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.
'''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 />
'''*Sign your post using four tildes ( <nowiki>-- ~~</nowiki>~~ )'''<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 />
''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}}<!-- From template:Happy New Year fireworks --> <span style="color: blue">—</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">⋠]⋡</span></sup> 02:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
== Lucie Fink Deletion ==
A few monthes ago, I began to contribute to some articles of the English as well as the French Misplaced Pages.
Why did you delete Lucie Fink? The page was legitimate and verifiable. ] (]) 05:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I have been working on the Gravikord page. When I first worked on it, I restructurated it and added chapters, links and references. I have to confess that at this moment I removed the tags about the multiple issues of the article.
:Paulthelawyer is referring to the ] article, which you PRODded. I restored it per , but I wanted to let you know in case you want to take it to AfD. Cheers, ] (]) 05:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Paulthelawyer}} Do you have a ] with the article, as editors have indicated on the article talk page? --] (]) 17:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
== A barnstar for you! ==
I do apologize for doing that; I was new on Misplaced Pages and I sincerely thought that the changes I had made were the correct ones. I understand now that it was not the good way to act and that I could not be a judge. You restored the tags and I understand the reason.
Since this day I continued to work on the gravikord page; I do hope it is written in an adequate way now. Please could you see (when you have time for it) if it is ok and if the tags can be taken away ? If you think there is still work to do I should be interested in knowing how I can improve the article.
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For the warm and insightful welcome messages you leave on new editors' talk pages. ] <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"><nowiki>{</nowiki><nowiki>{</nowiki>ping<nowiki>}}</nowiki> me!</sup> (] | ]) 16:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
|}
==Re: ethnicelebs.com as a reference==
Best Regards,
Hi, first of all, sorry for my bad English... :-) Thank you for explaining to me how to use sources in English Misplaced Pages in the future. I point out that I have expanded the article this time using the geneastar.org source, which was already present in the article (I had to register to find the information, and in fact they are slightly different from what ethnicelebs.com reported). I hope now Ron DeSantis article is okay. Thanks again. --] (]) 21:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC).
== A barnstar for you! ==
(] (]) 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
:Thanks for following up!
:While the article is much improved, I don't think any of the problems are close to being resolved. The majority of the article doesn't even have references. Let's leave the tags to invite others to help you to improve the article. --] (]) 18:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for the welcome ] (]) 21:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
|}
== Michael O'Leary (Businessman) ==
Thank you for your answer.
Hi Hipal (or is there a concealed tautology in that?)
Sure, if anyone can help improving the article, it is a very good thing - and remains the basis of Misplaced Pages.
I read the edit summary for your revert and note that, of the 2 issues, you address only citations. I have reread the text and you will see what I said about fanPOV. Hence I have reduced the tag to leave just the one issue.
May I ask you to look at that issue again. I examined the references and they are mostly from perfectly reputable sources- Irish Times, New York Times, Irish Independent, Forbes, BBC etc.
I also checked the few refs from biographies which MIGHT be favourable, and they refer only to the most basic biographical information. ] (]) 19:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:I responded on the article talk page, referring to my original addition of the tag. In this case, there's a clear anti-fan pov problem. --] (]) 21:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
== what to do? ==
Nevertheless, I have to say that I am a little bit surprised by your answer. Though these instruments - the Gravikord and its cousin the Gravi-kora - have only 24 years of life, they have already inspired musicians and composers as different as Foday Musa Suso - an African djeli - and Jacques Burtin - a French composer -, whose works have been produced by Columbia, Polydor or Island Records in the USA (Foday Musa Suso, along with Herbie Hancock or Bill Laswell) or Bayard Musique in France (Jacques Burtin). These are no self productions (I insist on this point) but official ones and can be bought in stores or on the Internet. That is the reason why it seems to me that the notability of this instrument is no more to be proved.
Dear User. Just wanted to ask. I found such parts of text on the Gecko browser page:
It also seems to me that the article is not anymore written as an advertisement, if it were, since the chapters actually follow a neutral, technical point of view (description, tuning, musical notation...) and are written in that spirit.
Development of the layout engine now known as Gecko began at ] in 1997, following the company's purchase of ]. The existing Netscape rendering engine, originally written for ] 1.0 and upgraded through the years, was slow, did not comply well with W3C standards, had limited support for ] and lacked features such as incremental reflow (when the layout engine rearranges elements on the screen as new data is downloaded and added to the page). The new layout engine was developed in parallel with the old, with the intention being to integrate it into Netscape Communicator when it was mature and stable. At least one more major revision of Netscape was expected to be released with the old layout engine before the switch.
Of course, there are few external references, but could it be otherwise for a new instrument ? As you certainly know, the saxophone was created by Adolphe Sax in the Nineteeth Century (in 1841) ; the French composer Hector Berlioz already included a saxophone in one of his compositions (« Chant sacré », « A Sacred Song ») in 1844... but the saxophone was only accepted by the Paris French Conservatory one century after (in 1941) ! For the new instruments (as well as the new concepts), academic or public references may not be immediate or numerous. However, the fact that these instruments are already used by composers or musicians could be the proof they found a way to exist in another mind than their inventor’s.
After the launch of the Mozilla project in early 1998, the new layout engine code was released under an open-source license. Originally unveiled as ''Raptor'', the name had to be changed to ''NGLayout'' (next generation layout) due to ] problems. Netscape later rebranded NGLayout as ''Gecko''. While ] (the forerunner of the ]) initially continued to use the NGLayout name (Gecko was a Netscape trademark), eventually the Gecko branding won out.<sup>]'']</sup>
You may not agree with that and I shall respect your decision but I wished to express my feelings.
////
Best Regards,
] (]) 17:26, 2March2011 (UTC)
and many more. they are not linked with news websites, nor books. How do you address such issues? it that normal? ] (]) 16:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
:Hi V21v. I'm not clear about what you're asking, but I'll try to respond best I can:
:Thanks for drawing my attention back to this with your thoughtful response. Sorry that I didn't explain further.
:You're quoting content from ], and that content does not appear to be ] with a reference. I expect in a case like this, an editor could find suitable references to use by searching the Internet. --] (]) 17:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
:I left the advertisement notice because of the history of the article and the lack of references. If you'll follow the two links in the notice, I hope it makes more sense. The article has been and continues to be a ] for the instrument. It needs more and better sources, and at least some of those new sources should be used to determine what information we present and how prominently we present it.
:I hope someone will work on establishing the ] of the topic within the article. It will probably require more sources to do so and at least some discussion on the talk page. I'll help anyone that does.
:Thanks again for your work on the article, and your patience with me. --] (]) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
== Sam AI BLP ==
Thank you, Ronz.
Hello, Hipal and/or Ronz. I'm unsure if this is a shared account. I notice that Ronz is on break from Misplaced Pages. If Hipal = Ronz, please accept my apologies for this intrusion. The most recent entry on the BLP talk page of the now very-famous SV entrepreneur ] indicates removal of his marital/partner status. I am confused, because the source is WP:RS, it being ''The New York Times''. I also noticed your stated mission in editing Misplaced Pages, which seems to be one of tact while preserving integrity. That is why I'm broaching this here, not on the article talk page. Specifically, I need to know if there a reason for excluding that information from the BLP? If so, I will not reinsert it.
Best regards,
] (]) 08:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If you respond here, please ping me, if you would be so kind?
== Superfood ==
No, I am not a troll nor (very) autistic! My reason for making this belabored inquiry is as follows: I became a childless widow at a young age, so I keep an eye out for unmarried men during the course of my Misplaced Pages editing. I know that widowed Misplaced Pages readers do too! It is helpful for us to be informed of the sort of information that was deleted from Chatty Sam's BLP. Thank you for reading this; I apologize for the lengthiness. -- ] (]) 15:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Both statements that dark chocolate (1) is a superfood and (2) is one of the most potent of superfoods, are supported by widely accepted quantitative evidence. These are facts, not conjecture.
:Hello again! '''''Now''''' I understand! I just went through the history and . Please disregard my prior message. Sorry for the clutter; you can delete or hat it if you prefer. I '''DO''' agree with you, about the article having a promotional aspect, and thank you for tagging it. I'll do some editing and try to address that now.--] (]) 15:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry for the confusion. Glad that you're looking into the article. I did some quick cleanup, but there are still questionable sources and content based upon them. --] (]) 16:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
== Sandy Koufax family origins ==
I can (1) provide you with evidence/documentation of the fact that dark chocolate is one of the most potent of superfoods, and, if needed, (2) further edit the article with that supporting documentation to add to the case that the article is, in fact, enhanced with that evidence.
Hey, @]. I noticed you removed the information I added about Koufax's family. The reason I used these sources is because they are also used on other pages and thought it would be alright. I also found the information to match other sources.
Is that sufficient?
If I am mistake as to the reason you removed them, I apologize. I am still quite new to all this and figuring my way around. ] (]) 13:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
If not, then what supporting evidence is necessary, as I am not 'shooting from the hip' here.
:Those sources are unreliable and should not be used, which you seem to understand for one Point out any other pages using such sources, and I'll remove them too. --] (]) 17:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
::I understand. Will keep in mind and not use these sources. I now went back and noticed those pages are not featured articles and, hence, not as accurate. I will remove such sources myself should I come across them.
::Thank you for your help. Much appreciated! ] (]) 18:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
::I would like you to clarify something: Find A Grave is used as a source in a lot of deceased peoples' pages. Is that source considered accurate?
::Also, should refrain from using geneology sites when referring to a person's relatives/ancestors? Would really appreciate the help. ] (]) 18:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Take a look at the listings at ]. There are some genealogical sites that are reliable, but many include user-generated content. Find-a-grave links are an ongoing problem, but I've not kept up to date on the efforts to remove it as a reference and minimize its use as an external link. --] (]) 19:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Will keep a lookout for those links then. Thank you very much for your help. ] (]) 19:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
== Fiona Apple ==
Thank You. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Thanks for following up on this.
:Yes, sources would be required before we could continue very far. It would be best to start a discussion on the ], and include some references there. --] (]) 19:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I am so sorry. I forgot about that. Thanks for the help there! ] (]) 16:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Ronz,
== PragerU Kids sourcing ==
Here are my first references, all of which correlate dark chocolate and/or cacao, with anti-oxidant
value and properties, and further, to specific and documented benefits.
What's wrong with primary sourcing here? From my understanding independent sourcing is generally required to avoid NPOV problems and to establish the notability of a topic in the first place, so that had seemed fine to be primary sourced, although I'm not too clear on the guidelines for media summary. ] (]) 22:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web|title=A List of the Best Antioxidants|url=http://oracvalues.com/|work=Oracvalues.com -The Internet Antioxidant Database|accessdate=03/02/2011}}</ref>
:Hi MasterTriangle12. Thanks for following up with me on this.
:It's their self-published information promoting themselves, so fails NOT (]) and POV (]). --] (]) 23:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
::BESTSOURCES is the most general summary of NPOV sourcing, reading further gives a better idea of sourcing policy. ] is a general overview of using primary sources, and the use of primary sources for media summaries like this. As to NOTPROMO was that just about including the quote from their website? I did want to make that whole quote a link to ] just for clarity, but that would probably be going too far with meta-editorialization. I think some of the wording could probably be changed to ensure that it cannot be interpreted as puffery though, which specific parts of those paragraphs did you think were not appropriate? ] (]) 06:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Without a high-quality, clearly independent reference to draw upon, I don't see any way to move forward per NOT and POV. We're writing encyclopedia articles, not advertising copy. --] (]) 16:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
::::I don't think that can easily be interpreted as advertising, and a few small changes would make that not a problem. I think you are misinterpreting those policies as being far more restrictive than they actually are, since it sounds like you think that primary sources cannot be used at all to describe what a company does or produces, or their statements about what they do, which is only the case for the being the basis of an ''article topic'' (often misread as being broader than that). NPOV & PROMO can certainly be used as part of an argument against including primary sourced material, sometimes even the whole argument if it is bad enough, but that is very different from it simply not being allowed, and there are several clarifications in the policies that detail where this is allowed. Maybe have a look over the policies that clarify this particular situation (], ], ]) and articulate where you think those paragraphs went wrong, if you are not specific then I don't know what part you had a problem with so I can fix it up. ] (]) 01:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
::::I will try to get some extra sourcing though anyhow, it's not like it shouldn't be done better. ] (]) 03:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::We seem to disagree on basic policy. --] (]) 17:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was laying down the final word on those policies or anything, I guess I slipped into too authoritative a tone since it is just my reading and interpretation of the policies.
::::::I was describing all that with a lot of detail to make it easier for you to identify how I interpret the policies and give you some starting points to describe '''where''' you disagree, or to be more specific about your disagreement with the content. I would prefer more than just a generality about what you thought was lacking before I start coming up with improvements. ] (]) 07:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks. I don't see how a corporation's own press about themselves is encyclopedic in most cases. If it's worth noting, an independent publisher will note it. I'm concerned that NOT is being overlooked. --] (]) 18:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Ah, notability, got it. ] (]) 20:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::What's ] within an article, not the merit of a topic for its own article. --] (]) 01:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I am aware of that difference. ] (]) 06:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I wish policies were clearer on it. --] (]) 16:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yeah, it's pretty good for factual claims about the world but when it comes to media or politics it's a bit scant. Even if they were just more explicit about where editors should use discretion or discuss it between themselves rather than leaving us wondering if we are missing some bit of policy.
::::::::::::Anyhow, I'm kinda thinking that whole section could do without the description of the shows, it's not that useful and as you noted the sourcing is poor. I'd like to have at least the count of the episodes to illustrate that the kids section is a large part of what they do now, that's primary-sourceable if dated, but it's a bit hard to find any other RSs that mention the program in enough detail to be worth citing, probably because they only started going hard on the youngsters in the last few years.
::::::::::::I'd still like to mention that quote, since it is quite indicative of their intent, but there's a big problem, where not explaining that it is a conspiracy theory is WP:FRINGE and just irresponsible, but explaining it would basically be OR. Would like to mention their classroom "study guides" too, but same sourcing problems, they don't publicise that program outside their bubble so it's mostly just little op-eds and posts from parents complaining about their kids being taught that non-conservative thought is the devil or whatever.
