed on an encyclopedia article about functional medicine. The Cleveland Clinic is very well known and respected and a pillar in American medicine. The goal is to be factual, not promotional. Please let me know how you think this content can be edited to sound less promotional, but still convey factual information. Would be glad to discuss here or on the Functional Medicine talk page. Thanks! ] (]) 13:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

==Chyawanprash ‎ ==
{{la|Chyawanprash ‎ }}

Hi Ronz, yes i am very much aware that we can't promote any product through wikipedia but if u have noticed the picture of chyawanprash used in the page is of dabur and there is also mentioned that Madhuri dixit is the brand ambasdr of Dabur.. so, isn't it promotion of Dabur. Why have you not deleted it.
Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:07, 14 October 2014‎ </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:I agree that the article could use a great deal of improvement. --] (]) 15:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

== Reiki Page ==

Hi Ronz. I left a response to your response to my Reiki edits but i'm not sure if you got it?
Basically i'd like to work with you to get this page further edited.

We believe it is full of misstatements about Reiki which might come down to a he said, she said situation.

I certainly understand the issue with "promotion" and do not want to do that however my
information comes from a living person who is almost as creditable and quotable as it gets
within Reiki and there is so much that would be stated differently if writing our own page.

So if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my message for you perhaps i can start moving forward with
edits that don't get erased.

Thanks!

] (]) 10:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks for following up with me. Sorry that I didn't reply sooner. It would be best to discuss it on the article talk page. --] (]) 16:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

== Quackwatch ==
Understood. You're right, that last sentence I added did mention something negative about a living person and should have been deleted, per policy. My oversight. However the previous sentence should have stayed. The content was supported in the existing references and was the minimal that should be added to this blatantly promotional piece. ] (]) 18:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks. I see you're discussing the rest on the article talk page. I'll weigh in if needed. --] (]) 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

] and my preparation of a move request on ] might be of interest for you. ] (]) 20:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

== Notability of List of Scientists opposing mainstream assessment on climate change ==

Ronz, I'd welcome a statement along the lines of
:''After researching this more by doing XYZ, I am revising my prior opinions (whatever they may have been). Now I am asserting that the article (is/is not) notable because of 123.
In my view, another announcement that we should look at <ins>Policy (whatever is in today's drama que)</ins> isn't informative or helpful. ] (]) 14:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
::So you want to ignore policies?! Noted. --] (]) 15:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
::I'd hoped I made myself clear already , noting specifically what I'm trying to accomplish and why. I'm sure you'll recognize it all, as it is how our more formal consensus-building is done (identifying relevant policies/guidelines, identifying how they apply, determining whether they have been met or violated).
::I'm trying to approach the issue of notability with a fresh start in a manner that wouldn't cause personal offense. I've clearly failed to do so given your response. Maybe I should have introduced it better. --] (]) 15:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
::: Any reply to those mis-characterizations would be pointless, so I won't bother trying. See you at article talk page. ] (]) 16:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
::::I'm really sorry you feel that way. I gave it a try. I hope you'll reconsider and try again. As always, I'm happy to refactor my comments to remove whatever is upsetting you so in order that we might proceed. --] (]) 16:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

::::: Its an "eat the cake and have it" case. On could use external sources about external issues - as in the dissenter petitions or in papers actually dealing with sceptics - to provide a base for and all-inclusive climate sceptics categorization, but the wp internal CC team wants a) to use OR based claims to reduce visibility of sceptical voices and activities b) deny the political cloud and social science research about the topic c) to reduce the dissenters impact in WP in favour of "science is settled" fairy tale telling d) to deem sceptical climate change science as either non-existant or being based on bribery. Rather overachieving. The IPCC is much more aware and integrative about serious scientific scepticism and challenges towards ints own approach than the defenders of the (pre 2009) faith. ] (]) 05:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

== This ==

I have been removed those now like three times from this article. Quite sneaky. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Christmas_tree&diff=630902217&oldid=630819008

] (]) 09:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks! --] (]) 17:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

== Origin of phrase - customer experience ==
*{{la|Customer experience}}

Here are my third party sources for the addition to the customer experience page. We have been going back and forth for years now editing this page and this is what you have needed: take a look -

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22carbone+and+haeckel+1994%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&as_ylo=1994&as_yhi=1998

1994-1998

Those 3 articles all cite the Carbone and Haeckel article from 1994.

May you update the page to reflect these changes please?

- JC17171717

Can we please discuss this? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Times like this that it helps to have a Misplaced Pages account.
:I've no idea what you're referring to, as you've never made any related edits from this ip address. <s>Could you bring it up on the article talk page please?</s> --] (]) 20:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
:Found it. Replied. Sorry for the delay, and thanks for notifying me about it. --] (]) 20:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I was not logged into my account, I updated the talk page :) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Thanks. ==

I'll read up on the requirements.

Vince <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Usability engineering ‎ ==
*{{la|Usability engineering ‎ }}
I think the lede is better. We can continue to improve over the next few weeks. Here are my intentions with the article:

● Refine opening paragraph. Add more distinctions between Usability Engineering and Usability Interface Engineering.
● Add more inline citations on Usability Engineering that enhances understanding of the topic.
● Add an information box that will contain some of the common attributes from other fields.
● Add images to draw readers attention.
● Remove the “reading” list, or refine it so it doesn’t have just book listings. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Looks like you're off to a good start. I'll try to keep my eye on it to help. --] (]) 16:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
== Reference Errors on 4 November ==

] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} as follows:
*On the ] page, caused an ] <small>(])</small>. ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can .
Thanks, <!-- User:ReferenceBot/inform -->] (]) 00:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

== thanks for your feedback Ronz ==

I will try to do better. Do you have any specific suggestions? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

thanks for your comments and suggestions. I will try to better <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Thanks for following up with me. Responding on your talk page. --] (]) 17:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

== Nofel Izz RfC closure ==
*{{la|Nofel Izz}}
(Below is in response to:"I moved your closure comment an formatting to the RfC specifically, then pointed out that there was indeed a specific question . I hope this isn't a problem.

How should I have worded the RfC to make the question clearer and more prominent?

