This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you for the encouragement to have this article revised. Sometimes these articles can sit as be without review and if someone does attempt a revision reverted in whole and labeled vandalism. My attempt was not meant as an absolute but rather than wait for someone else to go at it did a quick rework and left it for someone else to make the refinements that can include content removal. GinAndChronically ( talk) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
331dot ( talk) 17:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ronz - New to editing on Wikipedia and learning the ropes as I go. Thank you for the reminders and tips. -- JessicaDMRF ( talk) 19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Going through archives, I think I had seen you commenting about this link, consider checking WP:External links/Noticeboard#findagrave, Thanks. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ronz,My Name is Kuldeep, and I'm regular reader and contributor of Wikipedia since long. I've Edited some links for the quality content of Wikipedia but i got a message that you removed link, [because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia.].
it'd be great if you can give provide me details for these links so that i can keep it in mind from next time.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuldeepofficial ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I see you've been helping with restoring the Omez redirect to Omeprazole in line with other proprietary forms of this drug. Do you think the page should be Semiprotected -- and if so -- can you help do this. I've struggled with the unclear instructions! Jrfw51 ( talk) 19:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions.
I like to clear linkfarm and whenever I had any doubt about the links, I would simply add them to my list. Check User:OccultZone/Linkfarm, it may be hard but you can surely help. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The No Spam Barnstar | |
Thank you for being so vigilant about spam, linkfarms and the myriad of related problems plaguing articles! The work you do too often gets overlooked, but we do notice. Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC) |
LOL, wtf is the threat? You've been editing since 2006, presumably you know the rules. 3RR and all that. Blanking an entire article like that, a longstanding one without controversy, during an AFD, is bad form. I'm normally quite well-composed, but get upset by uncivil behavior like that.-- Milowent • has spoken 19:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ronz. You may not remember me (until a few hours ago I could not have recalled the [ on WP:AN/I] where we had crossed paths), but a few Wikipedians asked me to intervene in the dispute at this page.
First, let me say I've looked over our record in the two years since our last meeting, & you clearly are not the person I encountered then. It's clear you have taken on some difficult issues & handled them -- better than I would have. You are clearly an asset to Wikipedia.
However, in this incident it's clear you & a number of other editors have greatly different opinions about this article, & I don't see where a compromise can be found. You took this article to AfD, & the result was a keep. Your further attempts to work on it are only causing frustration on both parts. My suggestion -- one I vigorously suggest, but I'm still leaving the choice to you -- is to walk away from this group of articles & let them be. A few unsatisfactory articles will not destroy Wikipedia, so there is no harm walking away from them. According to the front page there are over 4.5 million articles, so there is no lack of other articles that could stand improvement from your attention. Do that, & in the long run I think you'll do better at Wikipedia than sticking it out at List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 & dealing with the consequences. -- llywrch ( talk) 23:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
For anyone paying attention, I realize that my starting this discussion in conjunction with [2] [3] might be seen as cutting it too close to what I agreed to above. Let me know what you think. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Finaly I found the way how to communicate with you about the editing on Semir Osmanagich. you wrote:"we don't provide a directory of his writings but rather highlight those related to his notability or are otherwise prominent".
How do you know which books are related to his notability and are prominent
if you don't know even language in which they are written, like German, Turkish, Croatian..
I see wrong information for ex. in this line below:
right spelled this line is below and you can check it here
"Alternativna povijest - tragovima Atlantide" – Indrija, Zagreb (385/1-370-7688) ili Sveznadar ( www.sveznadar.hr)(language:Croatian)
(by chance I was born in Zagreb and could read and understand this line)and see that it is the same ISBN.)
Old line in English is misleading readers who don't know..and trust that Wikipedia provide right information.
Why someone from Germany could not find information that there is Osmanagich's book written in German language,
or Turkish person to know that there is in Turkish language.
Can we give just ,facts, right information to readers?