::::::::::::I should probably just make a thread on the talk page about the various kids stuff, the page is kinda lacking for how big the program is. ] (]) 08:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
{{unindent}}https://www.diggitmagazine.com/articles/prageru-kids-radical-right-wing-content-children doesn't appear reliable, and I'm not seeing anything obvious in it's references that would be helpful. It's the best I can find. It's probably too early, but I expect there will be usable references within a year. --] (]) 16:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:Here's another by the same Prospect author as the ref that's currently used:
::Ay, I hadn't seen that Prospect article, seems quite useful although I guess would have to be attributed, thanks! Do you have access to that journal article? I messaged the author and they said they are trying to change it to open access, but didn't say how long that might take. ] (]) 21:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't have access either. --] (]) 00:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
::::That Dickinson-Cowin journal article just got opened up https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4187075 ] (]) 05:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thanks. Wow, there's a lot in that paper! Let's discuss on the article talk.
:::::<s>Looking a bit closer, I'm not sure what to make of it.</s> --] (]) 18:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, it is mostly describing the significance of the role PU is playing in radicalisation and making a call for further study, but if nothing else it is at least a good supporting source for some things. One important thing that it notes is PU trying to reframe it's fairly extreme ideologies as centrist and/or academic but I'm not sure how to work that in. ] (]) 05:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I was having some difficulties with reading the reference. Fixed now.
:::::::If we treat it as the highest-quality reference we have, then the POV of the Misplaced Pages page should be changed considerably along the lines you've identified. --] (]) 17:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
==3O==
<ref>{{cite web|last=Sabato|first=Jill|title=Dark Chocolate is a Superfood|url=http://www.articlesbase.com/food-and-beverage-articles/dark-chocolate-is-a-superfood-764745.html#ixzz1FUHXUuNH|work=Articlebase|accessdate=03/02/2011}}</ref>
Just a notification about a ]. ] (]) 00:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
== DRC ==
<ref>{{cite web|last=Sabato|first=Jill|title=Dark Chocolate is a Superfood|url=http://www.articlesbase.com/food-and-beverage-articles/dark-chocolate-is-a-superfood-764745.html#ixzz1FUHs719A|work=Articlebase|accessdate=03/02/2011}}</ref>
No problem at all! Good catch anyway. Some items in biographies are absolutely brutal to find on the web in referencing. ] (]) 02:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite news|title=What Makes Dark Chocolate a SuperFood?|url=http://www.superfoodsrx.com/superfoods/dark-chocolate/what-makes-dark-chocolate-a-superfood.html|accessdate=03/02/2011}}</ref>
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<ref>{{cite web|title=Healthy Dark Chocolate - SuperFood Or SuperScam?|url=http://neutral-izer.blogspot.com/2008/08/healthy-dark-chocolate-superfood-or.html|work=Antioxidants and Health|accessdate=03/02/2011}}</ref>
<div class="afd-notice">
<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, including you, 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.
Thanks
:Thanks. I'll copy them to the talk page. --] (]) 00:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
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 until the discussion has finished.
Hello. Did you read my edit summary? Conservative is in the following sentence, with the same link. Please undo your revert.]] 20:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I understand the blacklisted source. Is there now some agreement that must be struck before the first three references can be used?
:Did you read mine? What do you think of the current version? --] (]) 20:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
::Current one seems OK, thanks. The real problem is the use of the loaded and imprecise term "think tank" -- although there are plenty of sources that call it that, there are also plenty that call BS on that. It's fundamentally a partisan advocacy organization that cloaks itself in narratives that appear to be credible policy investigations but do not reflect rigorous mainstream thinking. Removing "think tank" would be good, but I suspect it would be controversial on the talk page.]] 22:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I agree that replacing "think tank" would be an improvement, but could be difficult. It would likely take some very good, in-depth references. --] (]) 02:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
== Want an image for an article? ==
Thanks <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:If you'll note the discussion I started, I'd prefer sources that are both ] and ] to avoid the similar problems we've had with the article in the past.
:The word "superfood" is a almost meaningless marketing term, prohibited in the EU. As such, we've repeatedly had problems with the article becoming a means for marketing. --] (]) 20:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
So, in the interests of ] I thought I'd offer to search for a free image for an article you worked on. . My hit rate for this sort of thing is about 10-20%, so I can't guarantee anything, but that's not 0. I looked at articles you've been working on recently, and saw ], which I can actually find a free image or two for; specifically she has marked , so we can use them, and I'd happily take a screenshot or two. However I looked a bit more closely at , and they're actually more deleting bits of that article rather than trying to expand it, so I'm not at all sure you'll be grateful to me for adding to it. I tried to find , that I could try to illustrate, and couldn't find any. So - would you like me to add images to ]? If not, are there any articles that you ''would'' be happy if I was able to illustrate? --] (]) 20:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
While I can partially appreciate your EU position as a possible reliable source, there must be deference to the fact that the EU is a net importer of cocoa, therein, displaying their own sense of bias which might tilt otherwise. Therefore, the impact of consumption might actually be impacted by their definitions on products of their choosing. Nevertheless, this term does have significance elsewhere.
:Thanks for the offer. Sommer Ray is a mess where I did some basic BLP cleanup. I hope to avoid more work on it given what looks like fan/UPE editing there.
:I do run across articles that need images, but I don't keep track.
:There was an RfC at ] not long ago where editors were struggling to choose its initial image. They settled for a 2006 image. A more recent one would likely be of help. --] (]) 21:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
::] interviewed by ] in 2021]] Wow, https://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Sia_(musician) has many good images. I uploaded one from 2021, but it is much lower quality. I am not sure I'd be able to convince other editors it would be better than the other images just because it is more recent. --] (]) 23:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks for looking. Yes, I agree it would be rejected because of the low resolution. --] (]) 00:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
== ] ==
So, rather than to continue to get into a tug-of-war on the suitability of dark chocolate, and apart from the subjective nature of the term, the article already mentions the blueberry as a 'potential' superfood.
Hey I'm concerned you might have violated the ] on ]. I understand that BLP is an exception, but the information you reverted is not libelous or unsourced, as the BLP exemption only applies to libelous, unsourced, poorly sourced and contentious material. Contentious, maybe, but you're probably not going to be able to successfully argue for a 3RR exemption with NYTimes sourcing. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 01:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Therefore, I have amended my edit to include that fruit, along with a more objective and less debatable statement of it's suitability, due to high antioxidant value and high oxygen radical absorbance capacity.
:I'm the one that asked you to use edit requests so that you wouldn't be seen as continuing to edit war and ignoring the requirements of BLP. It's a BLP and under sanctions.
:My standard offer applies. I'd ask you to stop adding to it without clear consensus as BLP requires, so we don't have to worry about you being blocked or worse. --] (]) 01:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|InvadingInvader}} Please respond. --] (]) 16:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Not sure if Requested Edits is the best venue for the current developments – I think we're on a good track right now with smaller edits. In the future, please consider partial reverts instead of solving dandruffs with a decapitation. Since Dexerto seems to be our biggest point of contention, probably best to wait for the discussion to close since there is a CR there. Feel free to leave your own opinion on the source as well. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 16:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm going to go ahead with my standard offer, {{tq|I am usually open to holding myself to ]...}}
::::Smaller edits are always helpful, but without consensus behind them, they are edit-warring against BLP and applicable sanctions.
::::Dexerto is not remotely our biggest point of contention.
::::I'm afraid we cannot continue as we are doing. I'm going to hold myself to 1RR. --] (]) 16:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::::{{ping|InvadingInvader}} Please respond. --] (]) 16:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::Not sure what to say beyond the following. I'm not in favor of using requested edits as it implies I am a connected contributor, which I'm not. Neither am I a fanboy. I just wrote the article because I thought she met the GNG. If you'd like to hold yourself to 1RR, go ahead.
:::::Also, Dexerto just closed as Additional Considerations apply on ], with ''rare'' use for BLPs. I think we can warrant inclusion for Dexerto when cross-referencing other RS's and primary sources. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 15:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::Edit requests or something similar so there are no violations of BLP. Repeated BLP violations will result in a block or ban.
::::::The arguments at RSN on why Dexerto shouldn't be used in a BLP mirror the ones I've given for it's use in Sommer Ray. There's no consensus to use it. --] (]) 17:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
== Feedback ==
I hope this meets your criteria adequately.
Thank you so much for the feedback on my edit! For clarity, I was attempting to update the filmography and career sections. I am still learning and will make smaller edits in the meantime. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
== Removed revision ==
For your criteria for independent and reliable reference, I have included two additional edit references, to support those claims or statements of the value on blueberries.
In the source that I included, it said that Martha Plimpton had some Ashkenazi Jewish even if it was in small amounts. ] (]) 13:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web|title=US Highbush Blueberry Council|url=http://www.blueberry.org/antioxidants.htm|work=Antioxidant Capacity and Health Benefits of Fruits and Vegetables}}</ref>
== Help ==
<ref>{{cite web|title=Antioxidants 4 Life|url=http://www.antioxidants-4-life.com/blueberries.html|work=Blueberries - One of Nature's Antioxidant Superfruits}}</ref>
Hello @]I need your help related to article for deletion ] (]) 09:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
:Hi Rajmama. I'm very busy, and may not be able to help. Review ], and make the best case you can by identifying the very best references. At a glance, the Xpress Times is probably the most detailed, but it looks like a publicity piece so probably will not be enough. --] (]) 02:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
== avelyman.com cleanup ==
<ref>{{cite web|title=Tufts Researchers Report Blueberries May Reduce Memory Loss and Reverse Loss of Coordination|url=http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/101399BlueberriesMayImproveMemory.htm|work=eNews - Tufts University}}</ref>
] (]) 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
:Nice image! I've changed the caption to better coincide with the article. --] (]) 00:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you know if it is possible to use AWB for this, manual cleanup for this would be... problematic? And do you know how this website got spammed so much? Thanks, ] (]) 20:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
== Conflict of Interest ==
:Glad someone else is interested in cleaning up the avelyman.com mess!
:I have never looked into how AWB works, or if other tools would be better.
:Regarding the external links: I've been keeping track of what I find at ]. So far it's a very small number of editors responsible for a large number of external links. --] (]) 23:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::It is a absolute mess to be sure, I don't get what the hell people think is valuable about that site. And it is established editors adding it too. Blows my mind. ] (]) 23:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
== Doubtful Sources ==
Hi Ronz,
I saw your message on my talk page regarding conflict of interest. I'm not associated with any of these organizations, though I appreciate your desire to remove any potential conflicts of interest.
] (]) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:No problem. "See also WP:COI in case it might apply" is something I add to make editors aware of WP:COI in these cases. --] (]) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
@]Hi, I was browsing through your doubtful sources list and it's an interesting list. I agree that many of them are doubtful and are not trustworthy when it comes to ]. Here's a few more I think you should add.
== WP:CITE ==
Encyclopedia Quite a few celebs have the incorrect DOB listed here.
I responded to your post at ], but I wasn't sure if you already signed off. I just wanted you to see ], which (I think) is what you were talking about. ---- ] (]) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:Wow! Thanks. It'll take me a while to digest all that, but should be interesting doing so. --] (]) 21:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Allocine Same as above. The biggest red flag here is that it has Laverne Cox's birth year listed as 1984. When her actual birth year(1972) was revealed years ago.
== yIN-yANG SYMBOL ==
Moviefone Like the above two, some celebs have the wrong DOB up. What makes it even more questionable is that the actor biographies that are on there, are a near copy/paste of their biographies that are on their Misplaced Pages page. If not the current version, then an older version from years back. So it looks like they got their info here on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 01:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I looked up the origin of this symbol, couldn't find out anything.But I found a natural source of this shape that I believe should be included in the article,but I have no clue as to how to do an edit. A piece of bamboo when filled with smoke and rolled at just the right speed will create the Yin Yang symbol.I also have no clue if this means anything but,hey what the heck... It might be right. since you must be Wiki savvy, I thought you could somehow blossom this idea. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It's mostly just a list of questionable sources that I've run across on multiple occasions, before ] was created.
:Without a reference, any introduction of that material would be ] --] (]) 00:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
:I'm surprised encyclopedia.com isn't on RSP. It's difficult to find how to use it properly through RSN.
:I've run across allocine.fr. It certainly could use more discussion at RSN.
:Sorry I missed ]. I agree with your comparison to Rotten Tomatoes: treat them same way. --] (]) 17:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
== ANI notice ==
== Allsides ==
Another fake "fact checking" website, thanks for noticing the other instance. "Progressive" may potentially be right, but there likely are better sources anyway. I only discovered the "Truthout" website recently via a link from a centrist news source, so checked its WP article. When seeing "anarchist" and "far left" I have only quickly surveyed it and it was obviously false. When reading about "AllSides" however, tracing the origin and money exposes it. Thanks again, —]] – 04:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Regards, -- ] (]) 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
:Glad to see they didn't block you for long for that! --] (]) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
== Adding an External Link in Sustainability website ==
The external link to be added is http://masonweb.wm.edu/sustainability/ which consists of more that hundred links to sustainability websites is developed by Prof. Michael Luchs of College of William and Mary.
<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|2023|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.
] (]) 14:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:I think a simple directory would be better, like the Open directory link already there. Someone's added it for you though. --] (]) 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to participate in the 2023 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>] (]) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
== Delete everything i have just done ==
</div>
Misplaced Pages is a joke, just delete everything i have contributed to and get it over with, and also delete my user account while your at it, i will not be returning; Nor ever donating Again <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
</div>
:Sorry you feel that way. If you want to discuss the situation, I can get uninvolved editors to help. --] (]) 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 -->
== Ad Fontes ==
== differences between "advertising" and "examples" ==
Hipal,
So google docs is on there as well as numerous other services
My edit to ] was based on this quote from the
just wondering where the line is drawn
:''"A similar effort is “The Media Bias Chart,” or simply, “The Chart.” Created by Colorado patent attorney Vanessa Otero, the chart has gone through several methodological iterations, '''but currently is based on her evaluation''' of outlets’ stories on dimensions of veracity, fairness, and expression.''"
00:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)~ Delinquentme <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Hence my qualifier that the 2018 Columbia article is about a prior version of The Chart.
Is this the RS support you were looking for? ] (]) 20:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
i was also considering adding pictures of full versions of CVs ( curriculum vitaes ) for the image reference in CV <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Let's take this to the article talk page. I'm not sure I understand. The 2018 CJR article was written about a version significantly different than what was available in 2018? --] (]) 20:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:Thanks for following up with me.
::Thanks. I tried a wording closer to the RS and showed the full quote in the edit summary. I also added a topic to the talk page in case further discussion is needed. ] (]) 20:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
:If you can cite a ] for the information that is ], then the example is unlikely to be contested.