As the issue of all the sources being poor wasn't directly addressed or answered in the RfC, I'll be taking it to the BLP noticeboard after wrapping up the current issues: those brought up at FTN, the edit-warring and ownership problems that has driven a new editor away, and the coi and paid editing problems. --] (]) 16:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)")

:I agree with your comment that there is some confusion, but would like to clarify what the confusion is. You reverted my closure of an RFC on ]. The RFC had requested commentary on sources. My closure did not remove the sources or the discussion of the sources. It merely boxed them. My closure had stated that there had been discussion of sources and that the commentary had improved the article. You or another editor had used the ] procedure. A Request for Comments is closed after it has been open for 30 days. If it poses a question, then it is closed stating what the consensus of the community was. In this case, it requested discussion and commentary, and my conclusion was that the discussion and commentary had improved the article. If you disagree with that conclusion, then the usual procedure is to request closure review at ]. Based on your comment, it appears that you may have thought that I was deleting the commentary. I was not. I was merely closing the RFC. If you think that further commentary would further improve the article, I would suggest that you revert your revert of the closure (leaving the RFC boxed), and post a new RFC. If you simply agree that the commentary was useful and improved the article, that is what my closure said. ] (]) 16:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

:: diff better shows what I did: I moved the closure so it was specific to the RfC rather than the larger discussion. I never wanted the RfC to be a subsection like that, but another editor edit-warred to make it that way.
::I'm for the closure, but wanted to make sure that it was clear that there was indeed a question and that never was addressed directly, as it will be taken to BLPN after being rewritten in a clearer manner so that the main concern won't be again overlooked.
::To be clearer still: The purposed of the RfC was never addressed (though we did get some helpful discussions and changes to the article as a result of the RfC, as you note.) I'd like to determine what went wrong so that it will be addressed at the next attempt. --] (]) 17:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Thank you for reclosing the RFC. I agree with you that, if you have questions about the sources, you should go to the ]. Your RFC didn't ask a specific question. Although RFC stands for Request for Comments, RFCs that ask only for comments do not get real closure. An RFC that asks a question gets !votes and can be closed. Also, if a user edit-wars to change an RFC, I have learned that it is best ''not'' to try to accommodate them, but to go to ] or ]. I wish that it weren't necessary to report users who edit-war over RFCs, but they are edit-warriors, and, besides, if you try to compromise with them, they will take advantage of that. If you have a question about sources, they are better dealt with at ] than by RFC. If you have a specific question about a specific source, that can be answered as Yes or No, or as A, B, or C, you can use an RFC. ] (]) 18:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks very much for the explanation. It's very helpful and I'll be sure to use the advice. --] (]) 18:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

==Contesting Umar Vadillo's Deletion==

As you mentioned that my sources were poor and did not meet the wikipedia guidelines but the sources like '''BBC''', '''Aljazeera''', Official website of Govt. of Malaysia, many international universities and hundred of organization specially regarding gold coins mentioned him in there publications and websites.
And some of my sources were poor because Mr. Gorge told me to mention resources extensively. ''(you may refer to my talk page for refrence)''
So it should not be totally deleted because his name (Umar Ibrahim Vadillo) is mentioned also in many Misplaced Pages's articles e.g. ], ], ], ], etc. So he is a famous person who make gold dinar (gold coin) as a legal tender in many states of Malyasia e.g. ], ] etc. And he is a main driving force behind the restoration of Islamic Monetary Economics in ], ], ], ] etc. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:52, 16 November 2014‎ </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:Please discuss this on the article talk page, giving specific sources. Otherwise the article will likely be deleted. --] (]) 18:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

==EMDR dispute==

Further Ronz, when others revert the changes you made ''without consensus'' to the existing article, do not make false accusations of edit warring. ] (]) 23:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
:I disagree. I think the policies are against the edits as well, as are the FTN discussions. --] (]) 15:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

==Identifying an ip==
Also you can't tag IP numbers as being used by specific editors. An IP number is personal information ], and it could be used identify/out a user. Revert again and I will report you to an administrator ] (]) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry, but I don't see any problem. I'll follow up on your talk page. --] (]) 15:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:: This just popped up on my watchlist. It looks like we have a case of forbidden ]. We've got one person using three identities:
::* {{userlinks|Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd}}
::* {{userlinks|Saturn Explorer}}
::* {{IPlinks|50.138.191.112}}
:: all editing the same article
::* {{articlelinks|Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing}}
:: Evidence that they are the same person: , , , and .
:: They need to decide which registered account to use, stop using the other and close it, and always log in. Otherwise this may escalate to them all being blocked. I suspect that the history of editing and comments related to EMDR, and an ], would reveal even more socks.
:: With 803 edits since 2010-02-05, Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd is the mother account of these three. Only an SPI could make clear if another account is the real mother account. I'll leave you to deal with them, but let me know of any further developments. -- ] (]) 16:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Thanks for looking at it. I'm fairly sure that Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd has exposed his own ip, and it is not the same as the one above. It looks like he's just trying to cover for Saturn Explorer's exposure of using 50.138.191.112, based upon assumptions of ip privacy that don't exist that I'm aware. --] (]) 17:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::: Okay, that's a possible interpretation. In that case, Saturn Explorer needs to always log in. When an editor has been socking (by not logging in, or in any other manner) and exposes their own IP, there is nothing improper in noting it. Exposing sock puppetry is a duty for every editor, and defense of editors who sock is wrong. -- ] (]) 17:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::::: As discusssed on my talk page, have a read of https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#IP_addresses_and_outing ] (]) 23:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::: Ok apologies, I accept I was wrong here, I wasn't aware that it is not uncommon for IP talk pages to be used in this way for evidence in possible present or future sock puppetry investigations. ] (]) 09:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::: Thanks! Glad we worked that out. --] (]) 18:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

==Umar Vadillo rewrite==

I am going to reproduce Sheikh Umar Vadillo article and below is for your information. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:56, 26 November 2014‎ </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

''(Removed a copy of ])--] (]) 15:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)''

:The AfD has been relisted, so just go to work on the current article. I should be able to help in a few days. --] (]) 15:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

== Loft Conversion ==
*{{la|Loft conversion}}

Dear Ronz, I am reaching out to you as there has been persistant spamming of the loft conversion entry which you have recently edited. It seems that the commericial loft conversion companies have been busy again and lately there have been a lot of links added to commericial loft conversion companies. The main culprits are Land mark lofts, Econolofts and touchstone lofts. The latest link added to the homebuilding website is nothing more than a page sponsored by Econolofts and links to their main website.