..without much personal judging (as there is so here in this article,generally, as I feel.)-- Indija ( talk) 14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I hope that this 2 links below my talk on your User talk are not from you
.. they are without signature..and appear after my talk
and they are non-related to my talk ..what is this?..spam? -- Indija ( talk) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ronz
Thanks for your comments. I am Digmaa. I don't want to promote anything, just putting a link which directs to Github respiratory which stores the implementation of head/tail breaks theory and this is approved by Binjiangwiki who created this page. This time I put the link in External Link section, hopefully it is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmaa ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Reference nr 11 is dead link. I don't understand why an old version of this site cannot be edited?-- Indija ( talk) 21:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you,Ronz,for kind answer. I am new on Wikipedia and it takes little time in my orientation where and how to ask and answer.I go to site discussion.-- Indija ( talk) 21:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I was going to warn Indija about edit-warring, but that's a bit tricky as you are at 3RR - permissible of course but it would look odd to a newbie. Dougweller ( talk) 20:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ronz. I saw your question about Nofel Izz on Johnmoor's talk page. I'm aware that one editor was recently hired by Nofel, and looking at who has been editing that article, I'd guess that at least four editors were hired. I'll go through it later today and see what I can clarify - I have a lot of teaching commitments, but once I knock them off I may have a bit of time. I had warned some of the editors about the new disclosure requirements, so that may require following up, unfortunately. - Bilby ( talk) 00:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for removing those additions from so many articles. This is probably the third or fourth time this editor or a sock has done this. And tucked in amongst all the bogus claims are one or two legitimate ones. Makes me crazy. Thanks! Magnolia677 ( talk) 00:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You are correct that skyhooks are a subject I am very familiar with. I have also been working very hard at being as neutral as possible in what I write on the subject. If there is something that I have written that appears biased please point out the specific statement or passage that concerns you and I will do my best to address it. Thank you for your time and your comments Skyhook1 ( talk) 16:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, I was a bit disappointed to see your comment, coming from such an experienced editor....I'm not sure if you know the history of this page, but it basically gets regular ambushing from WP:SPA accounts on both sides. While it's not really our problem except when it gets so lame it starts to discredit Wikipedia (and I agree with you the article needs work), I thought to check if you had read the edit comments from the person you are encouraging? So far they have just deleted lots of RS - material from other encyclopaedia's without legitimate explanation. If it's so obvious to everyone that it's advertising, why is no one able to specify the offending text rather than just launching a chainsaw operation.
It's also this editors first edits on Wikipedia, yet they are clearly not a first timer, which begs the question why they aren't using their previous editing account/s....anyways, hope you don't mind me saying. Regards Danh108 ( talk) 08:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear RonZ:
Thank you for taking the time to send me a line on some recent edit(s) on the CoQ10 page. I have chosen to factually include the information that ubiquinol is part of the CoQ10 family. As you know, CoQ10 is comprised of ubiquinone, ubiquinol, and partially reduced form (ubisemiquinone). Ubiquinol is a member of the CoQ10 family just like Texas is a state of the USA. Let me give you an examples of the text that you removed on the basis of "soapboxing", which hinders the reader's basic understanding of CoQ10:
Example 1 Your text: Coenzyme Q10, also known as ubiquinone, ubidecarenone, coenzyme Q...
My text (which you removed): Coenzyme Q10, also known as ubiquinone, ubiquinol (unoxidized form), ubidecarenone, coenzyme Q...
Example 2 Your text: In its reduced form, the CoQ10 molecule holds electrons rather loosely, so this CoQ molecule will quite easily give up one or both electrons and, thus, act as an antioxidant.
My text (which you removed): In its reduced form ubiquinol, the CoQ10 molecule holds electrons rather loosely, so this CoQ molecule will quite easily give up one or both electrons and, thus, act as an antioxidant.
This removal of the word ubiquinol from the definition of CoQ10 is factually incorrect and not undue soapboxing. Though I can undo your edit, which is not a mature option, I prefer to approach you on a scientific basis so that you may, yourself, decide to undo your edit.'
I hope this is reasonable and I thank you for your help.
Committed molecules ( talk) 04:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Committed Molecules
Hi ronz,
We want to know why our website etechnologytips considered as linkspam. We're already linking it from couple of months ago and the others not having a problem with it. Maybe you can tell us so we can improve our website for a better result. Thanks
Regards, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.136.245.76 ( talk) 17:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ronz,
Sorry for the trouble - didn't mean to go against Wikipedia policy. I'll try to do better with future contributions - thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottmatta ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ronz,
You recently left me a message about removing links I had added and you invited me to reach out with questions. Please could you let me know why you felt these were inappropriate?