:I'm not sure what others will think of images of cv's. ], so they'd probably be redundant. --] (]) 00:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
== Ad Fontes Media: Use in Academic Research ==
@], I was going to respond to of ] on the article's talk page. I wasn't quite sure, however, what you meant by <i>"examplespam, So"</i>. Could you elaborate? I want to be sure I understand and can address your concerns. ] (]) 14:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
== JTW Article on Chinese economy... ==
:] covers it, and links to relevant policies, guidelines, essays, and templates. --] (]) 18:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
::Super. Thank you. I've modified the proposed new section and put it on ] for further vetting. I look forward to your commments. ] (]) 13:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
== Question about Ad Fontes Media ==
] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Misplaced Pages pages. ] and using Misplaced Pages as a "]" are against Misplaced Pages policy and not permitted. Take a look at the ] to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you.]<!-- Template:Uw-advert1 --> --] (]) 18:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
:I'm not sure this qualifies as "advertising" or "soapboxing", and I'm not sure you've actually read the quote in question... I've only added an article outlining a moderately alternative view of the topic at hand, thus SUMMARIZING a perpective widely shared by many MAINSTREAM Asian and European economists, this right after a sentence exposing the views of conservative/Republican congressional aides.
:The political issues (]) with rating media, more prominent with ]. --] (]) 18:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
:This approach is perfectly in line with Misplaced Pages's tradition of objectivity as it renders the paragraph in question more precise in fact and more balanced in spirit.
:But I won't argue with you any further: won't revert to the previous version, even though I think your editing in that particular instance is rather unfounded.
:Best,
:] (])
::Thanks for following up.
::My concern isn't just about the one op-ed, but your focus on the single author. When you feel the need to add only sources by a single author to multiple articles, please discuss such contributions on the article talk page beforehand. Additionally, use neutral tone with so it doesn't appear you're promoting the author. --] (]) 16:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
To my dismay I have discovered that you have deleted all my external links I added. I find this highly surprising, as I presumed that you are a person and not a machine, and would have the dilligence and intelligence to check up on what I am adding. I am adding academic podcasts, which my company records and which are paid for by UK universities. They are all, without exception on academic topics, and stricly academic research.
{{Center|{{resize|179%|''''']!'''''}}}}
I hope you will check them and re-install them
'''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 />
Best Wishes
</div>
''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
René <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{clear}}<!-- From template:Happy New Year fireworks --> ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
:Hi René. Thanks for responding.
:Have you seen the notes on your ]? As I've pointed out, you need to take care to follow ]
:It's not just me that's deleted the external links you've added. I was just the first to bring it up on your talk page. I believe I've removed two, at ] and ]. For any you think meet ], I suggest starting discussions on the article talk pages. --] (]) 21:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
==Invitation==
Hi Ronz, you're invited to continue this discussion ]. ] (]) 14:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
== Disagree with your assertion ==
Hi Ronz,
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I'm spamming Misplaced Pages. I'm not associated with any of the articles that I've edited - there is no conflict of interest and no promotional material. I've added content that enhances the information on each of the pages.
While I realize that you are working to better the site, I don't think it's effective (or welcoming for that matter) to suggest that you will block me from Misplaced Pages.
] (]) 16:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for following up with me rather than simply reverting.
:You're adding external links and little else, and those links are promotional. I suggest taking a good look at ] and ], then take your arguments to ]. --] (]) 16:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
== Edits to rolfing page ==
I recently edited the rolfing entry to include this quote:
"Rolfing has a physiologic impact on the peripheral nervous system and on myofascial structures."
This is direct quote from the abstract of the research from the previous sentence: "A 2004 review of Rolfing found that "there is no evidence-based literature to support Rolfing in any specific disease group".
This sentence is not found in the abstract and I am unable to even verify its existence. Yet it is cherry-picked out of the study as if its the most important statement in that bit of research. I personally find that misleading. In order to provide a more balanced perspective, I quoted from the abstract itself. I'm not sure how this was found to be "dubious", when its a quote from the abstract of the very research cited in the previous sentence.
I am a licensed massage therapist and not trained in rolfing. They are actually my competitors, to be frank. But I don't think that the entry as it existed was fair to rolfing, so I changed it.
I appreciate the hard and probably thankless work you do for wikipedia. Thanks in advance for reading this and getting back to me. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Responding on ] --] (]) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
== Deletion of my edit on Al Seckel's bio entry ==
You deleted my edit about a recent lawsuit, which was referenced to an article on the Courthouse News Service, with a comment that it "looks like a warmed-over press release about ongoing legal matters." Courthouse News Service, however, doesn't produce its content based on press releases, but rather writes original content based on civil litigation filings in the U.S. See their "about us" page: http://www.courthousenews.com/aboutus.html
I can understand a desire to exercise due care about what goes into the biography of a living person, but I believe what I wrote was NPOV and sufficiently referenced. ] (]) 01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:How's it NPOV in any way? Whatever it's based upon, it's entirely one-sided, right? --] (]) 01:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
== Link on Irish potato candy picture ==
Hi Ronz: You just removed the link that I included with the picture on the ] site. I am not associated with or with any commercial Irish potato candy company - I was just looking for an image to add to the page (which I was editing because I like to eat Irish potato candy). That image is licensed on ] with a CC BY-NC license, which requires attribution. ] (]) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for following up with me.
:I guess it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's ]. I've removed the image and asked for help from editors more familiar with such situations. The discussion is ]. --] (]) 17:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks - as I commented there, I don't think attribution is a problem (the image guidelines say CC BY licenses are ok), but the fact that the license does not allow commercial use IS a problem (the guidelines say that is not ok). So I think you are right that the image shouldn't be used. Which is too bad, since I can't find any other free irish potato candy images. Oh well. ] (]) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
{{Talkback|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}}
==Mark Sells problems==
In preparation for responses to all the cleanup I've been doing with spamming related to ], here's what I see:
;Accounts
*{{user|Mfmoviefan}} Blocked for spamming. Very likely sockpuppet given edits like
*{{user|Thereeldeal}} Claims to be Mark Sells. Created ]
*{{user|65.218.133.150}} This is the one ip not from the Denver, CO area. It's from St Louis, MO
*{{user|67.176.123.201}}
*{{user|71.229.160.234}}
*{{user|71.229.171.157}}
*{{user|75.71.22.124}}
*{{user|174.51.211.253}}
;Links
*{{LinkSummaryLive|thereeldeal.co}}
*{{LinkSummaryLive|oregonherald.com}}
--] (]) 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:Hi, I just wrote a short article on the "real" '']'' because of and as I was searching for links to the website, I ran across your work. Note that one appears to have some COI regarding the website as well. I've removed several links to the site from various el sections, but I have left them when used to cite facts in articles as I assume these were added in good faith by unaffiliated editors. Cheers, ] (]) 21:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
::Good work. Thanks for letting me know. --] (]) 18:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"Competition is gaining in intensity as the gaming gyroscope market is becoming increasingly attractive. Established players (ST, '''Epson Toyocom''', InvenSense) are also pushing hard to introduce 3-axis gyroscopes into this market while new large players such as Kionix and Bosch Sensortec are also expected to enter this market. It is possible that a unique 3-axis gyro could replace the 2-axis gryo + single axis gryo of the Motion Plus controller"
"Compared with other materials, quartz shows a high degree of stability while consuming very low power. In addition to angular rate sensors and accelerometers, '''Epson Toyocom''' continues to make better use of the characteristics of quartz material by introducing an absolute pressure sensor, the XP-6000CA."
"1 or 2 players are dominating the business: STM for accelerometer (50% market shares) followed by Bosch Sensortec; Invensense for gyroscope (almost 40% market shares) followed by '''Epson Toyocom'''"
"Canon—like '''Epson'''—managed to remain flat in terms of shipments of inkjet printers and therefore was able to increase its market share in the inkjet printhead segment. Canon was up 3% and '''Epson''' 12%, thanks to its booming quartz MEMS gyroscope business."
"With electronics devices continue to shrink in size, MEMS technology is able to reduce the size of quart components. Japan-based quartz component maker '''Epson Toyocom''' has already developed its own process, QMEMS, to capture the trend of smaller and slimmer devices"
"InvenSense emerged as the No.1 supplier of gyroscopes in revenue in 2009 with an estimated $57 million (source: H2 2009 Mobile and Consumer MEMS tracker, December 2009), just ahead of '''Epson Toyocom'''"
"The latest Wii game controller already integrates a dual axis gyroscope combined with a separate single axis gyroscope, respectively from InvenSense and '''Epson Toyocom''' (J). Used with the original 3-axis accelerometer, this gives an IMU function performed by 3 separate chips today. Yole estimates than more than 10M of such solutions have already been sold."
"The success of “virtual” 3-axis gyroscopes in gaming combined with 3-axis accelerometers, especially in the Nintendo Wii Motion Plus since June 2009. iSuppli calls it “virtual” because Nintendo’s accessory combines a 2-axis gyro from InvenSense with a 1-axis gyro from '''Epson Toyocom'''."
] (]) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
:Again, the sources should be ] and ]. Press releases and self-published sources are not appropriate. Warmed-over press releases aren't much better. looks like the best of what you listed, based on a quick skim. Do you think there's a better one? --] (]) 00:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Basically, I would like to know how Invensense and Kionix "qualified" as a major vendor.
My opinion is that Epson being a larger company and greater market share for MEMs technology should atleast be added to the list.
In the links above, most of the source is from reputable industry market research firm such as , .
I'll admit one of them had Epson Toyocom cited as a source.
If you read the article, it does independent analysis and listed major vendors of MEMs devices and market research.
Since semiconductors and more so MEMs technology is very specific, it would be hard to find mainstream press discuss it.
The only time they will mention MEMs sensors is when they talk about consumer level popular devices such as Apple or Android products (which our devices are designed in).
There are other sources I can add, but the question is how many links must I produce to satisfy a fellow user?
I would say it is equally hard to find sources for all of the mfg listed InvenSense, STMicroelectronics, Kionix. Not so much Analog Devices since they are recognized as one of the first to bring the technology to the sensing market.
I should add that these companies use Silicon MEMS technology, which differs from Quartz MEMs technology because of the material used. Which is why I originally wanted to branch off a section.
Basically, I want to work with you on how I can modify my content to make it acceptable. Obviously wikipedia in its nature is very subjective in content.
:I'm trying to walk you through how to do this properly, given what appears to be a ] on your part. If you find sources of the type I'm suggesting, you shouldn't have a problem. One such reference is all you need.
:I suggest listing the best potential refs on the article talk page to make it easier for others to respond. I'll help get other editors involved. Best to focus on just one article until you get the hang of this.
:A broader list of options is listed at ]. --] (]) 17:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
== Thanks--I have cleaned up the work you objected to-customer service ==
I have no particular agenda and was trying to update some rather archaic viewpoints re. customer service with some emotional context. I see why you thought it was fluffy and I have taken out the external links and changed them to an internal link and a reference and shortened the endless reference to inc magazine's customer service makeover yadda yadda. hope it's o.k. now, if not just lump it. thx. ] (]) 18:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
:Much better. Thanks letting me know. --] (]) 19:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
== You rock ==
Fist bump or big hug, depending on gender and/or sexual orientation. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 22:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
== Enig ==
Ronz, why not start a talkspace draft and use the sources on the talk page. I'm pretty sure they support a good deal of the content, though perhaps with less detail. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
:That would work too. My time is extremely limited, so I'll continue to work bit by bit on it. Providing detailed comments on the potential sources will make it easier for anyone interested in helping. --] (]) 19:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know you were speaking about Lambanog. What I don't get is why the focus should be on him anymore. He seemed to want to include information regardless of whether or not it could be secondarily sourced. That was not a great approach. You resisted it. Fine, fair enough. But now we have lots of secondary sources, and it seems like you are continuing to play that same role. You can call this kind of comment in appropriate, but I think it's obvious you are not a fan of Enig's theories, as many scientists and concerned citizens also feel. But we're passed the point of establishing minimal notability and I don't see why the rest of the article should be a slow grind against your view of V and BLP. It strikes me as using those policies against their spirit if not just a more subtle reading of them. We can describe Enig's work in full without endorsing or promoting it. We have plenty of primary and secondary sources. Why shouldn't we do that? ] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
:I'm being cautious, trying to make it very clear to Lambanog that we're not doing the same thing that he does - that we're not simply adding "references" that do not address problems or do not verify information in the article.
:Please stop wasting your time trying to decide what my personal opinions on Enig might be. I'm not going to say, I haven't said, and you're way, way off.
:I'm doing what I always do when there's a poorly sourced BLP with pov-pushing editors causing problems - I'm trying to get us to rewrite the article from proper sources. Sorry if you don't like that I'm being slow and methodological about it. Harassing me about it won't do anything other than get me to notice that you're harassing me. --] (]) 16:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
::Ronz, I'm not harassing anyone. I've repeated my opinion in the context of explaining it. Label someone else or don't label anyone. I wrote on your talk page in response to your comment on mine. The h-word is a tactic as well. There's none of that going on.