I propose that the page is restored to the 17:40, 14 November 2014 version which appears to the latest version without the spam links. I added the link to aboutloftconversions around four years ago and I believe it is an apropriate resource as it is not for profit website and purely a reference website, although the spammers regularly replace this with links to their own websites, fortunately these are fairly quickly removed by various editors.

I feel that the recent spate of edits, a lot of which are not from signed user accounts requires the attention of an editor. Once the spammers are defeated I have a few edits to the content that I am considering making, but until the spammers have gone I am reluctant to do so as there are so many edits going on. Is there a way for this page to be flagged up for monitoring for spam?

Thanks, --]
:I'll try to find some time over the next week to look over it carefully. I agree with your concerns. At a glance, the sources look poor with reoccurring ] problems. --] (]) 19:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks Ronz. I've just had another look at the page and there is another link to a commericial website been added, I've not removed it as I'm sure another one would soon replace it. On reviewing the page there have been some ligitimate edits which I think should be left in such as the removal of dead links. I think the page on the whole is ok with the exception of the references, I have searched for a non commericial website detailing the types of loft conversions but have not been able to find a suitable one other than the aboutloftconversions one I added back in 2011. The planning portal and local authority websites do not appear to have any useful guides in this respect which is a shame. I think the first reference link to rightmove (a UK online estate agency) is a link that should be considered for removal as looking at the website I do not think its very useful at all at looks like REFSPAM. I not very experienced with WP and this seems a bit messy and I feel out of my depth so thank you for helping and I'm sure I will learn a few new things along the way. --] (]) 14:57, 02 December 2014 (UTC)

:::I've just seen your edit, I think you did the right thing in removing the reference link, otherwise it would just become an edit war. --] (]) 17:27, 02 December 2014 (UTC)

== Entry for Cimpress? Your Thoughts Appreciated ==

Hi Ronz,
I’m fairly new to Misplaced Pages – but I’ve done my homework and understand the importance the ‘bright line’ rule and conflict of interest policy. In the interest of transparency, I want you to know that I work in Corporate Communications for . I’d really like to approach Misplaced Pages in the right way and am hoping you might steer me in the right direction.

Two weeks ago it was announced that Vistaprint NV was renamed as Cimpress. You can see the public filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission . Today there is a ] and the Vistaprint brand will persist. In the past there have been some issues with individuals editing the Vistaprint page and I want to ensure we take the right approach.

My hope is that we can suggest a new entry for Cimpress be created. I’ve included the factual information about Cimpress below.
We’d really be interested in having someone like you take a look and provide these edits or share with us the best way to make this suggestion.

Thank you for your time on this and if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards, Cheryl

Cheryl Wadsworth
Director, Corporate Communications
Cimpress
781-690-2120
cwadsworth@cimpress.com


Cimpress (NASDAQ: CMPR) is a global company that performs mass customization. It is the parent company of:

• Albumprinter
• People & Print Group
• Pixartprinting
• Vistaprint

] (]) 19:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks for contacting me. I'm fairly busy right now, so I'll briefly respond on your talk page, where it will be easier for others to find and join in. --] (]) 23:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

== Imhofe's list ==
Hi there. With regard to ] your comment is welcome. Think it would be worth while to have the Imhofe list being included. ] (]) 02:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
:If you mean including each entry from the Imhofe's list into our article, absolutely not given all the NOT and BLP violations that would entail. My point is that the article's current inclusion criteria is an OR violation, and that the current appeals to OR against changes to the inclusion criteria ignore that we're not following OR to begin. --] (]) 17:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

:: The ] section]] is NOT asking to mean including each entry from Imhofe, but have separates (higher threshold) being imposed. However have alook on ], that's rolling now ;) ] (]) 21:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
==''Merry Merry''==
To you and yours ] ] (]) 16:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 11:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
:PS This isn't your fault, the redirect was expanded with a copyvio. Feel free to join the discussion but I'm not accusing you of anything. Season's greetings, ] (]) 11:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

== Global account ==

Hi Ronz! As a ] I'm involved in the upcoming ] of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see ]). By looking at your ], I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on ] and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with <nowiki>{{ping|DerHexer}}</nowiki>. Cheers, —]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 12:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

== regarding changes to my edits ==

Ronz,
The edit that I made was relevant and NOT promotional. As well as being a professional editor, I am an InfoSec expert. Do you know what public-private organizations are? Infraguard and The Cyber Security Agency are two of the prime industry examples because they work together to bridge the gap between the general public, private businesses and local and national governments for the betterment of everyones Information Security Posture.
I hope that you reconsider your removal of the relevant information that I posted.
Sincerely,
FormerPatchEditor <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Sorry, but they were blatantly promotional. --] (]) 22:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

== Nia (Fitness) edits ==

Hi Ronz,
I saw your message about adding promotional material to the NIA article, and I would like to know what content you are referring to. What I have done is remove content that was previously marked as needing a citation, or added 3rd party references. All information I have added is supported by 3rd party links. Can you be more specific about the areas of concern so that I can rework them?
Many thanks, (] (]) 00:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC))

== Learning To Edit Misplaced Pages ==

HI Ronz,
Hope you're doing well.

Thanks for bringing in to my notice that I was not adding the reliable sources.
Could you please help me in understanding on how to make it better?

Kind Regards,
] (]) 11:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC))
:Thanks for responding. Replying on your talk. --] (]) 15:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


== Youtube video links ==
You have now (on several occasions) taken down legitimate and factual references to official music videos that actresses have worked on. Why do keep removing them when thousands of other references are directly linked to the proof on youtube? Furthermore, why are you threatening to have me removed from wikipedia when I am just merely adding factual credits to actors' pages? Please let me know that you will no longer remove the factual credits that I post. Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The posts are factual REFERENCES within the legal guidelines and not under the external links section, fyi. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Thanks for responding. If you can find sources that are ] of the subject matter that are ], then add those.
:If there's something that you don't understand about the comments you have been left, I'm happy to clarify. --] (]) 19:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

== added information have many authentic references ==

I've added information with authentic references, on page, and we have evidences that they're involve in extremism. Thank you <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Sorry, but such poor sources are unacceptable, where they in fact actually verified anything that you added/changed. --] (]) 21:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

