User talk:Rhode Island Red

/Archive 1

Just wanted to say thanks for your work at Protandim. I know it's tedious to explain both Wikipedia's standards and basic information about research publications over and over again, but I think you're doing a good job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks back. The support of fellow editors (especially from editors with your vast experience) is greatly appreciated. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to this. Keep up the serious effort against a tide of spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.19.127 (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been an article published recently in the The Salt Lake Tribune about the MLM supplement industry. I was wondering if you've read it and want to include any of it in the wiki articles for Monavie, Nu Skin, Xango and USANA.Jean314 (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51183138-76/average-companies-distributors-earn.html.csp?page=1

Cool! Thanks Jean. I'll have a look and get back to you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert of my details on fb's rejection of Plandemic, the Washington Post reported, "A representative for Facebook said, “Suggesting that wearing a mask can make you sick could lead to imminent harm, so we’re removing the video.” While the social media company may have objected to the video on multiple grounds, the issue of mask discouragement was the one quoted in the Washington Post as the main reason. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/07/plandemic-youtube-facebook-vimeo-remove/ I added the fb details at the end because the removal was mentioned in the lead or near the front of the article, but then not mentioned again. I thought it begged for more explanation.Marcywinograd (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leef5 seems to want to discuss the merits of the article as well as another source by the name of Len Clements. I've moved the conversation to the USANA Discussion page so that it can attract more eyes if anyone wants to weigh in on it.Jean314 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Rhode Island Red - you mentioned in the MonaVie forum that the way I uploaded the changes is making it very hard for people to compare, and I realize now that you're right. In all honesty, I'm used to lurking around pages on my own, making ogre-ish edits, and then wandering on my way without talking to a soul; navigating forums is interesting to me, but a little overwhelming, and I kind of have the feeling I bit off more than I can chew. Do you have a recommendation on how I can upload the changes in a way that's easier for people to review? I figure I'll also add in the quote I removed (it was an arbitrary decision anyway) so that the overall discussion doesn't have to go on a whole bunch of tangents. I'd appreciate any guidance. Thanks, Jonses40 (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Test edits should be performed using WP:SB. If you want guidance about an edit that you are considering making, post a question/comment on the article talk page before making the edit.Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• also, to be honest, I understand why you did it, but having my edits removed like that feels horrible :( My earlier litigation cleanup I was pretty proud of. I'm honestly really embarrassed I accidentally deleted a section when I was working on it (I was working from a copied rtf file of the entire page, not just the litigation section, and was moving sections around to see how they looked - I must have accidentally not hit control V at some point, and I didn't notice the info wasn't there when I posted live). I have a feeling that because of that mistake everyone is going to discredit any efforts I do on the page now, even though I've already put a bunch of my free time into working on it. I'm half tempted to crawl back into my cave. Should I just give up at this point? Jonses40 (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question has been subject to vandalism and driveby partisan editing in the past. So, yes, it doesn't look good when a key portion of critical text accidentally disappears. You might consider working on some other articles to gain more editing experience and familiarity with WP procedures. Don't take the reversion personally. It happens all the time; it's part of the process. BTW, recognize that all of us work for free on WP. Your addition of subtitles on the litgation section might not be such a bad idea. Better to approach the edits one a time rather than making massive changes all at once (it's easier to see exactly what's been changed).Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since my chance of making productive edit on the page is ruined, then, (I'm assuming any of my edits will be reverted simply on principle now) can I request you personally look at my edits and consider adding some in? You seem to spend a lot of free time on the page anyways, it would take very little time. You know the page well, I would trust your judgment, and I'm confident you'd find them productive. No-one so far has actually looked at the content, just responded to my descriptions in the forum, and I have a feeling it will stay that way. Especially since you seem to care about the quality of the page, and I'm sure are interested in solid improvements. Jonses40 (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to assume that no one looked at your edits. Quite the contrary in fact; I for one looked at them and offered you some concrete eplanations that would account for the initial reversion. Nor do I think that your future edits would be reverted "in principle" alone (please consider WP's core principle about assumption of good faith WP:GF when commenting on the actions of fellow Wikipedians). Proposed edits can be outlined on the article's talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in question are pretty old and you can find information in the first Archive about someone from USANA HQ using Sock Puppets and being involved in Section Blanking [1]. The people from the PR company were the users name Mlh0919 and Montypics who work for Ricther7 which names USANA as one of their clients. They were constructive with their edits.Jean314 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jean. Much appreciated. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all. I'm just glad everyone is taking an interest in the USANA article. With my schedule being what it is it seems I only have time to prevent vandalism (Section Blanking) and make the occassional edit. I've been trying to sit down and review the National Business Review articles [2] for longer than I can remember but just can not find the time with work being what it is. There's some particularly good information provided by a Dr. Murray H. Smith [3] who is a statistician for the New Zealand government but where and how to incorporate it into the article sort of escapes me.Jean314 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's some very relevant content in there Jean. The introductory quote about Murray is really interesting and relevant for inclusion:

"But according to government statistician Murray H Smith, very few Usana distributors are likely to become wealthy. In fact, he said, “you can make a very strong argument that this could be a pyramid scheme.” Dr Smith’s opinion counts in these matters. He’s been an expert witness in every one of the Commerce Commission’s cases against pyramid schemes during the last 10 years. NBR asked him to review Usana’s business structure and compensation plan, and— although he was careful to state that he was qualified to make only statistical judgments and not legal judgments—he said Usana showed some of the characteristics that commonly occur in pyramid schemes"

It goes on to elaborate on the details. Let's work on it together, as your schedule permits. Maybe set up a sandbox page? Have a great day Jean. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the best course of action. Then I can work slowly on content and not clog up the Discussion board until there's something concrete. Thank you for the suggestion and your offer. Will you be setting up a sandbox or should I?Jean314 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about you sent up the SB for now and we can talk about it once you've got some content posted. Looking forward to colloboarting with you. Quite refreshing! :) Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few minutes to throw some content together in my sandbox. It will need revisions but it's a start.Jean314 (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you but should I add the new content under the Business Model heading? Jean314 (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No bother at all. Under the business model section seems reasonable to me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort on The Amway and other MLM articles, it is important these articles reflect reality, are fairly balanced, in line with the WP cause, and not infiltrated by COI or those zealots pushing their promotional agenda. These people with involvements in the company obviously have an interest in reputation management to delete/minimise negative information, and wikilawyering when it suits their POV. They cry foul then harass and accuse others editors like us of doing exactly the same to divert attention from their own POV/disruptions. Their hypocrisy astounds me. We need more editors like you. I've attempted to keep the Network TwentyOne article in order, it would be great if more independent editors scrutinized it for an article that reflects reality, not the promotional puff pieces those in MLM are prone to (and even scrutinise my edits, as I don't claim to be perfectly adept on WP, but I mean well) to the level the Amway article currently receives. Thanks Financeguy222 (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy. I realize that WP can be a bit frustrating at times, when working on contentious articles. My advice is to keep your cool at all times, and be sure to respect WP policy. Don't want to get sucked into those edit wars. I had a quick look at N21 -- complicated situation. I'll dig through as time permits. If you ever want to run a proposed edit or a source by me for a second opinion, let me know and I'll give it a sniff test. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Yes thanks for keeping Wikipedia neutral and not allowing it to be used for promotional purposes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks Doc. I am truly honored. What a nice way to finish off the Memorial day long weekend. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red, hiya, just a friendly word of advice. Edit summaries in all caps aren't really doing you any good. My recommendation if you want to disengage is to simply delete unwanted messages from your talkpage, with a blank or neutral edit summary. I'd also recommend reading WP:AOHA. Which I'm not accusing you of doing, but it's a good idea to be aware of relevant policies and guidelines. --Elonka 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've read the WP etiquette essay that describes how all caps can come across as shouting. That's exactly why I used them -- because apparently the user didn't get the message the first time I removed their inflammtory post and merely whispered my request to disengage in normal fonts. I'm also familiar with AOHA; e.g. "Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment." The user in question seems to be unaware of WP:USER, particularly the part that says "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests." I appreciate you taking the time to remind the user of this fact. Ignoring it in the midst of a conflict and a request to disengage is exactly the type of unnecessary harasssment and incivility I was alluding to. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A better answer from you would have been, "Thanks, I'll keep that in mind", but okay.  :) --Elonka 23:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Perfect! --Elonka 00:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that you and I interpret Wikipedia policies differently, and assuming that neither of us have an undisclosed COI, and that we must AGF, we need to figure out how to work better on issues that we disagree on. I'm asking you, as one experienced editor to another, to fully engage on the talk page instead of edit warring on items we don't agree on. That's the whole point of WP:BRD - I introduced text, you didn't like it, so you revert it and we discuss it to come to a consensus. If we reach an impasse, then we can engage 3O or RfC for more opinions. There is no urgency on this lead. It's been this same lead for a long time, and here we find ourselves making rapid changes on it after I introduced new text.

