User talk:Hipal/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hipal. 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.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Changed meaning

Hi Ronz. Can you point out what meaning was changed causing you to revert here [1]. I would have preferred it if you had left the improvements I made and fixed the part you object to. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Acclaimed Bosnian Pyramids

I edited this article with falsifiable statements. You told me to visit the referenses.

Its a list of people and i have read all their aviable literature. Please do so yourself.

I dont care if there are pyramids under those hills. Dont mess up this article because you believe some authorothy.

 You are claiming this to be a hoax.

Even if Osmangic is wrong its no evidence (or references to info about) this being a hoax. When you revert something wrong to something even worse isnt that also vandalism?

I will edit this again as wikipedias specific instructions describe.

Please check back your own statements. Many of those archeologist denying further excavations havent even been there. They say osmangic crew are destroying evidence from medieval times when they have no proximity to Osmangics excavations.

You are responsible for what it says now. Can you honestly say it is nothing but the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.164.135 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand you. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Poor sources in BLPs?

Please see WP:SCIRS and join the discussion on the talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as an attack on you.

I am attacking the bias. This page is clearly biased. It declares that ALL health claims have been examined and dismissed and that is not true. If it were true, then why is there an article in the guardian.co.uk from 2009 that says: "Food Standards Agency is calling for volunteers to help test claims that the artificial sweetener aspartame, used in more than 4,000 products, causes illnesses"? If all claims have been dismissed, then there is no reason for further investigation, is there? I ask these questions, and am met with dismissive comments like "nonsense". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthcupcake (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. It would be helpful if you rewrote your comment to reflect what you intended. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

EMDR

Would you please explain this edit in more detail? I do not understand what you feel the article needs. Thank you. Wtf hello (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a guideline I've seen editors use about limiting the number of citations for a single statement or fact. After trying every search I can think of, I've given up trying to find this guideline. If you find it, I'd like to reword it so it can be found easier.

I made a mental note of it because it's a good way to identify a number of problems. If there are a large number of references because they are all examples (or poor sources), then there could be WP:OR or WP:NPOV problems. If there are a large number of references, but one or more are independent, reliable, secondary sources, then the rest are probably unnecessary. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have read something similar: about not overloading a page with similar citations for the same piece of material (unless it is particularly suspect). I do want to improve this article. Wtf hello (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to inform you that I have posted this item. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Jain's Notability reverting

I see you have reverted my template yet again, despite the fact that others appear to feel the same way about the subject.

Please be advised that according to WP:EW I saw fit to report you (here), in regards to your reversion of any attempt to include a notability dispute template.

I'm going to reinstate the template as it is valid according to several reasons stated in the talk page and I ask you to please not revert it (as has been asked of you before), until an agreement can be reached.

thank you in advance, ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'll be removing it again since no one has provided further arguments, nor responded to mine. Perhaps you should try other dispute resolution methods instead? --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Re: PhpGedView

Salient facts: main developers have left - reference:forum Those developers have created a fork. It will be issued in 2 weeks as Webtrees - reference: website Development of PGV has stalled- reference:forum

PGV users would appreciate knowing what has occurred, where to head to. The original wiki edit was within guidelines, IMHO. It is now horrible English. Pfblair (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think we can work this out if the other editor involved will slow down and let us work together. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see what's going on here. Looks like at about 00:15z today we were both looking and talking at the same time.

1. I saw your undo of 00:11z a few minutes after you made it, looked at the talk page with nothing written, so I assumed (grrrrr, stupid me) that you had done an undo without discussion.
2. Seconds after I looked at the talk page you finished writing on the talk page (sorry, but I hate when people just give a couple of links)
3. Then you looked at the main article again and went WTF, why is Bgwhite being an idiot and assumed (which everybody, me and my dog would have made the same assumption) I was warring.

I apologize for being an idiot and assuming you were undoing without discussion. I violated my first rule... back off, calm down and look again when I'm level headed. Bgwhite (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have been more clear with my initial comment. Water under the bridge... --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

POV tag removal

In reviewing the article history at EMDR, I see numerous red-linked users removing that tag; has an SPI/CU been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sschubert (talk · contribs) (created March 30, 2008, SPA

• 134.115.68.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Murdoch University [2]

• Geraldzeng (talk · contribs) (created June 30, 2010, edits never overlap, SPA)
• Zcwl (talk · contribs) (created Aug 4, 2010, edits never overlap, SPA)

  134.115.68.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Murdoch University [3]