== Gluten free diet ==

I don't know what is going on with this article but it is claiming that non-Celiac's gluten sensitivity (NCGS) doesn't exist according to clinical research and cites a study that actually gives evidence to the contrary. The article cited for the claim (Biesiekierski et al., 2012) said that gluten symptoms of NCGS improved on a FODMAPs diet but got worse when exposed to gluten. I edited the article and cited peer-reviewed, scientific studies that demonstrated symptoms of gluten sensitivity for non-Celiac's, how NCGS is diagnosed, and a review of literature confirming that NCGS is a genuine syndrome but it was all removed. I could have easily added 30 more studies to prove that NCGS has been recognized as a genuine, "evidenced-based" syndrome since 2012 <ref>{{cite journal|last1=Grazyna|first1=C|title=Non coeliac gluten sensitivity – A new disease with gluten intolerance|journal=Clinical Nutrtion|date=2014|volume=|doi=10.1016/j.clnu.2014.08.012|pmid=25245857}}</ref>. But what would be the use? My 20 scientific studies are no match for a misinterpreted study? I can try contact some of the researchers involved in the original citation if that will resolve this issue but if the rest of the literature is ignored what else can I do? Thanks for your time.
:The section needs a rewrite to accurately summarize ], while emphasizing aspects relevant to a gluten free diet. Sorry I didn't make that clear with my edit summaries. --] (]) 21:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Feel free to help me understand Misplaced Pages sourcing policy better ==

Hi, Ronz, I chanced to see one of your comments on a user talk page on my watchlist, and I thought it would be interesting to hear from you what you think some of the important sourcing issues are in Misplaced Pages articles. I see from your talk page here that you often discuss those issues with other editors. I'm trying to be very meticulous about sourcing some frequently edit-warred articles, and I'd like to do my best to get them right. Any comments you have would be greatly appreciated. -- ] (], ]) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:I can try, but I mostly police articles for spam. Looking at what you've written about your editing goals, I'm not sure I have anything new for you. Maybe you could point out specific articles or policies/guidelines?
:] is my summary, focusing on BLPs. Basically, I don't think an editor can go far wrong in the choice of references that are ], ], and ]. In the all too rare cases where the dispute actually rests on such sources, then the sources should be evaluated on level of scholarship. I find that editors rarely will examine the reliability of sources very closely and that time is better spent finding consensus in NPOV issues: what information to include and at what detail. When a dispute moves along that far, and there are multiple editors involved, I try to move on to other articles...
:Is that at all helpful? Do you have specific questions? --] (]) 23:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

:: Yes, that's helpful. I'm with you in thinking that editors here will have to learn more about evaluating sources for quality. I've found that a bunch of articles that I watch have had content inserted to make disparaging ] statements that source only to an author who runs his own publishing house--in other words, a guy who basically runs a dead-tree blog. It took me a while to figure out that there are reliable secondary sources, in turn, that point that out about that author's writing career. -- ] (], ]) 18:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Glad to help.
:::BLPs should be easy given that, "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'''." In my experience, it often takes a discussion at BLPN despite the strong wording of the policy. --] (]) 19:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

== ANI ==

] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:So you are trying to circumvent consensus-making by going to ANI? ]. --] (]) 19:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

== Ayurveda ==

{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''

'''Please carefully read this information:'''

The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding ] and ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> ] (]) 22:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
:Bah. I wish I had remembered the special sanctions. As I mention on your talk, we need a alternative as what we have now is simple obstruction that prevents us from applying broader consensus. --] (]) 22:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
:: Watch out for ] ;-) Seriously though, the comment did kind of come across as unnecessary piling on. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 02:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

*I've blocked this account for 31 hours for twice violating the restrictions. Referring to "censorship" is unhelpful and is specifically forbidden under the restrictions. --] (]) 07:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|John}}
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I upset an editor by bringing up WP:CENSOR and using the words "censor" and "censorship" without better context or explanation and continued to do so after the editor claimed it was a personal attack made in bad faith. I referred to "censorship" without initially identifying the specific policy I was referring to and why, not knowing it was on a list of banned words to use in the special restrictions for the article. It's a good lesson to learn with editors that assume bad faith in others as the editor did. I should have explained clearly and focused on deescalating the situation instead of pushing as I did. As I mentioned earlier, I cannot remember which articles (in the over 5,000 items from my watchlist) are under special restrictions and what they might be. The article is off my watch list. I won't participate in editing or discussions there for at least a month other than to identify I'm doing so. I doubt I'll be interested in editing it at all while the special restrictions are in place. I'll apologise to the editor and, if the editor is interested, explain my point of view on the editor's talk page. ] (]) 16:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | accept = Fair enough. Talking about censorship isn't helpful as others may find it offensive, which is why I listed it (along with "quack") as an example of a word to avoid in the restrictions. I have read the exchange below and in my judgement this block is no longer necessary to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, so I undo it. ] (]) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)}}
:Thanks! --] (]) 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm focusing on the actual situation rather than the special sanctions.

Diffs: ]. While I didn't use it for name-calling purposes, I should have backed off when the editor assumed bad faith and that I was making a personal attack.

WP:CENSOR starts, "Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. Misplaced Pages cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." In my opinion, the editor (and other editors) is calling on social norms to be applied in such a way as to censor significant point of view (including categorization, identification, and labeling) from the article. That the topic is religious in nature is also repeatedly being brought up as rationale as well.--] (]) 17:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

==Ayurveda context and religion==
No one is suggesting censoring anything. Asking for context in not censorship. Since Kww brought up the religious aspect perhaps you'd like to discuss the religious points with him. My position and I do consider your and Kww cmts personal attacks, is that Ayurveda may have religious elements but is not religious, and at no time do I indicate this position has any bearing on the label pseudoscience. My cmt about religion is a rebutt of KWW suggestion that Ayurveda a health care system is religious rather than contains religious elements. I have to say that I am a little tired of being attacked for things I didn't say and especially that personal attacks are not the best way to deal with points under discussion anyway. Sheesh.(] (]) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC))
:My apologies. As I said, I should have focused on deescalating the situation as soon as you identified that you felt you were the target of personal attacks. From my perspective, that is a priority. We shouldn't expect collaboration if editors feel attacked. We must take the time to ensure we have a collaborative editing environment. --] (]) 17:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