::We have lots of proper sources ''already''. So, getting us to rewrite the article from them is now something that you can participate in. Slow and methodological is fine, but not under pretenses that the sources are inadequate or that there's a BLP issue. I really think BLP is a red herring--and that might be a difference in policy interpretation--but it's not just ignoring the policy as it seems you're suggesting. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
:::"I'm being cautious, trying to make it very clear to Lambanog that we're not doing the same thing that he does." --] (]) 16:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
::::I don't think I've appeared to be accommodating to any POV pushing here. So maybe you could stop focusing on him so that it doesn't lump more productive efforts into the same boat. You're attacking that approach, but between myself and Yobol there's plenty of careful editing, enough for any POV pushing to not be an issue. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::You misunderstand. I'm not lumping anyone else with him, etc. I just think the only real solution is to be cautious and follow policies/guidelines closely and carefully. --] (]) 00:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads up, the sourced excerpts are the total references from the article. There's nothing else in them about Enig but what's on the talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for confirming that. It'll make it easier to focus on just getting the context and citation info. --] (]) 19:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
== Replied to you on my talk page ==
I replied to you on my talk page --] (]) 18:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
== 3RR about ] ==
Hello Ronz. Please see ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
:As you see, this report has not received any action at AN3. Perhaps it will be archived soon. I am unhappy about the stalemate on this article. It seems that you, Lambanog and Colincbn are locked in a war of nerves and nobody will budge. Lambanog has done actual content work here in the past, but he seems to be waiting until the war is resolved. How about a deal in which Lambanog would restart his content work, and in return you would promise to leave the article alone for a period, perhaps two months. You might have to put up with the article being untagged during that time. The RfC on the talk page is so vaguely worded it seems unlikely to resolve anything. Thanks, ] (]) 14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
::I'm just going to continue working on the article. If others want to continue assuming bad faith to justify their actions, I'll just try to wait them out. --] (]) 21:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
:::I would welcome any actual work on the article. doesn't seem to be producing any forward movement. If you genuinely want to benefit the article, consider negotiating. ] (]) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
::::When I'm done assessing the references and potential references, I'll once again summarize my findings and start another round of discussions on what to do. Given the bad faith assumptions, accusations, and battle-ground mentality, I feel it would be detrimental to rush. In the meantime, I'll join any discussions on the current state of the article and how to improve it. It's a waste of time to try negotiating with editors who are working in or assuming bad faith, judging from the many times I've tried here. --] (]) 18:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
== Thanks for the message ==
Thanks for your message. Reading through the previous posts was also helpful. I, too, was dismayed when I read the comment re: COI. I'm not affiliated with the person whose work I wrote about, other than studying it in a scholarly sense, and applying the methodology in my professional practice. I've never met or been in contact with the person. I saw that someone else (a relative "unknown" in the field, with due respect) had "bolstered" the entry with his or her own references and put their own name in the Wiki article. I left the person's name in, because others may know of this "expert", even if I don't) and added in some verifiable references, published by independent sources, to highlight the contributions of the more widely known scholar on the subject. Thanks for starting the conversation. Makes me feel like I'm part of a community of people who care about knowledge! <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The articles you've been working on are all in poor shape. I hope you'll continue working on them as you learn your way around Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 20:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
== NORAD Tracks Santa ==
Don't spend any more effort on that editor. The ] has already concluded with a positive result, so it's a waste of time. Not sure why the account isn't blocked yet, but it shouldn't take much longer. ] ] 16:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for the heads up. In my experience with long-term meat/sockpuppetry and pov-pushing, I think it's best to document the problems extensively to help prevent well-meaning editors from escalating the problems. --] (]) 16:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
::That's a reasonable approach, so maybe you weren't wasting your time. Thanks. ] ] 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
:::There are diminishing returns. I've moved on. --] (]) 16:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your efforts, addressing the sock edits one by one. You are very right in that it prevents problems. Next time I have to remember this approach and use it myself :) --] (]) 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! --] (]) 16:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Ronz, you should have called me earlier. No one picks on Santa, and gets away with it. ;) --]<sup>]</sup> 14:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
:I seem to have missed all the excitement (or at least I hope I have). I'll point out that there's still a lot of linkspam (and other nonsense) on the ] page left by one of BillJohnson0003's previous socks. --] (]) 15:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
::What a mess. I cleaned up the blatant problems. Thanks for pointing it out. --] (]) 16:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
:::Thank you very much for removing all that linkspam. I think I feel brave enough to edit the Santa Claus article this weekend. It still gives undue weight to NORAD Tracks Santa and describes it in "peacock terms". The person who seemed to claim "ownership' of the article during the winter, and insisted that the non-existence of Santa Claus was a matter of POV rather than fact, hasn't edited it for five months. So, there's a chance my changes might stay for a little while. --] (]) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
::::I've edited the Santa Claus article. I removed some remaining fiction, peacock terms, trivia about what one person posted on the Internet in 2010 and some clairvoyant comments about Christmas 2011. There was a paragraph about an AT&T service which appeared to be purely promotional spam, so I removed it.
::::The sockpuppet had added a redundant reference to his own Wikia website. I tried to remove it but a red "cite error" notice appeared. I don't understand why because it was only used once.--] (]) 09:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::Glad you're working on it. Let me know if another sock appears. --] (]) 16:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::::OK, I will. I have no doubt that another sock will pop up sooner or later. At least that particular user isn't very difficult to spot. I managed to remove the spam link to his Wikia site. It meant removing the reference to ] but he's usually considered to be a different character to Santa anyway. --] (]) 04:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
== N Jain ==
Hi I am hoping this is just going to be a useful piece of article improvement - I removed the templates because imo there is little need for them and they are not benefiting the content - you have replaced them and so I am in my rights to request your specific issues you replaced them for so we can work together to remove them. please when you have time be specific and reply on the talkpage. No big hurry, but please reply to my points when you have time, thanks. ] (]) 20:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
:We have multiple recent, ongoing disputes in the article plus multiple long-term disputes. I believe the current state of the talk page reflects this. Until these disputes appear even reasonably settled, I'd rather keep the tags than repeatedly having them removed and re-added. Keeping the article indefinitely partial-protected has helped - the current SPAs are much less disruptive in their continuing these disputes that have been ongoing since the article was created. --] (]) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Ronz - but I am not interested in any of that. Simply respond between the five bullet points your specific issues and I will work to resolve them - you are welcome to help me resolve them also. Perhaps I am wrong but basically its like this - you add the templates to benefit and improve the article and then we remove them - so lets do that? ] (]) 20:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
:If you're not interested, then I don't know if you can be much help. --] (]) 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
::My only interest is to improve the article and remove the templates. The only help I want from you is to specifically tell me the reasons for your adding each of these five templates so I can work on your issues to improve the article and remove them. ] (]) 21:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
:::I restored the templates because they were removed before the disputes were resolved. --] (]) 21:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, you added them - so you are responsible for explaining why you did that and the reasons you thought each one was needed and why they should be added again at this time - no one else re-added them but you. You think they are needed so please explain the reasons for each one being needed, thanks. ] (]) 21:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::I explained why I readded them. They were removed while related disputes were still ongoing.
:::::So, are you willing to look at the current disputes or not? --] (]) 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::There is only you there, only you added the templates - you added - '''It needs additional references or sources for verification''' - please specify on the talkpage what content you want citing so that I can either cite it or remove it and then remove that template. Most of the content is cited and there are a couple of citation required specifics, so I don't see a need for that template at all and you added it so please show me what content you want citing. ] (]) 21:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I assume you can provide a diff to help clarify what you're trying to say. --] (]) 21:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::You don't appear to have any content you want citing, please remove that Refimprove template , thanks. ] (]) 21:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: --] (]) 22:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm taking a break from this. I suggest you do the same when you're overlooking recent edits and discussion in this manner. --] (]) 22:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Dude, if you take a break there will almost not be anyone left - I am going to work towards tweaking up what are pretty minor issues as far as I can see, no hurry , no worry, regards. ] (]) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Within the article itself, without regard to the amount of press Jain has received on various aspects of his life, the issues are pretty minor. The new section on board memberships and the like is an exception - the quality of sources and the weight given to the information are questionable.
:::::::::::The biggest problem is the sparse amount of information in the article about his time at InfoSpace in contrast to the huge amount of information available from reliable sources. As you can see links to past discussions I added to the "Positions at InfoSpace" discussion, I've had a difficult time getting editors to agree to adding information even when multiple sources are available. You've found one bit where they didn't make the sources clear. Removing it should be a temporary solution only. The lawsuit by InfoSpace that I restored from a following section makes it clearer, but the sourcing could be clearer and might benefit from additional sources.
:::::::::::Almost forgot the lede - Every bit of info there should be reconsidered per ] and ] - starting from scratch might even be better. Even more so than the rest of the article, the lede is just a placeholder that was cut back in an effort to get editors to focus on the body of the article first. --] (]) 23:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I prefer to focus on cleaning up and stabilizing what we have got. These company directors although high powered in regard to their biography there is usually little specific detail that is well cited. Mostly the details that would expand it belong on the company articles. I am signing off for today, thanks for some details, regards. ] (]) 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
{{unindent}}Glad we're making progress. Care to consistently format and fully enter all the reference info? That was one cleanup concern that I recalled as I was reinstating the position info and timeline. --] (]) 02:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, that is a work I enjoy and I will do them all later today. ] (]) 09:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
== re - easykobo ==
heloo ronz,
I got an email today on the account that you guys blocked me in Feb. You said i was spamming so i stopped using the account.
now why have you come back with all this?
yes i was the owner of that site easykobo.com and i stopped after i read the guidelines.
my website was not spam, but you guys can do whatever you want. leave me alone. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Brainsteinko and Pocketbook Reader article ==
Hi Ronz,
I've noticed you have had the same issues with the Pocketbook article and Brainsteinko.
Please see ]
] (]) 09:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for letting me know. I don't have time to look into it in any detail atm, but will follow up. --] (]) 16:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks. Very much appreciated. ] (]) 23:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
:::He again reverted all my changes in one go and also readded the link you have removed. I will not undo at this point. Please advice how to bring this to the proper authority. See ] (]) 22:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
== IIN ==
Hi Ron,
Apologies - I will refrain from edits pertaining to any organization I have an affiliation with.
I have removed all edits pertaining to the company I have done web design work for -
and have even reached out to other wikipedia users to apologize for my attempt at creating a wikipedia page for them (they had originally suggested keeping the page - but I suggested not to considering the article did not have enough sources to reach wikipedia standards).
] (]) 20:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks! --] (]) 22:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
==Editing out of ignorance==
Maybe that was a poor choice of words, and could be taken the wrong way by editors that have difficulties with ]. Reverting first, making accusations next, disrupting the talk page, then finally apologizing for not looking at the edits/edit-summaries/discussion. It only took me three times telling him that I didn't remove the information for him to finally realize I was right all along. I prefer to assume he did it out of ignorance rather than as something far worse. --] (]) 18:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
==quick cleanup per WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK - redundant==
I'm happy to explain why I feel this is an appropriate edit summary, and explain . --] (]) 18:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
== User talk:Jimbo Wales ==
Hi. Could you please not continue to post there as the user has removed your posts? This indicates that they do not wish you to post there and I think it behooves you to respect this. Thanks. --] (]) 18:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
:Will do. --] (]) 18:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
== Barbecue link ==
There is a dialog on ] where other editors may join in the discussion. You were involved in the archived discussion (I see that you may have retired...but notifying you in case you come back:)<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 22:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
:Not retired, just thinking about it as I take a break. I'll quickly respond on the article talk. --] (]) 00:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
== WP Spam in the ''Signpost'' ==
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spam for a ''Signpost'' article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, ''']'''. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -] (]) 19:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
== Re: "IP editing for you" ==
Thank you for your interest, I wish the world could have been blessed with two of me, but sadly 'tis I who has been editing via IP. ]] 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for confirming. --] (]) 16:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
== Removing link to Applet comparing simulation and analytical approaches to queueing models ==
Hi,
You have removed the links to that applet from a couple of pages where I added it.
The applet is definitely of ineterest to those who want to familiarize themselves with the subject: it is quick and easy way to learn the limits of the analytic approach.
Also, there are no resources like that listed on those pages.
Plase could you give me the reason why the link should not be there.
Thanks,
Andrei
] (]) 07:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:See ], ], and ]. --] (]) 19:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks, Ronz.
::I indeed have created the applet I added the link to. However I did that solely in educational purposes: I am one of the world's top experts in simulation modeling and I am deeply involved in teaching simulation and related topics. Comparing analytical methods (such as queueing theory) and simulation is discussed in any course on queueing systems / discrete event simulation and I thought it would be good to have a visual resource that you can run in your browser to illustrate the differnce (currently there is none like that known to me, at least wikipedia does not have any).
::Please let me know uder what conditions the limk to the applet can be added.
::Kind regards,
::Andrei ] (]) 15:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
:::If I were you, I'd choose one article that I felt was the best for a link to such applets, then start a discussion on that article's talk page presenting a case for including the link. You shouldn't add the link itself to the article. --] (]) 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
== Confused ==
All I did was update factual information on AICPA's wikipedia page (i.e. membership numbers, locations, officers and so forth). I did not add anything else. So I do not feel your tags of conflict of interest are valid.
Additionally, the CPA Exam page and fingerprinting: While candidates are fingerprinted, there is obvious language in this section that is biased and not based in fact. There is also a broken reference link. Really, the majority of this section is about Choicepoint and should be had on their page and not the CPA Exam's page.
I do understand the removal of the external links and appreciate your guidance in that area.
] (]) 18:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for discussing my concerns.
:I'm glad we agree on the external link cleanup.
:Yes, the exam and fingerprinting information should be trimmed down. I'll take a closer look. --] (]) 18:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I just submitted some changes trying to tone it done, but still be factual and maintain the "controversy." Let me know what you think. Thanks!
] (]) 18:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:Looks pretty good. Let's see if anyone else disagrees.
:In general, it's best to be very careful when removing any sources. Make sure to make it clear why you're removing them. --] (]) 00:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
== Removal of material from Usability Testing article ==
I added three pieces of information to the article on Usability Testing. You, I assume, are the person who removed two of them. I would argue that they are not self-serving, they are simply fact and properly documented. I was surprised to see them disappear because the Intuit material, in the same section, remain unchallenged even though it is remarkably self-serving and factually wrong. I don't advocate its removal, because it is an interesting data point. It just needs to be surrounded with more and more facts.
The article, when I first read it, appeared to indicate that iterative testing was first started at Xerox PARC in around 1979 for the Star project. The Intuit reference has them claiming they were the first to do it beginning in 1984.
What I did was, first, to move that date back to 1948-49, with Henry Dreyfuss's work on the ships, Constitution and Independence. I then inserted two projects at Apple in the same era as the PARC work already mentioned that had been done using the iterative testing methodology. These were drawn from a book I wrote in 1992 called "Tog on Interface." This was not a book on the Wonders of Apple, but an educational book for new designers in which I just happened to use the examples I mentioned in the WikiPedia article because they were instructive. In the book, I laid out the six designs required to come up with a successful one, showing and explaining each of our five abject failures before final success. That was definitely not a self-serving.
My purpose in adding these examples to Misplaced Pages was not to claim invention, as evidenced by my adding the fact that Henry Dreyfuss was already doing the exact same thing in the 1940s. It was just to add additional early examples in the computer industry to those already in place. I hoped that by adding these examples, it might draw other people out since it is my belief that iterative design, formal or informal, had been happening in the computer industry far before the 1978-84 time frame, almost certainly at Xerox PARC, and probably at SRI and MIT.
Ironically, it was I who taught the iterative design methodology to the people at Intuit, and not in 1984, but 1980. If I wanted to be self-serving, I would have pointed that out. That information, however, is irrelevant to this article. What is relevant, however, is that they were not the first company to do iterative testing. I've traced it back to Henry Dreyfuss Associates. I suspect it started long before that.