I'm confident we can come to as neutral as text as possible - but this requires us to debate the issues at hand and work collaboratively to come to consensus.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 20:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I don't see any disagreements about policy; just content. (2) I have not made any assumption that you lack a COI. (3) we are already engaged in a discussion on the talk page; there's no need for peripheral discussions about USANA content on my talk page. (4) If you have an issue that you believe should go to RfC, then take it there; you don't need my permission to do so. (4) You inserted false and misleading content into the lead; there's no reason why such content should stay even briefly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism , such as the edit at Juice Plus, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Yobol (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on talk:Juice Plus. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Please remember to discuss the merits of the subject being discussed without making comments about others.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. A bit late, as I've been active here for years. What exactly did you consider to be a personal attack? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the way you are speaking to others in several discussions at Talk:Juice Plus. As an uninvolved contributor who only came to comment on the RfC on the page, I was rather disturbed by the tone and manner in which you responded to other commentators in the both current and past discussions. While I understand you are deeply involved in this article and care about how it is edited, commenting about other contributors instead of confining the comments to the improvement of the article is in conflict with the standards of talk page guidelines and civility standards.

In regards to the wording of the warning, that is a standard template that was the closest to what I wanted to say. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what specifically constituted a personal attack? Are you possibly confusing WP:NPA with WP:CIV? Did you leave WP:NPA warnings for the editor who falsely accused me of having a "vested (ie, financial) interest" in the article? Or the Juice Plus distributor who, while violating WP:COI, made the off-topic accusation that I have a "negative history" on WP (despite my 2 barnstars)? Consistency and fairness would be nice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard the old saying "turn the other cheek"? Ignore them and don't call them names (like hypocrite) or tell them off (Stop looking at your nether regions..), which are personal attacks and lacking in civility. Use policy to make your point without utilizing tactics like that, it makes your argument more salient and doesn't alienate those who may willing to support you and your position. I have had the same type of accusations leveled at me in the past and I learned to ignore those types and stay focused on the argument. If you need to, walk away. I did that with Korean cuisine, and article that I was heavily involved in, because of other contributors that I had severe and consistent disagreements with and was unable to come to terms with. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you’re coming from and I honestly believe that your comments are well-intentioned. But…(1) incivility should not be labeled as a personal attack; they are not synonymous. (2) When I used the term “hypocrite”, it was (a) accurate and (b) in reply to a personal attack against me (not the first) from another editor who has been violating COI. I suppose I could have merely pointed out that the editor’s comments were “hypocritical”, rather than referring to the individual as a “hypocrite”, which would have made the comment less “personal”, but that seems like a pretty minor issue in face of the larger issues in this situation. (3) When someone makes an unfounded accusation that I have a “vested interest” in an article, or tries unjustly tries to disparage my reputation in order to influence a content debate, turning the other cheek isn’t necessarily a good option, as silence on my part could be seen as a nolo contendre or a tacit admission of guilt. (4) I didn’t say “stop looking at your nether regions”; it’s a small issue, but the attribution is not accurate (BTW what I actually said was in reference to the editor who made the false accusation about me having a "vested interest" (5) Most importantly, fairness and consistency are issues here. If other editors make personal attacks against me, and I reply in a manner that’s a bit less than civil, it would be reasonable to caution those editors as well and not just single me out. I’m not trying to be argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative, but I really hope that you see my point. I’ll stick to the facts from here on in and expect that others involved in the discussion will do the same. Again, I do believe that your comments are well intentioned, so I will say that I appreciate you taking what you believe to be the right course of action in the interests of WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but keep in mind, breath before responding to personal attacks. Think what you're going to say and preview it before hitting the post so it doesn't bite you in the behind down the line. That happened to me before. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That advice I certainly can't argue with. It happens to the best of us at times. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why you felt this edit was vandalism? Labelling good faith edits as vandalism is a very good way to cause drama for yourself. The content removed was extremely inappropriate, Wikipedia is not a directory and does not list things such as ingredients or nutritional information, even more so when its entirely unsourced and could easily be completely wrong. I suggest you revert yourself rather than drawing this out, the end result will be the same--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. I took a quick look at the edit and saw that content was blanked. I simply didn't notice that there was a talk page comment explaining the deletion. The deletion, although not vandalism, was still inappropriate -- a citation needed tag would have sufficed. I know that the information was accurate at the time I added it because it was listed on multiple RS websites and in Juice Plus official brochures. I was in the process of finding a citation to add when you dropped by. Ciao. Rhode Island Red (talk)