• 124.169.99.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) AU user, removing POV tag[4]
• 143.238.208.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) AU user, adding External links, also an issue with Sschubert
• 165.118.1.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) another AU editor, with same agenda [5]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware. I've tried to avoid addressing the COI and meatpuppetry problems, focusing on fixing the article instead. From what little I've looked into it, they are all student researchers specializing in EMDR that know each other. I don't believe any of them have given a full disclosure of their identities, but it's easy to figure them out. I'm at a loss at what step to take next to stop their continuing disruptions of the article. --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I don't know blocking policy that well, but I think for the purposes of SPI, meatpuppetry is the same as sockpuppetry-- I could be wrong. Should I ask someone to look in here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest. --Ronz (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the COI issue, or where is it explained, so I can have the whole history in one place? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Found this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There are accusations in the talk page history. I don't know what if any follow-up was done.

Sschubert gave a brief disclosure here, after it became obvious to me who she is.

Geraldzeng's identity is just as obvious to me, but he's not responded to the COI note I left for him.

Zcwl isn't so obvious, so I haven't given him a COI note yet.

I had thought there's at least one more, but wasn't able to find it when I looked last. --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see-- Google reveals all. :) A good case for meatpuppetry and recruiting. But I'm not sure if they should be warned or if an SPI is best. I'll ask someone to look in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that the talk archive was created by moving the page, placing the past history here --Ronz (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Sschubert needs to either be blocked or given a final warning by an uninvolved admin for her repeated removal of the tags. It would probably help that Geraldzeng be warned by the same admin. --Ronz (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now reviewed article and talk, and don't see any other registered editors editing in concert, but what about IPs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can be of much help with this. I chose not to look into the COI problems, nor how the article came to be the mess that it is. I thought it would be easy to get everyone to agree that MEDRS and NPOV aren't being met, and that following MEDRS would probably fix all the problems. --Ronz (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps a CU is in order, to reveal which of the IPs may also be socks/meatpuppets. When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to drain the swamp ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What Aussie ip's are there? --Ronz (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

124.169.99.245 (talk · contribs) Perth - edit-warring

143.238.208.105 (talk · contribs) Perth - unrelated spamming

Those are the only two in the past two years. --Ronz (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on the Murdoch University ip! Zcwl and Sschubert shared an ip, or Sschubert is comfortable editing Zcwl's comments. --Ronz (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that reveals that Zcwl is also likely one of those on the list of the students that Google coughs up. Possibly enough here to block the University. I queried Risker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sschubert SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Separate but related

It was a user talk post referencing PTSD that brought this article to my attention; see follow-up to your Fringe noticeboard query here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

talkpage

Hi, Ronz, just a note that I think the user has made it clear that they would prefer you didn't post on their talkpage apart from any official wikipedia business. If you had understood this then please excuse me. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope she'll take your advise on getting a mentor. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz. She blanked her talkpage and retired.Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this.

We need some sort of warnings for new editors to stay away from articles like Naveen Jain . Articles with such long-running disputes are not a place to learn how Wikipedia normally works. --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree there, lets see if she returns. You would think someone with ten edits would be prepared to take some advice from someone with tens of thousands of edits and years of experience..ow well. No worries, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What happened?

Ronz we were getting along so well -- and then now it seems you are intractable on any edits I make. If you can't explain specifically what you are objecting to, how can we come to a resolution? I can't work through this on my own. Please add more detail on the discussion page. Surely you don't object to every single change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.255.98 (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"now it seems you are intractable on any edits I make" I have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't edited the article since 9 Aug. --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

University Canada West

Ronz,

I'm a current student of University Canada West and it seemed that there are errors there such as "unaccredited". It seems so biased. The article has a lot of negative and inventive stories in it. AUCC is a membership of universities in Canada. Although UCAN is not a member, it does'nt mean they were not approved, I mean c'mon! The article seemed vandalized by someone who has a personal vendetta to the school. It's all negativity. They are a member of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, which I think is sufficient enough to be credible. Are you Canadian?

Floyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floyd0303 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my comments on your talk page. If you'll look at the article talk page, you'll see that we are discussing these matters in depth. Please join the discussions there. --Ronz (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Inventory management software page

Ronz,

Thank you so much for your comments. I apologize for not getting the best links for the Inventory management software article. I'll do my best to go back and find better ones that will meet Wikipedia's criteria. Thanks for your help.