At any rate, I would appreciate it if you would consider returning the material, edited in whatever manner you wish,
-tog <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:As you indicate, the history is vague and poorly documented. I suspect there is much available in the human factors literature going back for perhaps a century. The solution is to find better sources. --] (]) 18:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Please not report me Spam, because I am not spammer :(
Thank,
Attila <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I'll be interested in hearing your response after you read the relevant policies/guidelines linked on your talk page. --] (]) 19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
== links ==
ok thank you --] (]) 14:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
== Richard La Ruina ==
The link I added is not unverifiable. Stop acting like it is. It's by Ross Jeffries, a notable figure in the same industry as Richard La Ruina. Richard La Ruina has posted a reply to the publication of that email. If you bothered to look through the links you'd see that. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You misunderstand the situation, and have yet to address any of my concerns. As identified on your talk page, my biggest concern is that the information as sourced violates ]. --] (]) 19:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
== Deleated post ==
Hi Ronz, I believe you deleted my revision to http://en.wikipedia.org/Reverse_telephone_directory, earlier today. This is likely because we include a link to the FAQ section of our website. I understand you may not want this link coming from us, however, the current Wiki article is a bit out-of-date and inaccurate. Link aside, I believe the changes I suggested were factual and neutral. You might want to take another look and reconsider the Wiki changes. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I'm happy to do so. Please start a discussion about it on the article talk page. --] (]) 01:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
== Edit war report ==
I have made an edit war report involving you at ] should you wish to remark or comment there. — ] (]) 18:08, 29 August 2011 (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)
|}
|}
:Thanks! --] (]) 14:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
==WSTagging==
== You are correct ==
Will you please be more specific on the article's talkpage about why the material and tone are promotional and unenclyclopedic? I absolutely do not understand why I can not use reliably sourced material - some even in quotes in this article without it being called an advert. The changes that were made without discussion were the ones that were not according to sources. I will go over ever change I made and give the exact sourced material if that is what is required. ] (]) 21:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:I think the only solution is for other editors to work on the article, and for others' to let them. That doesn't appear to be happening now. --] (]) 23:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)o
::But the concern is that you tagged the article and said : " - the tone and presentation in the article is repeatedly changed to have a less encyclopedic tone and to less accurately represent the sources." I did accurately represent the sources after changes were made that deleted content, changed context and did not accurately represent the sources. I would not have cared for the trouble it has caused me if I had not thought that the changes were impartial and useful ones. Many other editors have deleted away over half of the article. What exactly do you mean "it is not happening now." If the editor (who has already deleted very much content before) had discussed his proposed changes, he would have had his chance to state his case, but he didn't seem to want that - just more quick deletion of more material that he objected to for some reason. The truth is I am the only one (besides a mediating admin) who wants to 'constructively improve' the article and yet I am not allowed to do so. I posted my changes and sources for your information and made it very easy to see if I sourced properly. What else can I do? Thanks. ] (]) 01:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Take a break from the article. --] (]) 16:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::That doesn't make sense to me. It is not in anyway explaining why you have put the tag on the article. - not at all - I am trying to collababorate and understand how Wiki works as a community and asking for information and not getting it. Your telling me to take a break doesn't help at all. ] (]) 18:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I won't use unreliable sources next time. ] (]) 18:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
== Online Oud Tuner ==
== Questions ==
Dear Ronz
Hello. I had a few questions about your recent edits on the Ed Young page that I am perplexed about.
Why did you remove the link of the oud tuner?
Don't you think that this link will help thousand of players and people who are interesting the oud music to know more aboyt the different tuning option alive?
I think that this is the only online oud tuner on the web and can contribute a lot.
1. Why did you remove pieces of the bio include ‘writer, speaker, artist’? Is he not an writer/author or speaker?
If it is because i didn't put it in the right way i will be glad if you help me to place this link because as i have said before it is extremely important.
This is the link: http://www.arabinstruments.com/112730/Online-Oud-Tuner
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.
Please advise
Thank you <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The site violates ], ], and ].
:One editor has been indefinitely blocked from Misplaced Pages for spamming the site. I'd prefer that no one else is. --] (]) 16:39, 7 September 2011 (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?
==millerandzois.com==
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.
*{{LinkSummaryLive|millerandzois.com}}
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)
::Hi, Ronz. I support your efforts to clean up Misplaced Pages from spam, however, in this case with my link "" it was a bit overkill :-) I have no connections to Miller&Zois LLC, I even live on the other coast. But their sample motions was a great help to me when I worked on my ]s. If you insist on removing this link, I would probably leave it off, but I just want to let you know that it could be very useful to others. Good luck in your spam battle! ] (]) 20:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
:Once again, you're repeating yourself without apparent understanding of previous discussions and policies. Continue like this, and ] might apply.
:::Thanks for responding. Please discuss why you feel it's helpful and appropriate per ] on the article talk page before adding it yet again. --] (]) 18:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
: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.
== ] of ] ==
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 10:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
==Six Sigma==
Hello Ronz, I appreciate your comments and advice regarding my edits. Like I stated before it is not my intent to be promotional with my posts but more to illustrate some of the industry known associations. I completely agree with you in finding secondary/independent sources to support my content. If you don't mind I may ask for your advice regarding this section before I post again, and other posts from time to time. Will this be OK? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I'm happy to help. Comment here or on the talk page. --] (]) 18:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
If you're not going to walk back your statements , please tread extremely lightly. --] (]) 18:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
==Amplified Analytics==
As you can see, I am a new user and trying to learn my way. Could you help me to understand why my association with the company (Amplified Analytics) prevents me from listing it as vendor on a relevant page. The articles you referred me to, does not list any specific reason that makes it a conflict of interest. What evidence I can provide to remove your objection to restoring the listing? {{unsigned|Gregory Yankelovich|14:07, 18 September 2011 }}
:As noted on your talk page, such discussions should take place on the article talk page.
:As far as evidence is concerned, multiple, ], ] sources demonstrating that Amplified Analytics is ] should be enough. --] (]) 14:38, 18 September 2011 (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 ] where editing limits apply. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 23:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Ronz, I would like to restore the link to the example of a text-based CAPTCHA server that makes text-based CAPTCHA practical. This is important to blind and visually impaired people users. But I'm afraid that you will just delete it again. Can we discuss this? ] 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:Let'skeep the discussiononthearticletalkifthere'snothingspecificto me. --] (])22:44, 20 September2011 (UTC)
*And now the typical accusations of a "personal vendetta" etc have turned up. We know what they mean: "Lovely work, Hipal!" ] | ] 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 ==
==Question==
Hi Ronz -- is the same person as the who was just being abusive on your talk page? Also . If so (and the style is rather distinctive) we've . The history of that page is particularly interesting. Anyway he's blocked now for two weeks. ] ] 20:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, it looks very likely that they're the same person. --] (]) 23:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Notifying you I have requested a third opinion ]. ] (]) 01:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
== Geodesic Dome page revert ==
== Biased user ==
Hi
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)
You removed the link to as a reference for Bono's DOME program.
: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 ==
The reason for the existence of my page is that there doesn't seem to be a home for the DOME program, and the source versions of DOME I found on the web were outdated and wouldn't build on a modern system. I therefore maintain a buildable version of DOME to keep it available for anyone who wants to run it. Please see .
I know we're mid discussion but I got Covid Monday :/ ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 14:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The page is just a basic home for an abandoned piece of software, but as DOME is mentioned in the article it seems more useful for it to have a link that points there than to have no link at all.
: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> ]|]</sup> 10:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Are we good (in your opinion) on the current version? I can live with it. ]<sup> ]|]</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> ]|]</sup> 22:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
== Reverted contributions? ==
Adrian.
] (]) 18:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:I think it's great that you're hosting and maintaining the program. However, the link doesn't belong in the article. --] (]) 19:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
== Discussion at WT:NPA ==
: {{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 ==
{{tb|Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks|proposed_revision|ts=17:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)}}
Hi Hipal,
== Requesting article review ==
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.
Ronz, an anonymous editor recently edited the ] article to remove all references to Gust (formerly Angelsoft.) Given that the person behind this anonymous account (as well as a number of other accounts used for recent edits to articles in the early stage entrepreneurship field) seems to have a personal animus, would you be willing to review the edits, and take whatever action you see fit? ] (]) 07:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
:I've been looking into it, and am not sure what, if anything, should be done. I'd like to get some new eyes on it. --] (]) 16:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
:I tried to look at it from the context of the consensus on that talk page, and decided to restore it. Hopefully, we'll get further discussion on the talk page. --] (]) 17:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Theimpartial,objectiveeditingthatyou'vebeenrecentlydoing is appreciated. ] (]) 00:16, 14October2011 (UTC)
I believe the message was unwarranted in this scenario. ] (]) 18:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks! It's just tip of the iceberg still - I'm just cleaning it up to the point where it might attract editors more experienced with such articles. --] (]) 01:06, 14 October 2011 (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. ] (]) 18:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
== Don't worry about it ==
::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 ==
I'm fairly objectionable at the best of time so it's my fault rather than yours - when I get the time, I might do a bit more work at that coworking article as it looks to be constructed on rather thin sources. --] (]) 11:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks! --] (]) 15:16, 15 October 2011 (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)
==Repeated additions of book==
:Thanks for clarifying what happened. We all make mistakes. --] (]) 16:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
== Jeffrey Sachs ==
I did add the entries to promote the book in that it's the only book available that describes RPR. However, if that's unreasonable I'll accept the judgement.
Hello. I come to your talk page because you have in ] arguing it is promotional.
Best regards...] (]) 21:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for responding. I left it in ]. I don't see the need elsewhere. If you disagree, best to start a discussion on the relevant article talk pages. --] (]) 00:41, 17 October 2011 (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.
== Criticisms of arguments at Talk:Acupuncture ==
Looking forward to your reply ] (]) 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
this edit contains a number of uncivil assertions which are not justified by my behavior. I understand that may be your experience with other editors, but I'd ask you to retract them. thanks. --] 02:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
:Hi Hispalois. Thank you for starting a discussion about this.
:You may not have noticed, but I didn't mention any individuals' names. Let me see what can be toned down though...--] (]) 02:53, 17 October 2011 (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)
:I see nothing incivil about it. If you'd like, I can look for the logical fallacies I mentioned in the arguments you've provided. In order to not contribute to the battleground mindset in the discussions there, I'll do so here.
::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)
:Of course, it would be better to work on improving the article by focusing on sources and applicable policies/guidelines. I think I already made that clear. --] (]) 03:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
:Lookingoverthelengthy discussions once more, it wouldbehelpfultostartanewsectionwhereyou could very succinctly summarize your arguments and ask others todothesame. --] (]) 03:12, 17October2011 (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. ==
::My arguments are in the last few paragraphs above your post; no need to go back farther than that. I'll see if I can add an appropriate section break, though. My particular civility objection is your assertions about ''"], ], ]"'', which certainly could not apply to ''me'' yet (as I've only made a handful of posts to the page recently), and which are uncivil regardless of whom they are directed at. I might even agree that they are ''true'' with respect to some editors, mind you, but that doesn't make them acceptable as a general comment on the page. If you'd care to make them specific about a particular editor, they might be more purposive. --] 03:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
:::You're just plain wrong, and continuing to follow a battleground mentality. Fallacious '''arguments''' are fallacious. You're demanding that I can't point out why arguments are bad? That's absurd. Please drop it.
:::Is it time to give examples of the fallacies then, to clearly show they aren't simply "assertions?" --] (]) 05:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
::::I'm simply asking that you attribute your assertions to particular editors or discussions, or else remove them. By making baldly undirected claims, you ''seem'' to be implying that everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of these logical fallacies. I doubt that is your intention, and that is certainly not supportable as given, so it would be best if you identified the ''specific'' behaviors you are disputing so that we can all see the logical flaws you assert are there. otherwise your comments are open to misinterpretation. --] 05:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::What you seem to be asking at this moment in the discussion is that I make my remarks more personal, that I focus on behaviors and personalities, rather than on the arguments, sources, and relevant policies/guidelines. I refuse to take on a battleground mindset. Take it to WQA. --] (]) 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
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!
"Please keep in mind that the better part of a billion people still rely on acupuncture for their conventional treatment. I don't suggest that it's better than equivalent modern treatments, but if it didn't work at all it would have ceased to exist long before the West came into regular contact with Asia" Definitely ad populum and appeal to tradition fallacies, and seems to summarize much of the previous arguments in the discussion. --] (]) 15:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Don ] (]) 17:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
==Moxie Marlenspike==
:My apologies for not responding to your comment on the aritcle talk page. Doing so now. --] (]) 01:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Because I am dense and benifit from explainations of those who know, what is it that presents the issue with the links at Moxie Marlenspike? Thanks! =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Thanks for responding.
:] --] (]) 23:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
== Joey Skaggs Advert Code ==
== Michael Schmidt Hunger Strike entry ==
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)
Hi Ronz,
: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? ==
what seems to be the problem with my post?
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)
regards,
: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)
FTC <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Besideswhat'sdiscussed on your talk page and on the article talk page? --] (]) 01:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for the apology. --] (]) 20:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
== Need your help ==
Please visit "Cradles of civilization" article and settle the "Indus/India" dispute ] (]) 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 (]). Please take care with how you continue. --] (]) 16:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
== AP Political Bias ==
Hi Ronz,
Hi, how are you?
Regarding what you say is "discussed on talk page and on the article talk page" I don't see anything in my post that resembles a conflict of interest or "soapboxing, advertising or promotion" nor do I see a "discussion on the article talk page on how to properly rewrite the entire section." How would I go about rewriting it so that it will not be removed from the wiki page? Michael Schmidt is on a hunger strike. He is a Durham, Ontario dairy farmer. His cause is championing the freedom to choose the food we put in our bodies as responsible citizens. He wishes to start a dialogue with the Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to address this issue. His hunger strike has been covered by reputable and established news media sources.
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)
Sincerely,
:Thanks for notifying me. I'll respond in the talk page discussion. --] (]) 21:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
== 1RR ==
] (]) 02:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC
:And your username is Freedomtochoose... --] (]) 02:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey you violated 1RR . ] (]) 17:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
would you prefer "John Doe"?
: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 ==
--] (]) 02:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC
:I would prefer you be straightforward about what you're trying to accomplish. You're clearly using wikipedia to soapbox. --] (]) 02:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hipal,
And so, how would I go about rewriting it so that it will not be removed from the wiki page? I have not found a "discussion on the article talk page on how to properly rewrite the entire section."