That's no justification, my edit summary was clear and hardly easy to miss from its length, please ensure it does not happen again. I did not remove the content merely because its unsourced, but that discussion can be continued on the article talk page--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quick and easy route to losing Twinkle privs. Please be more careful, especially on the Juice Plus article, on which you already have history - Alison ^❤ 00:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained already, it was a simple accident. Seemed like content blanking and I didn't notice the explanation. Let it go already. What good is it to add a third lecture (especially one couched with vague insinuations about "history")? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a minor matter which you previously had some involvement with and it would be appreciated if you would drop by and check out the article and the talk page.  Thx  — Who R you? (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will have a look ASAP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Still had your page watched.)  Didn't really mean to drop that whole article in your lap like that and then f-off; just the way it worked out.  But I'm very glad your involvement and efforts lead to the right results.  Just wanted to let you know it was appreciated.  Cheers — Who R you? Talk 06:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note of thanks for doing some editing at the Mannatech article. That one was a mess a few years ago, believe me; it's evolving nicely now but could revert back. Feel free to keep an eye on that article (especially considering that company's culture). —Prhartcom (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's on my watchlist now.Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are changes ccnsidered distruptive? All edits are factual and have been cited and can be substantiated even further based on credible research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenfit001 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are for the most part not factually accurate and you seem to be ignoring WP basic policies such as WP:BLP, WP:CON, WP:DE. WP:RS. If you go to the article talk page, we can discuss this in greater detail and if necessary, I can explain where you edits are in violation of WP policy; there were so many examples it's difficult to count them all. If you continue to edit war without attempting to reach consensus, you may end up being blocked. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk)

3 Points: 1. Colker is CEO of Peak Wellness Inc., this is relavant and he does not providing consulting services to Beverly Hills location (false statement) 2. Colker is not self described, rather many major nationally recognized media brands (Fox 5, ABC news, Bloomberg TV to name a few have recognized him as a health advocate. This is not a case of self described, where there is a disconnect between one's opinion of themselves and reality. 3. Colker does not claim to have trained pro and olympic athletes, this is a substantiated and well known fact that has been reported by the athletes themselves and has been recognized by nationally branded media such as Fox 5 and ABC and Bloomberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenfit001 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be heading in a better direction with the 3 edits you made most recently.[4] I modified only one of them; i.e., in the lead (see my edit summary).[5] Incidentally, Atlas is not a "bio-pharma" company as you had indicated. It is a nutritional supplemental company. If you want to discuss anything about the article in more detail, we really should do it on the Talk page. If you don't know how to start a new thread, let me know here and I will walk you through it (or read WP:TPG). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeable verbiage on the above. Another important fact that should be addressed is Controversy section to assure that a fair and balanced representation is made to the wiki community. I have reviewed available legal documents that demonstrate that the case before judge Styne had additional key relavent facts that have not been reported here. How do we assure that the following information is communicated in this section of the Wiki page? All of the respective references were previously included in my prior update. Please advise and thanks in advance.