::Perhaps one shouldn't expect collaboration but continued collaboration is what I am giving that discussion as long as I stay on that article. Thanks for your apology. I appreciate it.(] (]) 17:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC))
:::Thank you. --] (]) 17:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

== Bosnian pyramids removed edit ==

Hi Ronz :-) actually I think that it was not neutral and correct before, because the references and conclusion were outdated - excavations in visocica hill started in 2005 and criticism comes from 2006, while now in 2015 there is a lot of evidence and I think that wikipedia readers should be able to read about early criticism as well as about recent evidence. Especially "following a news-media campaign promoting the '''false''' idea" doesn't seem neutral to me. Few months ago I personally concluded that Bosnian Pyramids are completely hoax because I read these two wiki pages. Few months later, I heard from someone else and searched some new and additional info and found out that these two wiki pages are outdated and "hoax" conclusion might be wrong.
Thank you for your re-consideration. Please, what can I do to make it neutral? -- ] (]) 13:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC) <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Sorry, but it is actually understating the reliable sources. Do look over the article talk pages. --] (]) 16:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:: Ok, let's just keep the earth flat :-) -- ] (]) 00:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
::: Is the pyramid foundation claiming that too? --] (]) 00:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

. In my experience, most of the time when an editor says they'll get to something "next week", they are expressing a desire to make the time, but probably won't actually. However, I think that's as close to an apology as you'll get and may give you some relief from the feeling of being attacked. I can see why someone, like I did, would have assumed the article was more unfair than it was actually, being that a particularly negative article is NPOV in this particular case.

If you ever want me to look at something in the future, feel free to ping me. There are quite a number of cases where having an un-involved editor come in can help diffuse an otherwise combative situation. ] (]) 18:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
:]. Thank you. --] (]) 20:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

== COI related article nominated for deletion ==

Hi Ronz,

There is a new essay on the subject of COI that I recently ]. There is a lot of back and forth going on as you might imagine, and I thought it might be helpful to ask some editors with a historical interest in the area to give their input.

Just to be clear, you are not being canvassed based on my perceptions of what your views are. I am asking for input from the , expecting that some expertise and interest might be found here.

Thanks in advance for your input, if you feel able and willing to participate. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 23:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
:As I recently wrote at COIN, if there's no evidence, then it's inappropriate to bring up. --] (]) 17:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

== my high level thinking on COI stuff ==

Talking about arbcom and dealing with COIN.... i wanted to lay out my thinking, and get your feedback.

Two key cases are:
* ]
* ]

In my view the TimidGuy appeal and Wifione case together make it really clear what the wrong way to handle COI concerns are, and what the right way is. There are three levels to this - the focus of the case, the behavior of the ones bringing it, and the choice of venue There is also a strong likelihood (in my view) that cases of longterm paid editing will continue to end up at Arbcom. I also want to note that i didn't live through the Will BeBack case and I know that case upset a lot of people that i respect; if i say something wrong or stupid about it, i apologize in advance and would like to be corrected so i understand it better.

* Focus. In the TimidGuy appeal, the focus on COI ''alone'', especially with no/little evidence of paid editing ''per se'' in-WP, gets nowhere. In the Wifione case, the concerns about paid editing were mentioned, but if you look at the evidence page, it overwhelmingly focused on NPOV editing behavior.
* Behavior. obviously the outcomes were different. WBB (the white knight) was site banned for harassment; Wifione was desysopped and banned. Now part of that is the atmosphere, politics, and a lot of bad feelings following the WBB case, but the behavior ''was'' different. From what I can gather (and again i apologize if i got this wrong) WBB found used off-wiki material (mostly bringing it in the various off-wiki systems of communications here), and was aggressive in pursuing TImidGuy in a lot of forums here in WP. In the wifione case, while Vejvančický did bring things up in several places, but was much less aggressive about it, it did finally end up in the proper forum and Vejvančický was not even dinged for harassment. I asked Vejvančický about where he tried to bring this to the community ] and my take on his reply was that he was a bit scared, and also very uncertain about where to bring to it, but he posted it several places - none of them where it could be acted on. And I said "yep". You have to bring things in a forum where people can act, otherwise it is a waste of time and approaches harassment. But bottom line here - if you approach this wrong, you may end up on the wrong side of the case. You have to keep your nose clean when you are pursuing something like this. As you know, Arbcom is infamous for rolling heads all around. Whether the venue is ANI or arbcom, you don't want to create a distraction with your own behavior, nor give them an excuse to sanction you. Nose clean.
* Venue. Both arbcom cases are characterized by a lot of floundering and making of accusations (often the wrong ones) in the wrong places. Wifione was brought to COIN, but wasn't followed up on by folks there. And COIN has not been a real focus of community attention. As a final venue after COIN, I do think that arbcom may be the best place to do it, actually. It is much more controlled than ANI, where you get all kinds of random input, partisans who jump in either "side" and write frankly stupid things with their own agendas, and things are generally very easily derailed. Arbcom won't take a case unless it has been addressed elsewhere first. I don't think there has been a case yet where something was first, and unsuccessfully, addressed at COIN alone. I am interested in adding a process - editor Talk page to COIN to Arbcom - to the model that Vejvančický and the others who brought the Wifione case, created the last step of. We now have the model for the last step, which is great. We have to build out the model for how to get there. Those three steps are, in the ways of Misplaced Pages, a very clear and sound path, in my view. My thinking there may not reflect what the community and Arbcom are willing and able to do, but that is my thinking now.


== Why did you remove this? ==
There is someone i am 80% sure is a fairly longterm paid editor whom i have been watching for a while and have not approached under regular COI procedures yet. I am going to do that soon, and my sense is that the person is going to deny, and I think (am not sure yet) that this is going to be my test case for bringing a COI case to the community under NPOV. If the editor denies my initial approach on their Talk page, I will bring that to COIN and will try to get a resolution there. If I cannot (there are vanishingly few admins who pay attention there) I will bring that either to Arbcom or ANI. But when I bring it, it will be very clean - with no harassment or uncivil behavior on my side, and a very clear set of diffs showing a long term pattern of NPOV violations. Clean and straight. I need to wait a while to do this, as i have had too much drama at ANI lately.