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!
--] (]) 02:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC
Best,
Ah! I just noticed that you must have edited the entry for me.
Zoe ] (]) 16:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It looks good.
: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 ==
Sincerely,
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)
--] (]) 03:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC
: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)
:Yes, Schmidt is currently in ], but I don't think any mention of him or his strike belongs there. I'm in no rush to remove it. I'd rather wait to see what others think of the overall problems with the article and how to go about fixing them.
::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)
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.
--] (]) 03:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC
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>
that is, printing and bookmarking this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:WLU/Generic_sandbox
</div>
--] (]) 03:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)FTC
</div>
:Glad to be of help. --] (]) 03:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
<!-- 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 ==
== WP: Consensus ==
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)
Actually, I believe you are mistaken about the last consensus. In my view, you made changes from what is closest to the last consensus so you should start the discussion to justify your changes. The last consensus version was this:
: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)
== Thanking note ==
"Consensus refers to the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Misplaced Pages. There is no single definition of what 'consensus' means for these purposes, but consensus seems to offer the best method to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages."
I thank you that you removed false claims on the article ] and wrote what is write, rather than the ideological form.
So if you want to go back to that and discuss Kotniski's changes, that would be fine. Or we can include his changes as I have done and discuss reordering the material, which is where perhaps we don't quite agree. Thanks.
Regards,
--] (]) 01:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
:Actually, I didn'tindicate any versions, so let'snot waste time with strawmen. --] (]) 01:33, 5November2011 (UTC)
'''Ved Sharma'''{{space}} ] (]) 06:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:It was the direct outcome of the article talk page discussions, noticeboard discussions, and the recent RfC. --] (]) 18:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::Great. So please start the discussion explaining why you want to reorder and I will be glad to respond. Thanks. --] (]) 01:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
:::If you're not interested in justifying your changes, I guess it's time to remove them then. --] (]) 01:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
== Hunger strikes ==
Hey Ronz, my only concern is that info gets ]D. I don't recall even making the note; it was probably auto-suggested to me when I split off the (at the time) new ]. Occasionally, unscrupulous editors will ] two tangentially related articles together and then plead ] so as to delete information from the project, despite my only concern and, of course, despite ]. There are a number of such tricks, and, IIRC, that sort of thing was happening on many fronts back in Jan 2010 towards an editor who was devoted to documenting Gitmo subjects thoroughly. In the long run these people are racing the tide of ]. AFAICT, everything has since worked out AOK. In short: you are likely just cleaning up the detritus of an old edit war. Keep up the good work! -- ]<sup>]</sup> 07:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for following up. Hopefully, that drama won't start anew. I'll be careful with it and hope for the best. --] (]) 16:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
== Earl Mindell ==
Ronz,
All the information submitted earlier have factual proof that I personally verified. Dr Mindell has in fact published 54 books, verifiable on Amazon.com... http://www.amazon.com/Earl-Mindell/e/B001ILIGLU. The fact that the article states that he has published "over 45 books" is vague and inaccurate. Dr. Mindell is a currently practicing pharmacist, verifiable by the State of California, for which I provided a valid source... Board of Pharmacy, 1625 North Market Blvd Suite N-219, Sacramento, California 95834, (916)574-7900. I have the original document that proves this and can submit it. It is not just a past hobby or interest of his, it is his current profession. Additionally, the school he attended was in fact a "Private Postsecondary University recognized by the California State Department of Education... source: Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, 1625 North Market Boulevard, Suite S-202, Sacramento, CA, 95834. PO Box 980818, West Sacramento, CA, 95798-0818, (916)574-7720, www.bppva.ca.gov, Sheila M. Hawkins, Education Administrator, Degree Programs. This is verified by personal research. I have the document from Shiela Hawkins who works for the California State Department of Education if I need to submit this document.
I request that you review my claims and repost all my edits, and if you need me to post any documents to Misplaced Pages let me know.
Thanks. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Your claims don't match the sources, and you removed sourced information.
:If you want to pursue this, use the article talk page and be as specific as you can possibly be on what you think the sources show. Exact quotes would be very helpful.
:Please talk a look at ] as well. What you're doing is original research based upon the sources you find, but not actually verified within those sources. --] (]) 01:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
== OCIDLE ==
Good catch on the copyvio images, I've tagged them at commons. Sock puppetry? Haven't noticed this, what are you referring to? ] (]) 06:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:Sock- or meat-puppetry. He took up the edit-warring of {{user|198.188.96.4}} after the ip was blocked. It might be a coincidence, given the delay between the block and OCIDLE starting to edit-war. --] (]) 15:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
== GFID ==
On the Ricky Rozay ] page, people keep spamming it and vandalzing it, putting fake tracks & producers. Can you or another admin please protect it? ] (]) 14:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
:I'll look into it. --] (]) 16:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
::I'm not sure if it is bad enough for protection. You can request protection yourself at ].
::Generally, there should be some discussion on the talk page about the problem when it is not obvious vandalism. I'd start with that - make it clear what the problem is on the talk page, and notify the involved editors on their talk pages, using a template from ] if it applies. --] (]) 16:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
== hang in there Ron ==
I am an orthotist and am trying to get the quantity of information on the the various orthotic subcategories proportional to their place in the field. You are a working hard to tend to this and other entires, I am sure. Rather than delete info, it would be much better of me to expand and reference info. I apologize, I am lazy. I created the original definition of this subject years ago and successfully deleted lots of info placed by podiatrists who wanted to limit the scope of this term to one small area. The proportionality thing is what always gets me....SORRY <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It would be great if someone like yourself could introduce more and better references to the article - the article really needs a rewrite base on much better sources. --] (]) 03:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
== Art of Living ==
Recently I have undo deletion of section and projects. If you see any NGO wiki page - you may clearly find out that all activities/projects are listed in details. Please discuss in talk page before deleting. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:FYI, I have deleted the material again because it is a copyvio and I've posted a note to ]. <b>] ] </b> 10:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks for spotting that. Not only are editors trying to use the article for promotional purposes, they're coping from promotional material. --] (]) 17:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
==Orthotics==
Ron Z, I would like to congratulate you on your efforts to keep up Misplaced Pages entries on Orthotics and Prosthetics. I do not put as much time into it as you do. I apologize for my rush to put into the entry what I consider to be a fair representation of the general content needed to reflect these two subjects. I have found the entries for Prosthetics: Lower Limb History to reflect some one sided interests of specific companies and individuals. These folks whave done great things in prosthetics, but their entries do not reflect the general nature of the field. I know it is now incumbent on me or someone else to offer information that would be useful to this end- the balance end, that is. I will work on it. thanks, Bill <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:As I said, it would be best if you took the time to find sources for your changes. Yes, the articles could really use more on general information. --] (]) 06:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
== newbie pages ==
Thanks a lot for the two resource pages. I appreciate your time. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Glad to help. --] (]) 01:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
== Innovation==
Hello Ronz,
How can I contribute to innovation? My theory is noitavonni.
What do I need to accomplish in order to have this new way of thinking about innovation be published on the wikipedia web-site?
It does add to the body of knowledge on innovation.
May I ask for clarifications on this issue?
'''Dr. Clayton Christensen, D.B.A., discovered disruptive innovation theory and has a wikipedia web-site. How can he?'''
Please let me know what I need to do.
Thanks,
Lee
:Re: Christensen, take a look at ].
:Your theory seems to be little known. Please stop trying to ] it here. --] (]) 19:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
== Marlinspike External Linkies ==
Please see the ] talk page... =//= ] 04:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for notifying me. I responded there. --] (]) 16:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
== Editing of Wiki article on risk management ==
Hi Ronz,
You recently deleted some entries that I made on risk management with the comment "some tood, some bad, mostly unsourced, too much in an inappropriate tone".
I'm happy to accept that my entries do need improvement but as a published author with over 25 years international risk management experience I do know what I'm talking about. My entries significantly improved the page on risk management so (while it needed more work), I believe you did the community a dis-service by simply pressing 'undo'.
I've made some more edits to the article (again) so if you have any objections, could you either please contact me with suggestions or make some improvement (rather than just pressing undo). Granted, I'm new to editing Misplaced Pages so probably will make content, style and technical errors. All suggestions and tips would be gratefully accepted. I think we have the same goal here - to improve wikipedia.
Thanks,
Julian Talbot <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You removed sourced information in your rewrite, introduced information presented in an improper tone, and gave much more weight to information sourced by your own publications. <s>Twice.</s> I realize you have a lot to learn here. Please respect others' work as much as you want your own to be respected. I'm holding off on just reverting you again, in the hope that the information you removed can all be recovered and properly re-incorporated. --] (]) 03:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
== Thanks for all the tips re editing Misplaced Pages ==
Ronz, Thanks for all the links and tips re editing the Risk article and Misplaced Pages generally. I'll go through them and learn how to be a better contributor. A colleague also suggested that a) I need work on a strategy for the page and b) that I set up a wiki project to get more risk practitioners involved. I'll start with some ideas on the Risk discussion page (and will remember to add my name). But first... to read up a bit on editing tips. Cheers, Julian <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Glad to help. --] (]) 16:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
== Tandem language learning ==
Dear colleague,
my name is Jürgen Wolff and I am working in tandem method since 1977. Some months ago, on may 24, I tryed to give an overview about its history, effects and so on (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tandem_language_learning&diff=456573656&oldid=430654466) which was improved formally by some other editors. While writing, I integrated all the former information and the links of the Bochum project. On september 5 you deleted the whole text returning to the previous one.
Also, I noticed that you deleted on october 26 a link to teletandembrasil.org . This is a non-commercial university project which permits poor brasilians access to language exchange, and not a promotional link.
I am conscient that my first text might have had formal defects, as I am not usually writing at wikipedia, but I do not understand the deletions and would be interested to know your reasons, in English or German. I will check this page, my mail is tandem@tandem-f.org, yours sincerely
Jürgen Wolff <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Thanks for contacting me about this. Glad to have someone with your expertise interested in working on the article.
:You were editing as {{user|81.33.183.177}} then? My concerns with the information you added where that there were no ], it appeared to ] specific organizations, and the ] were inappropriate.
:Looking at it further, it would need a rewrite to have the appropriate ] and presentation expected from an encyclopedia article; and the ] needs to be reduced in addition to complete removal of promotional material such as the list of Tandem institutions.
:The external links were promotional in nature - they were there to draw attention to the institutions and projects rather than to provide further information on the topic that could not otherwise be included in the article (See ]).
:I suggest getting yourself an account, then restoring the information properly sourced and abridged to the most important events, concepts, etc. --] (]) 16:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I will re-view the article taking into account your ideas during winter holidays, Jürgen Wolff <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Dear colleague,
as promised, I have today
- reduced the level of details
- suppressed the list of organizations
- added sources, basically in history (one is in German because it is the most complete I found)
- changed words which might be seen as publicity.
I have maintained the external links to the 'big players' (Tandem Server Bochum, Tandem Foundation, Tandem International schools).
I will look at your comments in the next days. Have a good exit 2011 and entry 2012, Jürgen Wolff
- <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Thanks for your efforts. I'm going to try to get others' perspectives in the manner. --] (]) 17:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, let's see, Jürgen Wolff <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Festivus==
Hello, and asking for help. For the past two years I've "protected" ] during December and January, when it gets hundreds of thousands of hits and lots of IP and red-link user vandalism. This year I'm without a home computer for awhile, so I probably won't have one during the upcoming few weeks. Can you look in on Festivus every day, and starting on the 21st or so, like every hour??? On the 23rd it gets nearly 300,000 hits, and I'll try to cover some of that. I've asked for semi- or perm protection on the page starting in mid-December, and for sure by the 21st, so if you can contact an admin to do so this year if I don't? Thanks veryy much, and I'll send a copy of this note to ] as well, who has edited the page lately and is fairly high on the contributor's list. Thanks, and nice to meet you. ] 15:24 7-12-'11
:I can keep my eye on it and get it protected when necessary, but we'll need to get more help if it needs to be reviewed on an hourly basis. --] (]) 16:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
::Sounds good! Maybe you and True Pagan Warrior can work together. Until the 22nd or 23rd it doesn't to be checked hourly, but during the past two years there were so many people looking at it on those dates that I kept a half-hour or so watch. I'll do some of that this year as well, but can't do a constant. The things to watch for are people messing with or "improving" the lead, trying to change the main facts there, and advertisers trying to sell their poles and things. It is quite interesting that the page is in the top 100 of wikipedia site hits for the year, and is not really protected very well. ] 16:42 7-12-'11
:::If it gets protected, it will be a Festivus miracle! <small>Watchlisted.</small> --] ] 20:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
== Oops (maybe) ==
While trying to scroll a history page, I accidentally clicked the "undo vandalism" link beside your last edit on ]. I believe I escaped out of it quickly enough to prevent the action, but I wanted to let you know in case you saw anything. Sorry!
BTW, why did you insert that link into Mgeorge27's user page? Is that a special flag? Thanks. — ] <b><sup>( ] ] ] )</sup></b> 02:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for the note. Looks like you didn't make any changes to Prison tattooing.
:I added the link to specifically identify it. --] (]) 17:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
== Please stick around! ==
I saw the note on your User page and just wanted to exhort you to stay around--there are not enough good spam fighters here. I just recently ran into Hu12 and discovered the Spam Project. I think it needs all the help it can get; I hope you don't retire. — ] <b><sup>( ] ] ] )</sup></b> 02:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for the encouragement. --] (]) 17:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
==Sock?==
What are you talking about? I am no sock! ] (]) 06:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Another DPeterson sock. I've filed a report ]. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 06:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I have problems understanding this edit (or to say removal of a paragraph) of yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Seduction_community&diff=next&oldid=456083697 The paragraph states that some teachers split off due to ethical differences. Now this could probably need some "reliable source", but in the end it seems like a truism.
But also the paragraph states that some of these teachers distance themselves from the "technologies" at hand and "proves" this with, well, a link to a statement of one of these teachers. So the "unreliable" source actually acknowledges this claim. I fail to see how there can be a more "reliable" source. But I guess a newspaper article would be accepted, even if it would only reference this webpage as well. This does not make sense in my opinion.
You may point out that these teacher in particular (or say his business) is not noteworthy, but this can be said of all teachers and "players" in this field, so if we remove all information based on such sources, we could probably throw away half of the article. I totally believe that the removal of this paragraph has not improved but worsened the article because it is a important point to show that there is even quite some criticism inside the field at hand. I have seen that you removed quite some more text with the same reasoning and I believe that you have not done good to the article there as well.