In December of 2006, Judge Styn's judgement was reversed and remanded along with which his decision and comments were vacated.[15] A related lawsuit against Cytodyne involving the same facts also took place in federal court in 2000. In this case, as well as, the Park case before Judge Styn, Colker was a testifying witness. Judge Kimbal’s findings of facts and conclusions of law in his decision stated that there was “ample evidence that the study itself was an adequate and well controlled clinical trial on humans, evaluated in an objective manner by persons qualified to do so, and that it used procedures generally accepted to yield reliable results.” He also stated that “there is no dispute in this record that the protocol used by Peak Wellness [Colker]– the randomized double-blinded clinical trial on humans – is appropriate for a study of a dietary supplement.” Judge Kimbal further stated “the Peak Wellness Study was a well-controlled clinical trial on humans, evaluated in an objective manner by persons qualified to do so, using procedures generally accepted to yield accurate and reliable results.” Finally the judge concluded that Colker’s study was “competent and reliable”. In July 2003, Colker provided testimony to the United States Congress regarding his research on the safety of ephedra-containing products.[17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenfit001 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several problems with the text you've proposed. Foremost, anything from 2000 was superseded by the material cited from 2003, when this story hit the news and was widely reported (note also that Belcher's death did not occur until Feb 2003). Secondly, the document from 2006 that you cited[6] mentions nothing at all about Colker or Peak Wellness (not to mention that if fails to meet WP:RS. On that basis, the proposed text would not fly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd all agree that wiki should report all things accurately be they good or bad, and in so doing the reporting should be fair and factually supported. While some of your Colker edits seem on-point (like getting rid of peacocking), other more recent edits seem a bit more bias in the direction of wanting to bash by focusing on drudging up old and long-since incomplete news media stories at the exclusion of other far more concrete descriptions of this guy. Please let me explain: while colker has been a controversial figure at times, the body of is work in the field of health and fitness clearly stretches way beyond those sentinal controversies. For example, his work on ABC helping kids stay fit with shaq and working to change national policy in schools physical education and better school lunches had far reaching positive impact and may have been one of the more significant things he's ever done. I feel it should be in there for sure. Though I'm not as saavy with the wiki rules and learning my way, and respect your far more experienced editor status, i will try again to stay consistant with the linked wiki rules you provided, but i really wish you could be less bias, more helpful and solution-oriented on this point instead of just shooting me down each time. I'm merely trying to add factual content on this guy. It's a fact that he's battled for kids health on this prime-time show as well as other initiatives like one with Christy Brinkley. How can stuff like that not be in there? Like i said, i will try again to post better within the parameters and wiki format you spec referenced and your comments, but please work with me on trying to get the whole truth about this guy out there. I mean, shouldn't wiki be way way more than just an outdated tabloid? Thanks. Jenfit001 (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I think we'd all agree that wiki should report all things accurately be they good or bad, and in so doing the reporting should be fair and factually supported." No I don't agree at all because that's not the basis of how WP works. It's not an issue of whether to include good or bad; the approach to writing an article is to present facts with proper weight as reflected by reliable published secondary sources. How we write a narrative about a subject is dictated by the coverage it has received by WP:RS, or in Colker's case, the more stringent guidelines of WP:MEDRS. To determine what a subject is notable for, we examine what published secondary reliable sources say and take it from there. Colker has received some limited notoriety as a TV personality, author of exercise/diet books, and as a commentator/contributor to various health- and fitness-related media venues, and the article clearly reflects this, but this seems to be overshadowed by his role as a lead researcher and vocal defender (on behalf of the supplement companies that paid him) in some very unsavory scandals and legal proceedings involving ephedra (not to mention the Piven mercury case). In other words, the narrative that you might like to write about Colker is not necessarily consistent with how WP would dictate that the narrative should be written. I suggest