On what basis did you remove this edit?
Anyway, what do you think of all that? ] (]) 13:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Mearsheimer&diff=prev&oldid=1261433814 ] (]) 20:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:Exactly. COIN if there's strong evidence of a coi and of violating WP:COI's editing restrictions. Otherwise BLP, NPOV, and other content noticeboards.
:Did you look? The edit summary suggests it's redundant with another edit, very likely the addition of the same link as a reference. --] (]) 20:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:It all comes down to content-editing behavior. Granted there are different behavioral requirements if there is a coi, but if there's no very strong evidence of an undisclosed coi then editors should simply follow our other policies.
:COIN needs to become a more effective venue, given how important it is.
:I find ANI to be unreliable for the application of policy. Bad faith assumptions run rampant there at times, sometimes to the point where content problems are completely ignored.
:(I should respond more when I have then time...) --] (]) 16:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
::thx, sounds like same page. would love love to have more experienced hands at COIN. follow up is so important there, and having patient conversations. in the meantime as always we make do with what we have. ] (]) 16:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


== Reverts in "Fringe science" == == just a note to say ==


thx for working through the issues with me
Due to a mistyping, I forgot to add a summary to my recent reversion. I was going to say "Regardless of what the reference says, inclusion of "New Age" here is POV and not permissible. The term "mumbo jumbo" alone makes the point." ] (]) 16:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
:Sorry, but I don't understand how this context could be a problem, only it's removal. --] (]) 16:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 03:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I wish we were making more progress, and that I had more time to dig through the current and potential refs. --] (]) 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:29, 14 January 2025


Hipal is busy and is going to be on Misplaced Pages in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.



Welcome to the Misplaced Pages user discussion page for Hipal/Ronz.
To leave a message on this page, click here.

  • In order to make conversations go smoothly, please follow WP:TALK and WP:AGF when contributing to my talk page. Comments that don't may be immediately deleted.
  • I will respond to your comment, and try to do so promptly, on your talk page if not here.
  • I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know.
  • Sign your post using four tildes ( -- ~~~~ )

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

This user is not an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify)
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: They should not be given alerts for those areas.


Archive

Archives

Extended content
  1. - Nov 2006
  2. Dec 2006
  3. Jan 2007
  4. Feb - 9 Apr 2007
  5. Apr 2007
  6. May 2007
  7. Jun 2007
  8. Jul - Aug 2007
  9. Aug - Oct 2007
  10. Oct - Dec 2007
  11. Jan 2008 - Feb 2008
  12. Feb 2008
  13. Mar 2008 - Apr 2008
  14. Apr 2008 - Jun 2008
  15. Jun 2008
  16. Jul 2008
  17. Aug 2008
  18. Sep 2008
  19. Oct 2008
  20. Nov-Dec 2008
  21. Jan 2009
  22. Feb 2009
  23. Mar-Apr 2009
  24. Apr-Jul 2009
  25. Jul-Aug 2009
  26. Sep 2009
  27. Nov-Dec 2009
  28. Dec 2009-Jan 2010
  29. Feb-Mar 2010
  30. Apr-May 2010
  31. Jun-Jul 2010
  32. Aug 2010
  33. Sep 2010
  34. Oct 2010
  35. Nov-Dec 2010
  36. Jan-Feb 2011
  37. Mar-Dec 2011
  38. 2012
  39. Jan-Jun 2013
  40. Jul-Dec 2013
  41. Jan-Jun 2014
  42. Jul-Dec 2014
  43. 2015
  44. Jan-Jun 2016
  45. Jul-Sep 2016
  46. Oct-Dec 2016
  47. Jan-Jun 2017
  48. Jul-Dec 2017
  49. Jan-Jun 2018
  50. Jul-Dec 2018
  51. Jan-Dec 2019
  52. Jan-Dec 2020
  53. Jan-Dec 2021
  54. Jan-Dec 2022
  55. Jan-Dec 2023

Question about Ad Fontes Media

Why is the article for Ad Fontes Media controversial? I see there has been some discussion about whether or not their rating are suitable RS for Misplaced Pages, but I don't quite understand why there is so much energy about the article itself. Is there something in the article's history? Nowa (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The political issues (WP:CT/AP) with rating media, more prominent with All Sides. --Hipal (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Hipal!

Happy New Year!

Hipal,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.
Abishe (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for de-escalating the situation and for doing what you did. I appreciate the way you handled this after initially getting off to a rocky start. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You are correct

I won't use unreliable sources next time. Alon Alush (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Questions

Hello. I had a few questions about your recent edits on the Ed Young page that I am perplexed about.

1. Why did you remove pieces of the bio include ‘writer, speaker, artist’? Is he not an writer/author or speaker?

2. Why was the New York Times Bestselling Author section of the bio removed? You claimed ‘SOAP, COI editing’ but did not attempt to find any sources for what you removed or verify the sources that were currently there, you just removed it all? Seems more detrimental to the page than verifying and editing.

3. Could you explain why "50 Shades of They" by Ed Young, published by Creality Publishing and available on mainstream platforms like Amazon and Barnes & Noble, was removed from the bibliography? Given its relevance to Young's work in relationship counseling and its broad distribution, shouldn't it be included in his Misplaced Pages bibliography?

4. I’m confused as to why you added back the lifestyle section but removed the part ab Ed Young denying the report. You claimed it was an ‘interview’ in your edit. There were other editors in the talk section who agreed that this source was relevant and good prior to you removing it and it helped bring neutrality to a controversial section of a BLOP.

I’m genuinly trying to understand and i appreciate you helping me become a better Wiki Editor. Thank you 5dondons (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you're repeating yourself without apparent understanding of previous discussions and policies. Continue like this, and WP:IDHT might apply.
You are a WP:SPA account working on an article where you're following in the footsteps of many editors with a clear WP:COI. You say you don't have a COI, but your behavior so far is indistinguishable from them.
In light of and , you need to rethink what you're actually doing here. I strongly suggest you walk back what you wrote in that second diff.
The lifestyle section is back because the references are good. Removal of properly referenced content is a POV violation. We've been over this already, to the point where it looks like you're not reading what others have to say, nor understanding the relevant policies.
The other questions deal with WP:NOT and WP:POV issues. I'm just doing some initial, simple cleanup of all the COI editing that has gone on. --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I've removed your response as failing the instructions at the top of this page.