Thanks. Y528s ( talk) 20:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:Ronz, I just wanted to thank you for this edit on the Raksha Bhandan article. I've had the article on my watchlist for a long time and it's good to see positive changes there. Have a great day! With regards, Anupam Talk 12:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, Thanks for your anti-fluffery work over there on Nofel Izz. Based on your comments on the Bradley C. Edwards nomination for deletion, I have the feeling you may think the Edwards article is similar to Nofel Izz. In case you do, I'd like to argue otherwise. Like I said in my "keep" comment, Edwards is the man. He is as solid & notable as Izz is flakey & puffed up. He's the major figure who got Space Elevators (real ones) moving in the early oughts with thorough design and engineering. His article is stubby and doesn't reflect his impact, but that's only because he hasn't been puffed like Izz. Notability is required for the subject, which Edwards has in spades. So, there you go, just in case you didn't know.
Skyway (
talk) 17:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
..hnnmmm...So, if I may ask you, Ronz, why would you not vote on this— Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley C. Edwards? I supposed that you equally avoided this one— Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpaceShaft, did you not? — JOHNMOORofMOORLAND ( talk) 21:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, Ronz. It's hard to back up opinions with evidence when the subject was so quickly put on the chopping block. That takes some time. Usually, notability debates start on the talk page, then move to the AFD after some debate if there is some validity. Here, it looks like someone without a background saw the article, got pissed off that the subject appeared to lack sufficient notability by the article, so it was submitted summarily to WP:PROD. When that failed, it was immediately submitted to AFD. There was no discussion on the talk page at all.
Yeah, the article is in a sorry state and it does lack evidence of notability. I can see how someone who isn't familiar with the field and it's history could look at the article and question notability of the subject. It shouldn't be too hard to fix that impression in the article with a little bit of research, but time is needed, and maybe a little talk on the talk page.
Skyway (
talk) 04:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I just have put together some real sources Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Real_sources_to_improve_the_article for the "List of villains bought by the oil industry to put disbelieve in the great truth of global climate change put on be Nobel prize winner Michael Mann and other Great Prophets". Serten ( talk) 12:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Nofel Izz. 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 be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
Contributing to Wikipedia is not about
WP:WINNING, so do not be
WP:POINTy when your contributions are challenged; most contributors do not agree with you here—
Talk:Nofel Izz#Puffery —
JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (
talk) 20:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Ronz. Would it be helpful to post the material in User:Location/Sandbox13 to the discussion in WP:ELN? I don't want to clutter up the page, but I think it's important to the discussion. Location ( talk) 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Ronz, I agree with you that there were too many external links to the Amharic language page. Some were about the script, not the language. But I was surprised that you recently removed a link to a medical dictionary. In the list of written sources, there are dictionaries and grammars. This medical dictionary should be consulted more often than Armbruster's old grammar, which is safely listed. If it was a broad, general dictionary would that be more acceptable to you than a medical dictionary?
We both want this page to be useful and in conformity with Wikipedia's policies. Please tell us what you think would be acceptable for external links for this language related article.
Please remember that I have not been involved in any comments about where people are writing from. I am only trying to improve the article about a language that is very important to me.
Pete unseth
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Mind having a look at the revert after block expiry ... -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Ronz! Thank you for your helpful feedback! I have read the relevant sources you shared with me, but in reviewing the material in question I do not see how the article in question contains (a) promotional content (b) content representing a non-neutral point of view or (c) inappropriate external links. I recognized that some of the information in my first draft could appear as promotional material, so I removed that information, and I removed adjectives that seemed to represent a non-neutral point of view. The external links cited are the source's book, the source's website, and numerous articles from reputable sites about the source. I have looked and have not been able to find any articles written in opposition to the source, but I agree that they would be a great addition to the article if they become available. Could you please help me understand what specifically in the article strikes you as (a) promotional content (b) content representing a non-neutral point of view or (c) inappropriate external links? I would be happy to improve the article. Dandem1 ( talk) 01:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, you sent me a message saying you deleted some of my content. I'm just curious as to what I can do to make the content less promotional. I believed that the content was important for consumers to know, and the page seemed to lack information on variable annuities. At the same time, I do not want to violate Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMH182 ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
That's completely understandable, Ronz. My boss has written a book published by the American Bar Association ( http://shop.americanbar.org/eBus/Store/ProductDetails.aspx?productId=214487). That should be a reputable enough source, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMH182 ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, thank you for your constructive feedback on the page I made about the Gokhale Method. It was the first page I made on Wikipedia, and even though you were telling me things I didn't want to hear, once you explained your reasons I learned a lot from you. I took your suggestion too and created a page about Esther Gokhale instead, since that page had more solid notability. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing it if you get a chance. I think I made this one better. Thanks Dandem1 ( talk) 02:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Ronz, you deleted the Open Kanban mention on the Kanban development page, the reason you mentioned was related to marketing material on Wikipedia. This makes no sense whatsoever, the actual mention in that page is about Lean Kanban University Kanban, a fully paid, non open source, proprietary Kanban. One that has several paragraphs, and reads like an ad. Yet you did not delete that one, you deleted the mention about a free, fully open source Kanban method! Please stop and learn a bit more about this subject before deleting anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeLeanVoice ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The article on FM fails to note that the Cleveland Clinic, which is about as mainstream as it gets, just opened a functional medicine institute. 24.15.55.23 ( talk) 03:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ronz! I am still trying to learn how to use Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to message people, so hopefully this message reaches you.