you take some time to familiarize yourself with the WP policies I've quoted so far (including WP:COI, in case that's applicable) and revisit the article using that knowledge as your basis. And just an FYI, it annoys me greatly when people denigrate WP by saying things like "shouldn't wiki be way way more than just an outdated tabloid", especially when the crux of their question is based on a faulty understanding of WP policy and what constitutes a well-written encyclopedia entry. If anything, the links you've been citing are tabloid-quality and the ones that you're grousing about are in fact the kind that the article should include. Furthermore, accusing me of bias after I cleaned up your initial version of the article[7] (which can be best described as a peacock-laced, poorly-sourced vanity CV) is not going to win me over. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been taking great pains to explain applicable policy to you and it seems to be falling on deaf ears.[8] A photo caption is not a WP:RS, no to mention that the photo caption that you cited didn't even come close to matching the text you inserted. Secondly, any claim as to who Shaq's physician(s) is/are must come from a very highly credible source -- preferably from Shaq himself. The source you cited doesn't come close to being satisfactory in that regard. I'm afraid that discussing this with you here is becoming a waste of time, so kindly post any and all further comments directly on the article's talk page, and if need be, I'll respond to them there. And again, have a look at WP:COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you are so angered by me. I'm not angry and don't feel at all argumentative. Rather I'm attempting to have a healthy exchange of differing viewpoints, attempt an agreeable resolution, and perhaps even learn somethings in the process. So far you really have helped me learn some wiki things and even been strong enough to permit a few of the wiki changes which I made that you agreed were correct. I appreciate that greatly, so please know that and try to not be angered. Be patient, because getting into the wiki world is a process that takes time for so many of us less experienced, but you have to start somewhere. That said, regarding your point about Colker as Shaq's physician and trainer, ESPN specifically refers to Colker as Refers to Colker as “[Shaq’s] physician and trainer” http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=alipour/070621. Would you agree that ESPN is a credible source to support the fact that Colker is in fact Shaq's personal physician and trainer is Colker? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenfit001 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, please post comments and questions about content on the article's talk page, not here. Follow that one simple request, which I've now made at least 3 times, and my patience will be considerably less taxed. Not slagging WP or accusing me of being biased would be a bonus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll wrap it up by answerring my own question to you, since you won't. On that one small example I gave (of which at this point there are quite a few to point to your penchant for Colker-bashing), you actually chose and listed the ESPN reference yourself and clearly decided to ignore the contents of that very same reference when it came to acknowledging that Colker is in fact Shaq's "physician and trainer", which it so clearly states in the article. Not fair play in anyones book, let alone that of quality editorial work. If that, coupled with your purposeful and obvious avoidance of anything positive about Colker, is all the evidence I need to point to bias. I'm out. Jenfit001 (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the best given your tendency to not listen. As a postscript, I'll point out that it's a WP:BLP issue at stake here. Shaq is not quoted anywhere saying that Colker is his personal physician and trainer, even if Colker may have played that role on Shaq and Friends. Who Shaq's physician may or may not be is a personal detail about Shaq and any statements made about this in a WP article would require very high quality sourcing. Complicating matters further, I found at one source that refers to Shaq's physician being Dr. Brian McKeon (2011)[9] and this source actually provides the nature of the treatment provided, not just some vague, fluffy, anecdotal claim that he's "Shaq's physician." Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I would like to get your feedback on striking 2 words from the opening section of Colker's wiki page 'prematurely and alleged'. I think the content does not read as neutral per Wiki policy (NPOV). A credible source on the matter published final arbitration findings which detailed the particulars of the case (http://documents.nytimes.com/pulling-back-the-curtain-on-a-broadway-dispute#p=1). Do you think by removing those two words the sentence will have a neutral tone and be more in line with Wiki standards? [Unsigned comment by GreenNviolet 21:51,22:01, 5 October 2015‎]