If you're not going to walk back your statements here, please tread extremely lightly. --Hipal (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know you stand by your comments at RfPP. Given that, I suggest you find other articles to work on, avoiding all areas where editing limits apply. --Hipal (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop reverting. I've responded. Until you can make far greater efforts to follow TALK and AGF, you're at very best wasting time. --Hipal (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I wasn't looking forward to a COIN report and the further drama that would likely result. I don't like what drama occurred, but at least it was relatively contained. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

John Mearsheimer bibliography dispute

Notifying you I have requested a third opinion here. Ivan (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Biased user

Ratnahastin has an anti-BJP and pro-INC bias, and engage in edit war. Their edits are a mix of content removal (sourced), POV pushing, censoring, and misrepresentation of sources. Refer the edit history and talk page of Enforcement Directorate in early April this year, also check the edit warring in Katchatheevu from 31 March where the user tag-teamed with Rzvas for content removal without even providing a valid explanation. The problem in those articles still prevails.--106.206.219.12 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.
I'd rather not expand my scope of editing at this time into more WP:CT/IPA until a few more broad enforcement actions take place. Be sure to document the problems will on the appropriate article talk pages and noticeboards to help with enforcement. --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

More soon

I know we're mid discussion but I got Covid Monday :/ Ocaasi 14:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Get well soon. I hope you can get access to an antiviral treatment if necessary. --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm ok. Just sleeping for 3 days! Thanks for your thoughts. Ocaasi 10:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Are we good (in your opinion) on the current version? I can live with it. Ocaasi 21:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Welcome back. I hope you've recovered.
It looks like good progress. Thank you for your help. --Hipal (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I had a mild case, and aside from sleeping 60 hours straight, no symptoms (thanks Advil + Tylenol!). No antiviral needed, and I'm back to my usual workload. As for the article, I think it's getting much closer to not being able to tell whether a proponent or opponent of FM wrote it, which is a good sign. This is the way of compromise. I appreciate your willingness to accept certain changes, albeit not ALL of them! :) Ocaasi 22:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverted contributions?

Interested in specific feedback as to why the recent contributions to Diamandis were reverted – as well as preferences for making meaningful contributions to the page. Chadnjgrant (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

PROMO - please work in smaller edits with clear edit summaries
I left some detailed feedback on your talk page as well. --Hipal (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Eric Jacobson article/talkpage message

Hi Hipal,

Earlier today, you removed a section from Eric Jacobson -- to be clear, I agree with your edits and reasons. I did not write the section. However, I would like to address the talkpage message you left for me afterwards. While I can see that this was a copy/paste "welcome" that I'm sure you've left for others (likely in many cases that warranted it), I'd frankly just like to be clear: I am familiar with the policies you've linked and have done my best to adhere to them in my edits, despite being a "new" editor. I have recently boosted articles, such as Dave Goelz and Bill Prady, with copy-edits/clean-up, formatting, sources, and general expansion. I welcome you to compare their current versions and their states prior to my edits.

I believe the message was unwarranted in this scenario. Tvfunhouse (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I made a mistake, the talkpage message was right before the article edit - but I'm still assuming it was correlated, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Hopefully you'll find that my contributions align with the policies you mentioned. Tvfunhouse (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad you are familiar with the policies.
Therichest.com is a poor source, inappropriate for BLPs, and probably not reliable at all. . --Hipal (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert

Thanks for reverting this erroneous edit. Obviously 2022 is 8 years after 2014, not two years prior to 2014.
My bad. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what happened. We all make mistakes. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sachs

Hello. I come to your talk page because you have reverted my edit in Jeffrey Sachs arguing it is promotional.

I consider it important for readers of Sachs' biography to know which political ideas and parties he supports. I agree nevertheless that the reference I used as source is clearly partisan (the Green Party itself) so I propose to reintroduce the text with this reference, which is Sachs' piece endorsing Stein.

Looking forward to your reply Hispalois (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hispalois. Thank you for starting a discussion about this.
Briefly, it requires better sources that are clearly independent of the subjects for us to say it's important enough to include. See WP:NOTPROMO, WP:POV, WP:BLPPRIMARY, and WP:RECENTISM. --Hipal (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to those policies. In BLPPRIMARY, I see that it is ok to use Sachs' own statement: "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if..." (and I think my reference matches all points). The policy I do see as problematic is that my edit can be considered Recentism. To counter that, I propose expanding the sentence to all of Jeffrey Sachs's public endorsements: Bernie Sanders in 2016, Sanders again in 2020 and now Stein in 2024. What do you think? Hispalois (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. By including it without an independent source, we are promoting Sach's political viewpoints and his support of Stein. --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
You are correct @Hispalois, it is acceptable, though many BLP patrollers prefer to interpret the last sentence of WP:BLPPRIMARY as meaning you can only use it if you cannot find a detail in independent sources, and only if it is essential to the biography. You don't need to worry as much about that for normal biographies, but this one is more politicised. If you are unsure if an article is politically relevant in the present, look for clues like, in this case, "He has been criticized ..." in the lead or the presence of a multi-subsection "Critical reception" section.
So it is safer to cite this: <ref>{{cite news |date=2024-04-29 |first=Richard |last=Winger |author-link=Richard Winger |title=Jeffrey Sachs Endorses Jill Stein |url=https://ballot-access.org/2024/04/29/jeffrey-sachs-endorses-jill-stein |newspaper=Ballot Access News}}</ref> instead. The more relevant policy is actually WP:BLPSELFPUB, where so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources, it merely has to fulfill the following criteria: (1) it is not unduly self-serving; (2) it does not involve claims about third parties; (3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. I have swapped sources and moved the statement to "Personal life". Ivan (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Hispalois (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
(Ivan, your commenting here is probably a bad idea, especially so soon after your being blocked.) --Hipal (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with Ivan's solution. The ballot-access.org ref demonstrates no weight or encyclopedic value. It's not even an article, rather just a mention that Sachs made an endorsement. It doesn't even rise to the level of warmed over press release, which would also not be enough. If ballot-access.org doesn't give it more coverage, we certainly shouldn't.
My rule of thumb is to look for content in the references that demonstrates historical importance of the event/topic/etc for the subject of the article where it could be included. --Hipal (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why you undid my edits to Jeffrey Sachs' bio.

Could you please explain why, on Sept 4, you removed my edits on Jeffrey Sachs' bio page. I included links to and a few quotations from articles that Sachs wrote about the war in Ukraine. I figured that the section on the war in Ukraine should, at least, explain Sachs' views!