Sincerely,

Robert Lockard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertlo9 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my comments. I've taken a few steps to get others' help. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I just went through and changed a bunch of the links that I think might have been considered questionable. Let me know if the new ones are better and if there are other ones I should look into changing. Thanks! --Robertlo9 (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're finding such references easily. I wasn't sure about wisegeek.com, but I agree that it's appropriate. Thanks for finding it! --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh good. Yes, I thought the wisegeek.com link had good content. Hopefully it's okay for Wikipedia. I'll keep an eye out for suggestions people make to improve the Wikipedia page. --Robertlo9 (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wisegeek is doing a good job of establishing a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for itself as required by WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A question: Why was this page changed back?

Saluations Ronz,

I happened to be researching Vancouver Island universities today, and I saw that the University Canada West page is in dire state of disarray. Upon reading comments in the "Criticisms" section, I noticed they seemed to be quite biased against the university. There were many comments that seemed to show insecurities, if you will, about private universities in general, and they did not pertain to this university specifically. After a bit of research, I came across a obvious bias on behalf of CUFA/BC: this organization is government-education leaning and pro-research university. I felt that many claims made in this section were outright defamatory. It is as though the writers are trying to ensure that this school looks sub-par when there is very little, if any, indication that it definitely is. I believe that there are insufficient claims to substantiate the picture that is painted here. It actually was what encouraged me to finally become a member of Wikipedia and help to start setting the records straight. In the name of truth and neutrality, I am curious to know why you have decided to change this page back to its original state. If I am to at least bring balance to this page, how would you suggest I tackle it?

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to hearing from you, Questforneutrality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Questforneutrality (talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you'll look at the article talk page, you'll see that we've have had many discussions on how this topic. I'm happy to bring you up to speed on the discussions and the related Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, I strongly advise that new editors such as yourself find less controversial topics to edit first, where you can learn your way around Wikipedia without putting yourself into a long-running dispute.

That said, a short answer to your questions that your edit appeared to contain mostly original research. --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Outsourcing USA

Hello Ronz, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdebbad (talk • contribs) 22:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

We need some links related to the topic, outsourcing to USA. By definition, outsourcing does not mean off shoring per Wikipedia. I don't know of any other website that focuses on outsourcing than www.outsource.fm/about

Being an FMarion, I may be more enthusiastic about adding that link, however, I think it is appropriate.

All freelance websites like odesk, freelancer.com, elance all cater to outsourcing to "outside the USA". Outsource.fm is outsourcing to university students in the USA. To be honest, I am hard pressed to find an alternative to the link I suggest. Please feel free to replace the link, but we sure need to add a link that caters to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdebbad (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't need such links per WP:SPAM and WP:NOTLINK. If you continue to add such links, I'll request that you be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Outsourcing

Thanks Ronz, I did not know who I was talking to, someone with 46,470 edits. Hats off to you Ronz. Nice talking to you. Moving forward, I will try to contribute more in line with what you are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdebbad (talk • contribs) 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring

Do not refactor my comments again. You have been in dispute with me in the past, and perhaps you don't like me, but you have no business mucking about with what I have ot say. If you object to any of my comments feel free to bring them up at the appropriate noticeboard (incivility removed --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)) Thanks. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. I'm requesting you be blocked for repeated personal attacks and edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As I was writing up a report requesting you be blocked, you were blocked. I've copied the diffs that I started collecting to your talk page. There are many more that could be provided. --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

inserting references in an edit

Hello, Ronz. This is the first time I have tried editing a Wikipedia page. I read through the FAQs but did not find an answer to my question, which is this: I inserted a sentence and tried to add a reference to a paper published by Malcolmson. There is already a citation by this author on the same page. The software wants to assign my citation to the previous entry. The problem with this approach is that the first Malcolmson citation is a full-length research paper and my second entry by the same first author is a short research item published as a letter to the editor. The two items are separate publications. How do I enter my reference so that it shows as a separate entry at the bottom of the page? Many thanks for you help in this matter. FlaxInfo (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Someone should be able to help if you ask at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Felden

Hi Ronz, Just wondering what was wrong with all the Feldenkrais Method external links. They looked ok to me re WP:EL. Please advise. Thanks. Spanglej (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about it. I should have left a note given the history. I'll do so now. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