173.168.39.10 (
talk) 21:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that the opening of Cleveland Clinic's FM Institute is big and informative - so would like to see it somewhere on WP.
"Newsy" and related news: a woman chiropractor in Virginia recently filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the Virginia Board of Medicine which had previously fined her $25K and suspended her license for practicing FM. The board comprises all MDs. The one chiropractor on the Board of Medicine did not participate in the decision to fine and suspend the license. The hearing in Arlington, VA is scheduled for December 2014. (Petrie v. VA Board of Medicine)
Watchquackwatch (
talk) 13:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you check that the username QuackWatch and its type of organization complies with WP rules, and tell me why?
Thanks, Heather Watchquackwatch ( talk) 13:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ronz! Sorry, I am new and still learning how to use this interface. You reverted an edit that referenced several news articles discussing the launch of a new center for functional medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. Primary sources were also listed. This seems like a very relevant piece of information that should be listed on an encyclopedia article about functional medicine. The Cleveland Clinic is very well known and respected and a pillar in American medicine. The goal is to be factual, not promotional. Please let me know how you think this content can be edited to sound less promotional, but still convey factual information. Would be glad to discuss here or on the Functional Medicine talk page. Thanks! 173.168.39.10 ( talk) 13:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Chyawanprash ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi Ronz, yes i am very much aware that we can't promote any product through wikipedia but if u have noticed the picture of chyawanprash used in the page is of dabur and there is also mentioned that Madhuri dixit is the brand ambasdr of Dabur.. so, isn't it promotion of Dabur. Why have you not deleted it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjalipatwal ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 14 October 2014
Hi Ronz. I left a response to your response to my Reiki edits but i'm not sure if you got it? Basically i'd like to work with you to get this page further edited.
We believe it is full of misstatements about Reiki which might come down to a he said, she said situation.
I certainly understand the issue with "promotion" and do not want to do that however my information comes from a living person who is almost as creditable and quotable as it gets within Reiki and there is so much that would be stated differently if writing our own page.
So if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my message for you perhaps i can start moving forward with edits that don't get erased.
Thanks!
Encyclojonny ( talk) 10:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Understood. You're right, that last sentence I added did mention something negative about a living person and should have been deleted, per policy. My oversight. However the previous sentence should have stayed. The content was supported in the existing references and was the minimal that should be added to this blatantly promotional piece. Seabreezes1 ( talk) 18:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
User_talk:Robert_McClenon#FYI_on_evidence and my preparation of a move request on Talk:Scientific_skepticism#Sceptical_Movement might be of interest for you. Serten ( talk) 20:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I have been removed those now like three times from this article. Quite sneaky. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christmas_tree&diff=630902217&oldid=630819008
Hafspajen ( talk) 09:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Here are my third party sources for the addition to the customer experience page. We have been going back and forth for years now editing this page and this is what you have needed: take a look -
1994-1998
Those 3 articles all cite the Carbone and Haeckel article from 1994.
May you update the page to reflect these changes please?
- JC17171717
Can we please discuss this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.48.249.2 ( talk) 16:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I was not logged into my account, I updated the talk page :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JC1717 ( talk • contribs) 22:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll read up on the requirements.
Vince — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Cyboran ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the lede is better. We can continue to improve over the next few weeks. Here are my intentions with the article:
● Refine opening paragraph. Add more distinctions between Usability Engineering and Usability Interface Engineering. ● Add more inline citations on Usability Engineering that enhances understanding of the topic. ● Add an information box that will contain some of the common attributes from other fields. ● Add images to draw readers attention. ● Remove the “reading” list, or refine it so it doesn’t have just book listings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brc4783 ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I will try to do better. Do you have any specific suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:6800:500:558:6DA6:271F:C069 ( talk) 23:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks for your comments and suggestions. I will try to better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivianolan ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
(Below is in response to:"I moved your closure comment an formatting to the RfC specifically, then pointed out that there was indeed a specific question [5]. I hope this isn't a problem.