Thank you, Don ThinkerFeeler (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding to your comment on the aritcle talk page. Doing so now. --Hipal (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Joey Skaggs Advert Code

Can you explain what areas need work, revisions, removal, and so on that cause this issue? Or alternatively change these elements to aid in correcting the page. I have reviewed and edited it multiple times but am struggling to find the specifics that have not been pointed out for correction or clarification. Thank you for your help! Mr-asthmatic (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mr-asthmatic. Thanks for starting a discussion about this.
I've not looked closely at all the references, but my impression at this time is that a total rewrite might be necessary.
I suggest you follow the recommendations I already made on your talk page.
If you insist on continuing to work on the article, I'd start by removing all the self-published sources and associated content. --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Promo?

I am intrigued by the instant removal of study buddhism on Berzin's article - it basically removes any sense of what he has been doing in the last ten years or more is gone - do you ever consider re-writes? JarrahTree 01:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm rather baffled by your comment given your editing history. It's a BLP article, BLP content, sourced to a self-published reference. The solution is to either find a BLP-quality source that's independent of the subjects, or leave it out. --Hipal (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
In turn I find many editors are ready to tag/remove, but never actually edit or improve articles. Fair enough, keep up the good work. JarrahTree 02:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I find it problematic to work from such assumptions, especially with well-established editors. --Hipal (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
my apologies then, I understand your BLP policy issue re self referencing without RS I even remember when the BLP issue almost took WP down , and have no problem with that. As to the rest, ... JarrahTree 02:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. --Hipal (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Need your help

Please visit "Cradles of civilization" article and settle the "Indus/India" dispute Qaiser-i-Mashriq (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Qaiser-i-Mashriq. I see that Hypnôs has already provided you with good advice on your talk page. I've left you some general information to supplement it.
Unfortunately, I don't see myself having the time to assist with the article directly. The topic is under special editing restrictions (WP:CT/IPA). Please take care with how you continue. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

AP Political Bias

Hi, how are you?

I see that you undid my addition to the AP News article that AP News has a slight left of center bias. I read what you wrote as to why you removed my edit, but I did not understand it. Would you be able to explain further what was wrong about my edit? PotatoKugel (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I'll respond in the talk page discussion. --Hipal (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

1RR

Hey you violated 1RR here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

And you violated the sanctions that apply to the article.
I've subsequently modified the content. What do you suggest? Revert to the previous version and make a proposal? I'll do that. --Hipal (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Dan Abrams Page

Hi Hipal,

I hope this email finds you well. We noticed you flagged Dan Abrams' page for reading like an advertisement. I work with Dan, and we've been trying to improve the accuracy of the page; currently, the impression is that Dan is first and foremost a TV person when he is first and foremost a media company owner. We're happy to get rid of anything that might be promotional while still being able to update the content to reflect Dan's work. Do you have any suggestions for what we can do to make this happen? We'd love to be in touch with you so that we can make sure that we make changes that work in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies. Thank you!

Best, Zoe 2020AM2009 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Zoe. Thank you for reaching out to me concerning Dan Abrams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Briefly:
You should take time to properly disclose your conflict of interest. Instructions are on User_talk:2020AM2009.
You should be making edit requests on the article talk page rather than directly editing the article per WP:COI.
Misplaced Pages articles should be written from a historical perspective (see WP:RECENTISM). It may be very difficult for you to find that perspective given your relationship with Abrams.
Generally, articles should be written from references that provide broad context for the subject matter. The Abrams article appears to have been written from press releases and similarly promotional sources that have little context beyond whatever is being announced. --Hipal (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Hi Hipal. Just to let you know, many sources cite Carson Wentz as German from Russia. Horvat is about the most Croatian Name you can have. Scherzer seems pretty obviously German. I don’t like all these ethnicity rollbacks. Stating someone’s ethnicity is important Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me. Especially with living persons, high-quality references are required. We should not be editing articles based upon guesses or assumptions. Sanctions apply to these articles, so we need to be cautious. I hope you understand. --Hipal (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
It’s not a guess. It is a fact. These rules are ridiculous. I personally believe players that do not state an ethnicity should be banned for life TBH Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Also, Bo Horvat is an obvious one Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
If you find the rules to be ridiculous, then you should rethink why you're here. --Hipal (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Should also let you know that I am autistic, so I sometimes find these things a bid hard Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
You may want to look over Misplaced Pages:Questions to familiarize yourself with some of the venues available to ask questions and get help. --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Done deal. I couldn’t find anything about Bo Horvat identifying as Croatian, or Carson Wetnz or Max Scherzer identifying as German. I'll be honest, it’s very possible that Bo Horvat, Carson Wentz and Max Scherzer only care about people knowing that they are Canadian, American and and American respectively. It’s just that I have some relatives that identifies strongly as Scottish, and might have mislead me to believe that people identify with their ethnicity. It actually might be quite rare. I think I have figured that many people in Australia, Canada and the United States identify as just Australians, Canadians and Americas. In New Zealand (Where they are from, not me though) it is more common for people to identify with their ancestral home. Sometimes we make mistakes. And we learn from our mistakes. And let’s not make assumptions, or at very least not publish those assumptions Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Science of identity formation

It's being repeatedly vandalised since Tulsi's nomination and it's controversial practices removed falsely in the name of NPOV. Please do something. 2409:40E1:30C4:5D3E:AB02:B801:576F:3947 (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. Yes, we should expect attempts at whitewashing the article. Best to identify the problems with the references, on the article talk page. I'm trying to keep an eye on the article. --Hipal (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanking note

I thank you that you removed false claims on the article Rajiv Dixit and wrote what is write, rather than the ideological form. Regards, Ved Sharma  Kharavela Deva (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It was the direct outcome of the article talk page discussions, noticeboard discussions, and the recent RfC. --Hipal (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove this?

On what basis did you remove this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Mearsheimer&diff=prev&oldid=1261433814 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you look? The edit summary suggests it's redundant with another edit, very likely the addition of the same link as a reference. --Hipal (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

just a note to say

thx for working through the issues with me Humanengr (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I wish we were making more progress, and that I had more time to dig through the current and potential refs. --Hipal (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
User talk:Hipal: Difference between revisions Add topic