News regarding the Naveen Jain page

Hi Ronz, I had created an AfD for the Jain article (as was suggested bye several other more knowledged users then me). and also created an event page that (I think) better covers and represent the the InfoSpace event as well as Jain's involvement in it here (I would really appreciate any feedback you might have for me in that regard as this is my biggest edit so far on the wiki, and despite our disagreement in regard to the Jain page, I respect your vastly bigger experience in such things). P.S. I'm sorry for taking so long in commenting on the Jain talk page (I had internet problems at work, were I connect from.) --Nightseeder (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The new article needs to be abridged. Maybe the AfD will attract some help. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

flax article: stability of ground flax

Hello, Ronz. This is an interesting process. If I understood your message to me, you added back in the statement that "ground flax goes rancid within one week when stored at room temperature" because you perceived a conflict of interest related to my inserted comments and wished to provide a balanced view. I have two concerns with this approach: (1) the text may confuse readers - How can flax go rancid within one week of storage at room temperature (the sentence added back in) while also being stable for 9 months at room temperature or for 20 months at ambient temperature (the sentence I inserted)? - and (2) the statement about flax rancidity is incorrect, by which I mean, it is not based on scientific evidence. I realize part of your concern arises from my choosing a sign-in name that looks suspicious. I admit to being biased in the sense that I am an expert on flax nutrition. I have a PhD in nutrition and have been writing about flax for nearly 20 years. I was not paid to insert text into the Wikipedia page. Rather, this factual error on the storage stability of ground flax was brought to my attention by a registered dietitian who is familiar with flax nutrition.

If you will allow me to clarify: The paper by Alpers and Sawyer-Morse (ref. 7 in the current version, I believe) was a study of the quality of banana nut muffins and oatmeal cookies made with ground flax. The main study finding was that the sensory ratings and acceptability of these flax-containing products were as good as or better than a control muffin made without flax. Toward the end of their paper," Alpers and Sawyer-Morse do make the statement about ground flax becoming rancid within 1 week of storage at room temperature. However, this statement is not referenced by the authors, so it is impossible to know the source of the data that support their claim. In addition, this statement is not related to their study findings. In other words, their study was not designed to test the storage stability of ground flax -- it was designed to test the sensory quality of muffins and cookies made with flax. Moreover, at the time Alpers published their paper in 1996, one formal study of ground flax stability had been published by Chen et al. in 1994, but was not cited. Presumably, Alpers and Sawyer-Morse were not aware of the Chen study when they submitted their paper for publication.

Three studies on the storage stability of ground flax have been published. The study by Chen et al. found that "long-term storage of whole or ground flax or lipid extracts showed that all three preparations were stable at room temperature for 280 days [roughly 9 months] with 12 hour light/dark cycles." Two other papers on this topic were published by Malcolmson and coworkers, one in 2000 and one in 2001. The 2000 paper, published in JAOCS (Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society), found that samples of ground flax stored for 128 days (4 months) at room temperature did not show significant increases in peroxide values (a measure of oxidation that contributes to rancidity), nor were there any detectable differences in the odor of stored samples or in the flavor of breads cooked with stored samples. This statement is the basis for concluding that ground flax can be stored at room temperature for roughly 4 months without a loss in quality. The 2001 paper was also published in JAOCS. The authors reported that peroxide levels were "very low" in samples of ground flax stored for up to 20 months at ambient temperature. (NOTE: I am not a coauthor on any of these research papers.)

In summary, three research studies support the statement that ground flax can be stored at room temperature for 4 months with no significant loss in quality. To my knowledge, there are no studies suggesting that ground flax goes rancid within one week when stored at room temperature. Thus, I would appreciate your revisiting your decision, as I believe the current text is not based on scientific evidence and may mislead or confuse readers. Many thanks. I do realize that yours is not an easy job. Best wishes, FlaxInfo (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I left you the coi message because of your username. It has nothing to do with anything else.

As for the rest, it should be brought to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliability Pages

Hi Ronz,

Why did remove the following three external links:

• American Society for Quality (ASQ)
• ASQ - Reliability Division
• The Reliability Calendar The Reliability Calendar is a listing of publicly offered reliability related courses, conferences, and seminars worldwide - prepared by ASQ volunteers.

Regards,

ASQ-Reliability-Div —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASQ-Reliability-Div (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliability Links You deleted

Hello Ronz,

The links I added to reliability related topics were/are a service to the reliability enigeering community. Although I am affilitated with the American Society for Quality and some other Reliability functions the links are meant as an awarness to interested persons, and in no way I have any conflict of interst. I do not benfit from these links but make readers aware of sources of knowledge.

What do you think?

Regards,

ASQ-Reliabiltiy-Div —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASQ-Reliability-Div (talk • contribs) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliability Links

Hi Ronz,

The links I added to reliability related topics were/are a service to the reliability enigeering community. Although I am affilitated with the American Society for Quality and some other Reliability functions the links are meant as awarness to interested persons, and in no way I have any conflict of interst. It is like you placing a link to the Univ of Notre Dame on a page related to economics - you do not benfit but make readers aware of a source of knowledge.