I accept that there must be some guidelines to which sources can be used, but especially in topics which are not so much explored by "traditional" media and science like the topic on hand I totally believe that this should be done with a good judgement. Therefore I ask you to reconsider your edits. -- ] (]) 21:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:Hi. Thanks for contacting me about this. "Throw away half of the article?" I wouldn't be surprised if that's already been done. ] and related articles have been rife with edits of a primarily promotional nature, often with a ]. Because of these problems, the article isn't much more that a promotional piece with the most blatant advertising removed. As you notice, the sources are still very poor.
:I'm trying to keep the blatant advertising at bay. I'll also remove minutia that's poorly sourced, especially when it's promotional or otherwise not encyclopedic.
:The most relevant policies are ] and ]. These are two of Misplaced Pages's ]. --] (]) 17:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
== Totally unsolicited advice ==
Hi Ronz,
I just noticed that you've got a message box at the top of your page. Every so often I get so pissed off about something on wikipedia, or so enraged by absolute stupidity, or so disgusted about some moron sharpening their axe on some page I've worked on, and I think about packing it in. I deal with it by walking away for a bit, reading some of my favourite webcomics (] anyone?) or pick up a book on an unrelated subject, and never, ever making promises I won't come back ever. Instead, I just leave it. Check in on some articles I'm really interested in once in a while. And wait for the itch to come back. I never make demands on myself, or insist I edit, or don't edit, by a specific date. And eventually, I come back and it's fun again. Helps me. Keeps me sane. Keeps the satisfaction up in the editing. Keeps the focus on better articles.
I don't know the specifics of your situation, but I really, really hope you come back. Even for a bit, even with reduced editing. You're a rock solid editor, you know how to think, research and write. You're tops in my book and I really want to keep running into you. 'O course, sometimes it ain't worth it. But know that, FWIW I'll always be happy to see your name on my watchlist. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 02:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks. Means a lot coming from you.
:I'm still around. I've left the notices up because Misplaced Pages seems completely unable to address such problems, and because the harassment continues. --] (]) 03:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
::I'm always surprised when someone says that - I have a mental image of myself as OrangeMarlin's slightly less profane younger brother :) ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 11:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
== ektitli.org ==
Hi, I saw that you left this on a user's talk page, but I don't know what it should do: . It is a broken link, as far as I can see. (Sorry to see that you are being abused, I've stepped away from watching a number of pages because of pig-headed ignoramuses, but there can be compensating pleasant interactions sometimes.) ] (]) 19:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
:It's a low-profile way of indicating there's been some spamming of the link. I looked into the site and other editors that added it, but didn't find anything too problematic. I don't think it should be used as a reference, and it's a poor external link. --] (]) 21:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi.. just noticed that you left a message on my talk. The link led to a spam link that u made of the website i am associated with. Just wanted to inform you that I am new to wikipedia and didn't really understand what you meant. Could you please elaborate. Moreover, if u have marked the website under SPAM, kindly remove it as the editing done yesterdays were unintentional and have already been reverted. Thanks.] (]) 09:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
*{{LinkSummaryLive|ektitli.org}} --] (]) 16:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
== Intern.publicity ==
Good job. I agree with your reversal of their edits. Thank you. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
:Oh, and re: the big block of text at the top of your talk page - I'd also be glad if you'd stick around and enjoy the project. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks! --] (]) 21:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
== that is what i did not understand ==
I did not understand what was the link. You just dropped me a link. I did not understand what it meant.. And Thanks if you did not do it. ] (]) 06:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for explaining. --] (]) 06:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
== Sources for Veena Malik ==
U have written on my talk page that do not have add poor references to some pages. Do u think that the reference of ] and ] is poor?--] (]) 18:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:Yes. Please review ], ], and the discussion on the talk page. --] (]) 20:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
== Max Gerson ==
Regarding the Max Gerson page, the previous writer has a clear bias against the subject and has cited research of the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute in an attempt to present the subject in an unflattering light. I have cited The Gerson Therapy book in an attempt to edit and provide a more balanced look, but that's not good enough? Why can someone cite a reference that has a clear historical bias against the subject?
] (]) 21:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Greg
:Response on your talk. Thanks for explaining what you meant by the ACS reference. --] (]) 21:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
== Granateple's edits ==
Hi, by all means move review articles that are listed only as "further reading" to the talk pages, but I think that your level 3 warning was a bit harsh. What I've seen of the situation (Pomegranate, Wolfberry, and Cranberry) seems to fall into ] territory. He does have a point that these are well-researched authoritative reviews and could belong somewhere. ] (]) 20:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
:Good to have more editors looking at his editing.
:I gave him the warning in preparation to requesting he be blocked if he continues. He's here to promote the allegations of health benefits of fruits and fruit juices. He's been here for two months. He's decided to ignore other editors, the relevant policies and guidelines, and instead continue his improper editing. --] (]) 22:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
::Well, perhaps it is just enthusiasm for a particular subject, rather than self-serving promotion. Unfortunately, I don't have much time at present to work over these edits thoroughly to see if some specific statements from those articles could usefully be incorporated. Maybe in the next few weeks ... I think that there might also be a clash involved here between the "all herbal medicine is bunk" school of thought and the "herbal treatments do have some useful effects that have not been sufficiently studied" message that is coming through in some serious literature these days. ] (]) 01:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't believe he's done anything beyond the selection of his username, that demonstrates anything self-serving on his part. More importantly, I've not assumed that he does.
:::It would be great if he'd work on the articles. We need the help. --] (]) 21:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Ronz -- you said:
Looks like you're cleaning up some of the same problems that I recently encountered. Best to provide some explanation somewhere. I'd started a discussion here that includes a link to the only other discussion I've found on the matter. If you are aware of other discussions, please let me know. Thanks!
Also, I think it would be best if the material was moved to the talk page of each article. I've held off doing so in order not to split the discussion, but it was probably a bad decision on my part given the extent of the editing of this sort. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing to add to this discussion, and the offending author has slowed her/his pace to external reading sections. Transferring these additions to Talk may be fine, but I am ok with culling.
You asked: Re: Mushroom - Do you consider this a reliable source: I do not consider this a reliable source, despite its apparent attraction for solving an environmental problem. The author does not publish in peer-reviewed scientific literature and retains utopian views, such as believing that "mushrooms can help save the world". --] (]) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for reverting spam and possible copyvios. ]] 09:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
|}
:Thank you! --] (]) 21:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
== go2bosnia.com ==
Hello Ronz,
as I can see all of my edits are changed by you. I added some more external links for describing each item in Bosnia and Herzegovina because my country has very little information on English language part of Misplaced Pages. I don't understand what have I done wrong.
I understand that Misplaced Pages has nofollow links, but my intention wasn't to make my page rank higher. My intention, as I intended with website www.go2bosnia.com, is to give some more information about my country to the foreigners that speak English language.
Please, can you bring back the links?
Thanks for your time.
] (]) 12:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Muamergon
:As pointed out on your talk page, the links fail ]. You and at least two other editors have been recently adding them to multiple articles. The links are intended to promote tourism.
:If you'd like to provide information, find ], ] to ] information in the articles and to expand the articles. --] (]) 17:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Website indeed intend to promote Bosnia and Herzegovina in touristic way, but this is only one aspect of this promotion. Website describes and shows real beauty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, oportunities for outdoor sports and other things. Go2Bosnia also shows cultural and historic aspect of Bosnia and Herzegovina that is based upon the facts. You can find there many photo albums and video materials from the different places. You can not find that on Misplaced Pages - so the best way is to show that by linking.
I can guarantee you that Go2Bosnia is not a company or tourist agency. We are a team of people that love their country and intend to give a better view to the foreigners.
So, I am asking you again if you could bring back the links that are deleted.
Thanks in advance :)
] (]) 17:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Muamergon
:Misplaced Pages is not a place to showcase your work.
:I'm not likely to change my mind. You can get others' opinions at ]. --] (]) 21:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.
Wish you all the best :) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:And thank you for being especially clear and civil. --] (]) 22:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
== Why did you remove this? ==
I tried to contribute and help people see my country with some more light on each topic by giving them a better perspective through videos and photos. Deleting these link doesn't harm me and I have no right to act with anger.
Thank you again for being polite and I wish you a nice day :)
] (]) 07:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Muamergon
On what basis did you remove this edit?
== Talk page Hiya ==
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Mearsheimer&diff=prev&oldid=1261433814 ] (]) 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. --] (]) 20:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== just a note to say ==
Ronz, I know I'm getting snippy over at the animal-assisted therapy page. Basically I have other fish to fry, (see Talk:Stallion, which is turning into a nightmare thanks to an anon IP with an agenda) and I apologize for being testy. It's nothing at all personal, I really prefer not to see articles that could be very good ones just torn down for their flaws unless someone is willing to fix them. Some of those EL's you've tossed can actually link to good reference content, but tossing them means that it becomes more difficult to find them again later when people have the time to work on the article. It is very helpful to not have to do look things up twice. Looks like overall you are a good editor, and I don't mean to be "bitey," I can just only deal with one article in crisis at a time... ]<sup>]</sup> 03:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
:<s>I'll re-review the links, and move to the talk page anything I find that might be useful as references.</s> --] (]) 16:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
::Given your uncivil comment on that article talk, I have better things to do. I moved them to talk for someone else to mine. --] (]) 17:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thx for working through the issues with me
:::We ALL have better things to do. Here, I just attempted to apologize by explaining my actions and thought process, and I feel you have just basically slapped me for trying. You may not have meant that, but it was your impact. I hope you understand that I considered your actions at that article to be rude and condescending to me, I felt preached at (I've been here for almost 6 years, I'm not a noob), and your solutions were not solutions; I have zero interest in taking anything to the "drama boards" where the most tendentious individuals on WP argue over nothing for months on end. I felt irritated and took an irritable tone in my replies, and thus we got a negative feedback loop going where we both sounded pretty snippy to each other. Though I suppose we both can do our best to do better at AGF, sometimes people are tense and having "one of those days" (weeks, months, lives...) and a little time out and deep breaths are sometimes in order. Also, incivility is on a spectrum. I see your user page has a box about how you have been bullied and harassed. So have I, it's an awful feeling. However, I suppose that one thing to remember is that the written word doesn't always convey the right emotional nuance and we ALL sometimes might say things that are construed with a different impact than was intended. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
] (]) 03:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Sorry you feel that way.
::::Besttocleanupafteryourselfwhenyouloseyourcool. --] (]) 06:17, 27 December 2011 (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)
:::::AGF, my friend. I didn't lose my cool, I was just a bit snippy. And I'm not wasting any more time on this. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
==Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion==
==Festivus aftermath==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding a possible ] incident with which you may be involved. <!--Template:Coin-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 18:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Great work on protecting Festivus. And it's too bad that the edit count history went out from the 23rd to the 25th - the times when the page gets hundreds of thousands of hits. That's going to mess up the edit counts for all the December holiday articles. ] 20:09 27-12-'11
:Thanks. We had numerous eyes on the article keeping the problems from getting out of hand. I'm surprised that we got by without protection. --] (]) 23:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
::Well, it may need it now. I'm seemingly involved in my first edit war, with an IP who wants to make the holiday into its opposite. Please intervene, or at least join in the "fun". Thanks. And the loss of recorded hits on Festivus and the two days after Festivus will change the placement of the page on the year's most popular listing. Gnomes in the machine. ] 18:02 30-12-'11
:::The editor has taken the issue to the ] and onto the next level with9in a the next half hour, please join in if you'd like. Thanks. ] 18:39 30-12-'11
== January 2025 ==
==Reply to the "Pooja Misrra" revert==
I added the last changes because it is quite evident. Pooja was saved in '''SIX''' Evictions and got the highest amount of votes in every one of them. If you don't believe me check out the ] you'll know!. ] the host said so on the eviction nights. She was disliked by the housemates but not by the audiences. I regularly watch ] and i know what's happening. Even later on in the article it's mentioned "Few Audiences' support was also seen on Bigg Boss official website where followers 'liked' Pooja's profile using their Facebook account." why would audience give her votes on the site when they dislike her. And people love her for her comical dialouges, how can she become infamous for them??. There have been so many edits, People have been editing and cutting out the details. She in fact got the highest votes on the site(in millions). Millions doesn't mean "only a few". You even reverted my changes about her Stay summary. You want a source for that too? Go to the wiki page, it'll confirm how many weeks she survived in the house and how many nominations she received!--] (]) 05:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
:While your enthusiasm is contagious, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not a fan page. Sources please. --] (]) 17:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
== 1001rugs.com ==
Points to note:
I understand that I can't include information from my own site in Misplaced Pages but would it be posble for you to include the rug care info from my site on Misplaced Pages and just include a link to the reference page on my site. I am sure that many people will be happy to have this information availble to them.
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''
Many thanks
# '''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 and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' <!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 18:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
] Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's ], as you did at ], you may be ]. Misplaced Pages aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment.<!-- Template:uw-harass3--> ] (]) 18:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Ramin2000 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Thanks for your response. Even if we found an authoritative source, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedic reference, not an ] --] (]) 21:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Latest revision as of 18:39, 7 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.
Hi, first of all, sorry for my bad English... :-) Thank you for explaining to me how to use sources in English Misplaced Pages in the future. I point out that I have expanded the article this time using the geneastar.org source, which was already present in the article (I had to register to find the information, and in fact they are slightly different from what ethnicelebs.com reported). I hope now Ron DeSantis article is okay. Thanks again. --LukeWiller (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC).
Hi Hipal (or is there a concealed tautology in that?)
I read the edit summary for your revert and note that, of the 2 issues, you address only citations. I have reread the text and you will see what I said about fanPOV. Hence I have reduced the tag to leave just the one issue.
May I ask you to look at that issue again. I examined the references and they are mostly from perfectly reputable sources- Irish Times, New York Times, Irish Independent, Forbes, BBC etc.
I also checked the few refs from biographies which MIGHT be favourable, and they refer only to the most basic biographical information. Aineireland (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I responded on the article talk page, referring to my original addition of the tag. In this case, there's a clear anti-fan pov problem. --Hipal (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
what to do?