How should I have worded the RfC to make the question clearer and more prominent?
As the issue of all the sources being poor wasn't directly addressed or answered in the RfC, I'll be taking it to the BLP noticeboard after wrapping up the current issues: those brought up at FTN, the edit-warring and ownership problems that has driven a new editor away, and the coi and paid editing problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)" [6])
As you mentioned that my sources were poor and did not meet the wikipedia guidelines but the sources like BBC, Aljazeera, Official website of Govt. of Malaysia, many international universities and hundred of organization specially regarding gold coins mentioned him in there publications and websites. And some of my sources were poor because Mr. Gorge told me to mention resources extensively. (you may refer to my talk page for refrence) So it should not be totally deleted because his name (Umar Ibrahim Vadillo) is mentioned also in many Wikipedia's articles e.g. Abdalqadir as-Sufi, Modern gold dinar, Kelantanese dinar, Nazim Al-Haqqani, etc. So he is a famous person who make gold dinar (gold coin) as a legal tender in many states of Malyasia e.g. Kelantan, Perak etc. And he is a main driving force behind the restoration of Islamic Monetary Economics in Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, UAE etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefireball777 ( talk • contribs) 03:52, 16 November 2014
Further Ronz, when others revert the changes you made without consensus to the existing article, do not make false accusations of edit warring. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd ( talk) 23:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Also you can't tag IP numbers as being used by specific editors. An IP number is personal information WP:PRIV, and it could be used identify/out a user. Revert again and I will report you to an administrator Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd ( talk) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I am going to reproduce Sheikh Umar Vadillo article and below is for your information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefireball777 ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 26 November 2014
(Removed a copy of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Umar_Vadillo)-- Ronz ( talk) 15:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Ronz, I am reaching out to you as there has been persistant spamming of the loft conversion entry which you have recently edited. It seems that the commericial loft conversion companies have been busy again and lately there have been a lot of links added to commericial loft conversion companies. The main culprits are Land mark lofts, Econolofts and touchstone lofts. The latest link added to the homebuilding website is nothing more than a page sponsored by Econolofts and links to their main website.
I propose that the page is restored to the 17:40, 14 November 2014 version which appears to the latest version without the spam links. I added the link to aboutloftconversions around four years ago and I believe it is an apropriate resource as it is not for profit website and purely a reference website, although the spammers regularly replace this with links to their own websites, fortunately these are fairly quickly removed by various editors.
I feel that the recent spate of edits, a lot of which are not from signed user accounts requires the attention of an editor. Once the spammers are defeated I have a few edits to the content that I am considering making, but until the spammers have gone I am reluctant to do so as there are so many edits going on. Is there a way for this page to be flagged up for monitoring for spam?
Thanks, -- Jollyroger2009
Hi Ronz, I’m fairly new to Wikipedia – but I’ve done my homework and understand the importance the ‘bright line’ rule and conflict of interest policy. In the interest of transparency, I want you to know that I work in Corporate Communications for Cimpress. I’d really like to approach Wikipedia in the right way and am hoping you might steer me in the right direction.
Two weeks ago it was announced that Vistaprint NV was renamed as Cimpress. You can see the public filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission here. Today there is a Vistaprint Wikipedia entry and the Vistaprint brand will persist. In the past there have been some issues with individuals editing the Vistaprint page and I want to ensure we take the right approach.
My hope is that we can suggest a new entry for Cimpress be created. I’ve included the factual information about Cimpress below. We’d really be interested in having someone like you take a look and provide these edits or share with us the best way to make this suggestion.
Thank you for your time on this and if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Kind regards, Cheryl
Cheryl Wadsworth Director, Corporate Communications Cimpress 781-690-2120 [email protected]
Cimpress (NASDAQ: CMPR) is a global company that performs mass customization. It is the parent company of:
• Albumprinter • People & Print Group • Pixartprinting • Vistaprint
Cwadsworth ( talk) 19:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. With regard to Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Rewording your comment is welcome. Think it would be worth while to have the Imhofe list being included. Serten II ( talk) 02:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
To you and yours
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TalentWise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TalentWise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BethNaught ( talk) 11:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ronz! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, — DerHexer (Talk) 12:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)