What do you think?

Regards,

ASQ-Reliabiltiy-Div; 2010-08-26 ASQ-Reliability-Div (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliability theory

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Funandtrvl#Relaibility Pages. Funandtrvl (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Responded there. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick Savoy

why the edit?

I am currently going through his sources, he is NOT in the book THE GAME, he is also not in Neil Strauss's article for the New York Times. Coven13

Welcome to Wikipedia. As a new editor that's made no other contributions at the time other than to participate in an AfD discussion, your proposals to delete four related articles seemed a bit hurried. If you think they deserve deletion without any prior discussion on the matter, start AfDs for them. Articles that have prior AfDs should always have some discussion prior to any proposed deletion, which will most likely be refused and then referred to AfD as I've done. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ne or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed.

What are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.45.58 (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. You should be aware that this IP address is a generic comcast address. I don't know who had it back in November 2009 but it is pointless leaving messages for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.45.58 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The message is for the benefit of other editors as much as it is for anyone using the ip. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Request correction of misinformation posted - topic Vision Therapy

The topic of Vision Therapy has had an accurate description until August 10, 2010 when Suomi Finland inserted content that is blatantly false. The user inserted a reference to vision therapy as being "controversial" and made false statements indicating that vision therapy is quackery. Vision therapy, as described in the original document is an important and necessary treatment that has been proven effective through prospective, multicenter, doubleblind research most recently conducted through the National Eye Institute and published in Archives of Ophthalmology October 2008.

As one of the country's leading experts in this field, I was notified by another colleague of this change in the Wikipedia description of vision therapy and asked if I could determine how to correct the false entry. I signed in and saw that I could make the correction which I thought resolved the issue until I saw that my edit was reverted back. It appears as though I did not follow a certain protocol for making edits. To provide more evidence please refer to the following link to see the facts about vision therapy. http://www.visionfactsandfallacies.com/index.html

Please let me know if this is not sufficient information to correct the problem with the false content entry made by Suomi Finland.

Dan L. Fortenbacher, O.D., FCOVD Clinical Professor Michigan College of Optometry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvision (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't believe visionfactsandfallacies.com is a reliable source. I certainly doesn't provide WP:MEDRS support for their many claims. Maybe they're just presenting their information poorly, but we cannot do so for the article. Please look over WP:MEDRS and let's start discussing this on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your follow-up. I am happy to provide more details regarding the removal of the content added by Suomi Finland. The link to the website was intended to provide a quick and easy reference. However, yes that source is merely intended for the lay public. To provide you with scientific papers to show that vision therapy is not, as posted by Suomi Finland, controversial or quackery, please refer to the following papers: In Pub Med: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19668097 http://convergenceinsufficiency.net/uploads/CITT_Arch_2008.pdf http://www.convergenceinsufficiency.net/uploads/CI_Tx_of_CI_Current_Perspective_OVS_2009.pdf As I have reviewed the Wikipedia definition of vision therapy there is some good content and some areas that need further distinction between what are considered to be unproven methods, such as the Bates Method and the proven treatment, office based vision therapy. The standard of care and best practice (proven through research) for binocular, accommodative, oculomotor dysfunction and visual information processing deficits of visual system is office-based vision therapy. The problem with the insertion by Suomi Finland, using the terminology of "controversial" and "quackery" is that it used language that infers that the entire practice of vision therapy is unproven or should be suspect. This did a huge disservice to those patients with vision problems that require vision therapy who locate the Wikipedia information about vision therapy because it could misinform the patient and could possibly result in a person who needs care being discouraged from seeking a doctor prescribed plan for vision therapy. If there is a need for a reliable source for further clarification, may I suggest the College of Optometrists in Vision Development http://www.covd.org as this organization represents the international body who Board Certifies doctors in vision therapy.

Thanks again for your help on this matter, Dan L. Fortenbacher, O.D.,FCOVD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvision (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism

Hey Ronz, I notice your user page has some extensive anonymous vandalism in the past. Nothing recent, but if you want me to put an indef semi-protect on your userpage, let me know. Mine has been protected that way for years. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Probably a good idea. No real downside that I see when I have a leave-me-a-message link at the top. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Physical Therapy

Ithink you have misapplied the WP policies you have cited or have not read the citations fully. Feel free to add to the talk page on the Physical therapy article if you continue to disagree. But please be more specific in your objections. DoctorDW (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I see there's a discussion on the article talk. I'll respond there. --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)