Dear User. Just wanted to ask. I found such parts of text on the Gecko browser page:
Development of the layout engine now known as Gecko began at Netscape in 1997, following the company's purchase of DigitalStyle. The existing Netscape rendering engine, originally written for Netscape Navigator 1.0 and upgraded through the years, was slow, did not comply well with W3C standards, had limited support for dynamic HTML and lacked features such as incremental reflow (when the layout engine rearranges elements on the screen as new data is downloaded and added to the page). The new layout engine was developed in parallel with the old, with the intention being to integrate it into Netscape Communicator when it was mature and stable. At least one more major revision of Netscape was expected to be released with the old layout engine before the switch.
After the launch of the Mozilla project in early 1998, the new layout engine code was released under an open-source license. Originally unveiled as Raptor, the name had to be changed to NGLayout (next generation layout) due to trademark problems. Netscape later rebranded NGLayout as Gecko. While Mozilla Organization (the forerunner of the Mozilla Foundation) initially continued to use the NGLayout name (Gecko was a Netscape trademark), eventually the Gecko branding won out.
////
and many more. they are not linked with news websites, nor books. How do you address such issues? it that normal? V21v (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi V21v. I'm not clear about what you're asking, but I'll try to respond best I can:
You're quoting content from Gecko (software), and that content does not appear to be verified with a reference. I expect in a case like this, an editor could find suitable references to use by searching the Internet. --Hipal (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Sam AI BLP
Hello, Hipal and/or Ronz. I'm unsure if this is a shared account. I notice that Ronz is on break from Misplaced Pages. If Hipal = Ronz, please accept my apologies for this intrusion. The most recent entry on the BLP talk page of the now very-famous SV entrepreneur Sam, the "chatty" AI guy indicates removal of his marital/partner status. I am confused, because the source is WP:RS, it being The New York Times. I also noticed your stated mission in editing Misplaced Pages, which seems to be one of tact while preserving integrity. That is why I'm broaching this here, not on the article talk page. Specifically, I need to know if there a reason for excluding that information from the BLP? If so, I will not reinsert it.
If you respond here, please ping me, if you would be so kind?
No, I am not a troll nor (very) autistic! My reason for making this belabored inquiry is as follows: I became a childless widow at a young age, so I keep an eye out for unmarried men during the course of my Misplaced Pages editing. I know that widowed Misplaced Pages readers do too! It is helpful for us to be informed of the sort of information that was deleted from Chatty Sam's BLP. Thank you for reading this; I apologize for the lengthiness. -- FeralOink (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello again! Now I understand! I just went through the history and this edit. Please disregard my prior message. Sorry for the clutter; you can delete or hat it if you prefer. I DO agree with you, about the article having a promotional aspect, and thank you for tagging it. I'll do some editing and try to address that now.--FeralOink (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. Glad that you're looking into the article. I did some quick cleanup, but there are still questionable sources and content based upon them. --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Sandy Koufax family origins
Hey, @Hipal. I noticed you removed the information I added about Koufax's family. The reason I used these sources is because they are also used on other pages and thought it would be alright. I also found the information to match other sources.
Those sources are unreliable and should not be used, which you seem to understand for one Point out any other pages using such sources, and I'll remove them too. --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I understand. Will keep in mind and not use these sources. I now went back and noticed those pages are not featured articles and, hence, not as accurate. I will remove such sources myself should I come across them.
Take a look at the listings at WP:RSP. There are some genealogical sites that are reliable, but many include user-generated content. Find-a-grave links are an ongoing problem, but I've not kept up to date on the efforts to remove it as a reference and minimize its use as an external link. --Hipal (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
What's wrong with primary sourcing here? From my understanding independent sourcing is generally required to avoid NPOV problems and to establish the notability of a topic in the first place, so that had seemed fine to be primary sourced, although I'm not too clear on the guidelines for media summary. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi MasterTriangle12. Thanks for following up with me on this.
BESTSOURCES is the most general summary of NPOV sourcing, reading further gives a better idea of sourcing policy. WP:PRIMARYCARE is a general overview of using primary sources, and the use of primary sources for media summaries like this. As to NOTPROMO was that just about including the quote from their website? I did want to make that whole quote a link to cultural marxism just for clarity, but that would probably be going too far with meta-editorialization. I think some of the wording could probably be changed to ensure that it cannot be interpreted as puffery though, which specific parts of those paragraphs did you think were not appropriate? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Without a high-quality, clearly independent reference to draw upon, I don't see any way to move forward per NOT and POV. We're writing encyclopedia articles, not advertising copy. --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that can easily be interpreted as advertising, and a few small changes would make that not a problem. I think you are misinterpreting those policies as being far more restrictive than they actually are, since it sounds like you think that primary sources cannot be used at all to describe what a company does or produces, or their statements about what they do, which is only the case for the being the basis of an article topic (often misread as being broader than that). NPOV & PROMO can certainly be used as part of an argument against including primary sourced material, sometimes even the whole argument if it is bad enough, but that is very different from it simply not being allowed, and there are several clarifications in the policies that detail where this is allowed. Maybe have a look over the policies that clarify this particular situation (WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:USEPRIMARY, WP:USINGSPS) and articulate where you think those paragraphs went wrong, if you are not specific then I don't know what part you had a problem with so I can fix it up. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was laying down the final word on those policies or anything, I guess I slipped into too authoritative a tone since it is just my reading and interpretation of the policies.
I was describing all that with a lot of detail to make it easier for you to identify how I interpret the policies and give you some starting points to describe where you disagree, or to be more specific about your disagreement with the content. I would prefer more than just a generality about what you thought was lacking before I start coming up with improvements. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't see how a corporation's own press about themselves is encyclopedic in most cases. If it's worth noting, an independent publisher will note it. I'm concerned that NOT is being overlooked. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty good for factual claims about the world but when it comes to media or politics it's a bit scant. Even if they were just more explicit about where editors should use discretion or discuss it between themselves rather than leaving us wondering if we are missing some bit of policy.
Anyhow, I'm kinda thinking that whole section could do without the description of the shows, it's not that useful and as you noted the sourcing is poor. I'd like to have at least the count of the episodes to illustrate that the kids section is a large part of what they do now, that's primary-sourceable if dated, but it's a bit hard to find any other RSs that mention the program in enough detail to be worth citing, probably because they only started going hard on the youngsters in the last few years.
I'd still like to mention that quote, since it is quite indicative of their intent, but there's a big problem, where not explaining that it is a conspiracy theory is WP:FRINGE and just irresponsible, but explaining it would basically be OR. Would like to mention their classroom "study guides" too, but same sourcing problems, they don't publicise that program outside their bubble so it's mostly just little op-eds and posts from parents complaining about their kids being taught that non-conservative thought is the devil or whatever.
I should probably just make a thread on the talk page about the various kids stuff, the page is kinda lacking for how big the program is. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Ay, I hadn't seen that Prospect article, seems quite useful although I guess would have to be attributed, thanks! Do you have access to that journal article? I messaged the author and they said they are trying to change it to open access, but didn't say how long that might take. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it is mostly describing the significance of the role PU is playing in radicalisation and making a call for further study, but if nothing else it is at least a good supporting source for some things. One important thing that it notes is PU trying to reframe it's fairly extreme ideologies as centrist and/or academic but I'm not sure how to work that in. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I was having some difficulties with reading the reference. Fixed now.
If we treat it as the highest-quality reference we have, then the POV of the Misplaced Pages page should be changed considerably along the lines you've identified. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SALt lamp (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
Hello. Did you read my edit summary? Conservative is in the following sentence, with the same link. Please undo your revert. SPECIFICOtalk20:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Current one seems OK, thanks. The real problem is the use of the loaded and imprecise term "think tank" -- although there are plenty of sources that call it that, there are also plenty that call BS on that. It's fundamentally a partisan advocacy organization that cloaks itself in narratives that appear to be credible policy investigations but do not reflect rigorous mainstream thinking. Removing "think tank" would be good, but I suspect it would be controversial on the talk page. SPECIFICOtalk22:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that replacing "think tank" would be an improvement, but could be difficult. It would likely take some very good, in-depth references. --Hipal (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Want an image for an article?
So, in the interests of ITTITBOABF I thought I'd offer to search for a free image for an article you worked on. I do that. My hit rate for this sort of thing is about 10-20%, so I can't guarantee anything, but that's not 0. I looked at articles you've been working on recently, and saw Sommer Ray, which I can actually find a free image or two for; specifically she has marked a few of her YouTube videos Creative Commons Attribution, so we can use them, and I'd happily take a screenshot or two. However I looked a bit more closely at your edits there, and they're actually more deleting bits of that article rather than trying to expand it, so I'm not at all sure you'll be grateful to me for adding to it. I tried to find articles that you created, that I could try to illustrate, and couldn't find any. So - would you like me to add images to Sommer Ray? If not, are there any articles that you would be happy if I was able to illustrate? --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. Sommer Ray is a mess where I did some basic BLP cleanup. I hope to avoid more work on it given what looks like fan/UPE editing there.
I do run across articles that need images, but I don't keep track.
There was an RfC at Sia not long ago where editors were struggling to choose its initial image. They settled for a 2006 image. A more recent one would likely be of help. --Hipal (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey I'm concerned you might have violated the WP:3RR on Sommer Ray. I understand that BLP is an exception, but the information you reverted is not libelous or unsourced, as the BLP exemption only applies to libelous, unsourced, poorly sourced and contentious material. Contentious, maybe, but you're probably not going to be able to successfully argue for a 3RR exemption with NYTimes sourcing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm the one that asked you to use edit requests so that you wouldn't be seen as continuing to edit war and ignoring the requirements of BLP. It's a BLP and under sanctions.
My standard offer applies. I'd ask you to stop adding to it without clear consensus as BLP requires, so we don't have to worry about you being blocked or worse. --Hipal (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if Requested Edits is the best venue for the current developments – I think we're on a good track right now with smaller edits. In the future, please consider partial reverts instead of solving dandruffs with a decapitation. Since Dexerto seems to be our biggest point of contention, probably best to wait for the discussion to close since there is a CR there. Feel free to leave your own opinion on the source as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead with my standard offer, I am usually open to holding myself to one revert...
Smaller edits are always helpful, but without consensus behind them, they are edit-warring against BLP and applicable sanctions.
Dexerto is not remotely our biggest point of contention.
Not sure what to say beyond the following. I'm not in favor of using requested edits as it implies I am a connected contributor, which I'm not. Neither am I a fanboy. I just wrote the article because I thought she met the GNG. If you'd like to hold yourself to 1RR, go ahead.
Also, Dexerto just closed as Additional Considerations apply on WP:RS/N, with rare use for BLPs. I think we can warrant inclusion for Dexerto when cross-referencing other RS's and primary sources. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Edit requests or something similar so there are no violations of BLP. Repeated BLP violations will result in a block or ban.
The arguments at RSN on why Dexerto shouldn't be used in a BLP mirror the ones I've given for it's use in Sommer Ray. There's no consensus to use it. --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Feedback
Thank you so much for the feedback on my edit! For clarity, I was attempting to update the filmography and career sections. I am still learning and will make smaller edits in the meantime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abratimepoke (talk • contribs)
Hi Rajmama. I'm very busy, and may not be able to help. Review WP:DELETE, and make the best case you can by identifying the very best references. At a glance, the Xpress Times is probably the most detailed, but it looks like a publicity piece so probably will not be enough. --Hipal (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
avelyman.com cleanup
Do you know if it is possible to use AWB for this, manual cleanup for this would be... problematic? And do you know how this website got spammed so much? Thanks, Seawolf35 (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Glad someone else is interested in cleaning up the avelyman.com mess!
I have never looked into how AWB works, or if other tools would be better.
It is a absolute mess to be sure, I don't get what the hell people think is valuable about that site. And it is established editors adding it too. Blows my mind. Seawolf35 (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Doubtful Sources
@HipalHi, I was browsing through your doubtful sources list and it's an interesting list. I agree that many of them are doubtful and are not trustworthy when it comes to WP:BLP. Here's a few more I think you should add.
Encyclopedia Quite a few celebs have the incorrect DOB listed here.
Allocine Same as above. The biggest red flag here is that it has Laverne Cox's birth year listed as 1984. When her actual birth year(1972) was revealed years ago.
Moviefone Like the above two, some celebs have the wrong DOB up. What makes it even more questionable is that the actor biographies that are on there, are a near copy/paste of their biographies that are on their Misplaced Pages page. If not the current version, then an older version from years back. So it looks like they got their info here on Misplaced Pages. Kcj5062 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
It's mostly just a list of questionable sources that I've run across on multiple occasions, before WP:RSP was created.
I'm surprised encyclopedia.com isn't on RSP. It's difficult to find how to use it properly through RSN.
I've run across allocine.fr. It certainly could use more discussion at RSN.
Another fake "fact checking" website, thanks for noticing the other instance. "Progressive" may potentially be right, but there likely are better sources anyway. I only discovered the "Truthout" website recently via a link from a centrist news source, so checked its WP article. When seeing "anarchist" and "far left" I have only quickly surveyed it and it was obviously false. When reading about "AllSides" however, tracing the origin and money exposes it. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 04:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
"A similar effort is “The Media Bias Chart,” or simply, “The Chart.” Created by Colorado patent attorney Vanessa Otero, the chart has gone through several methodological iterations, but currently is based on her evaluation of outlets’ stories on dimensions of veracity, fairness, and expression."
Hence my qualifier that the 2018 Columbia article is about a prior version of The Chart.
Let's take this to the article talk page. I'm not sure I understand. The 2018 CJR article was written about a version significantly different than what was available in 2018? --Hipal (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried a wording closer to the RS and showed the full quote in the edit summary. I also added a topic to the talk page in case further discussion is needed. Nowa (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Ad Fontes Media: Use in Academic Research
@Hipal, I was going to respond to this edit of Ad Fontes Media on the article's talk page. I wasn't quite sure, however, what you meant by "examplespam, So". Could you elaborate? I want to be sure I understand and can address your concerns. Nowa (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
And now the typical accusations of a "personal vendetta" etc have turned up. We know what they mean: "Lovely work, Hipal!" Bishonen | tålk03:05, 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. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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! :) Ocaasi22:59, 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
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 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 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.
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)
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!
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? JarrahTree01:56, 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. JarrahTree02:06, 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, ... JarrahTree02:29, 3 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)
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!
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Science of Identity Foundation. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SALt lamp is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Sokoreq (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Science of Identity Foundation. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's harassment policy, as you did at Science of Identity Foundation, you may be blocked from editing. Misplaced Pages aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. Sokoreq (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)