I can see why at first blush you might think that, but actually, the two words seem to pretty aptly summarize the story in a neutral way without getting into the particulars. The gist that those two words capture is: (1) that Pevin was attempting to get out of a contract that would have had him doing the show for a much longer run (i.e., he withdrew "prematurely") and (2) that there was some skepticism fairly widely expressed in the media about the legitimacy of Pevin's mercury poisoning claim (i.e., the claim was "alleged"), which was his basis for getting out of the contract. The arbitration hearings don't change the overall picture and they are WP:PRIMARY.

Perhaps the wording could be changed to something like "bow out of his contract" instead of "withdrew prematurely" , and instead of saying "alleged" it could say something like "claims drew skepticism from (e.g. Mamet/media/producers, etc.). But that's not as economical as the current version and doesn't really gain anything. Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. I’m seeing why “withdrew prematurely” makes the most sense. But I still think that the way the word “alleged” used here does not suggest neutrality. My point is that Colker’s concerns were not “alleged”. They were indisputably his concerns as correctly reported by the press and acknowledged by Colker himself. He can’t deny that these were truly his concerns. So whether right or wrong, there seems no dispute that these were in fact Colker’s concerns. It would only be “alleged” if we were not sure that the concerns could be attributed to Colker. To solve, I suggest we just remove the word “alleged”. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenNviolet (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Good point. It was the poisoning that was alegged, not the concerns. I moved "alleged" accpordingly. Thanks Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well positioned, many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenNviolet (talk • contribs) 00:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro it currently states "In 2003, Colker sparked media controversy by attempting to defend the safety of ephedra-based supplement products...". Again, like my last query surrounding the word "attempt" I think this time the word "attempting" should be removed and was curious to hear your feedback. I feel like it gives the reader the suggestion that Colker could deny that he was in fact the controversial defender of the product. My logic is based on the cited references which confirm that Colker was not only the defender of ephedra, but was in fact at the epicenter of defending the safety and efficacy of ephedra for the general public, even in front of congress. Now whether he did so effectively or not is a matter of public opinion, but for the sake of neutrality it makes no difference. As I see it, on the one hand, some of the ephedra products he apparently researched and developed are off the market. So some could say he failed. On the other hand, ephedra products are still legal to purchase. So others could say he succeeded. Either way the available references do not give us a definitive position on this. So do you think that portion in the intro should be changed to "In 2003, Colker sparked media controversy by defending the safety of ephedra-based supplement products..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenNviolet (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These particular supplements were not safe, and Colker was at the epicenter of the controversy because of dubious "research' he conducted on behalf of one of the companies that got nailed by the courts. So it's fair to say he attempted (and ultimately failed) to defend the safety of the products. I see no issue with neutrality. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. On a separate note, I've found a good amount of material surrounding "steroids, muscle growth and athlete performance" and have another question. Do you feel these separate but related ideas should appear as separate sub-sections under Professional, or is it better to try grouping them together in their own new section entitled "steroids, muscle growth and athlete performance"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenNviolet (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you post the proposed content and links here and a decision can then be made. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenNviolet (talk • contribs) 22:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning of no WP:PROMO. How do you feel about me reposting but getting rid of Beiber's quotes about Colker, so it reads as follows: In an expose article in GQ Magazine released in February 2016, Bieber stated that Colker was the doctor who got him off the drug Aderal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenNviolet (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not good. A doctor doesn't get someone "off" drugs. A doctor might see a patient for drug addiction and prescribe a course of treatment, but the statement above doesn't imply that -- it is vague and overly dramatic. Colker is not an addition specialist either, and the source is not WP:MEDRS. Also, the author seems to express a great deal of skepticism about Bieber's alleged association with Colker:

"But when I ask who recommended Colker to him, Bieber shuts down....“I just don’t think, like, the whole doctor thing is, like, something awesome to write about,” he says. “I think you should probably understand that.” I’m surprised by his reaction, since Bieber brought it up. He’s certainly gone quiet before, but in those cases I had brought up a touchy subject—his confirmed past use of pot, his rumored past use of other drugs (like codeine syrup)—and he’d simply refused to answer. I figured the question about who recommended the doctor was pretty banal; he’d mentioned taking Adderall as casually as if it were a vitamin. But something—about the question, or the nosy phrasing, or the tone—triggers an instant clam-up. In any event, we run out of time to finish our Adderall conversation—which Bieber now refers to as “deep fucking doctor shit”."Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per your earlier guidance, please see proposed content and links on adding a clinical researcher section to Colker’s wiki. Since my earlier thoughts on adding this section back in November, I searched and found additional reference material to support this request and I hope this meets with your approval. Please let me know your decision, many thanks.

Colker is a clinical researcher with a variety of scientific publications. His published clinical research on ephedra as a natural weight-loss aide received the most media attention and controversy. But Colker has published peer-reviewed studies on a number of other natural weight-loss ingredients including citrus aurantium, pyruvate, and guggalsterone. Colker has also published research in the field of steroids and human performance on steroids including “andro”, “7-keto” and “nortestin”. He’s also published on a number of other subjects including research on a “milk-based bioactive micronutrient beverage on pain symptoms and activity of adults with osteoarthritis, as well as studies on “whey protein” consumption and “soy”. Colker’s clinical research in human performance and exercise examined “the effects of full verses parallel squats” on muscle stimulation in athletes. His similar research also studied the effects of “dead-lifts” on hamstring activation.

References: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/24972503/carlon-m-colker

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/nut/article/PIIS0899900701008000/abstract http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VS8-445RBKH-KJ&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cd0855fdb167e894e187acb451c8fe84

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VS8-408C1SB-P&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c604862125f2291b4fe0d2b31cf7d419

http://webprod.hc-sc.gc.ca/nhpid-bdipsn/citReq.do?id=5163&lang=eng http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK36923/ http://www.rxresearchgroup.com/tl/ingredients/AZ_1999_CTR.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10355844 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011393X00885173 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11708699 http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(02)00834-1/abstract http://www.bulkmsm.com/research/page9.htm https://www.dcnutrition.com/products/abstracts.cfm?RecordNumber=723 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11985942?dopt=Abstract http://ift.confex.com/ift/2001/techprogram/paper_7451.htm http://www.ajcn.org/content/72/6/1588.1.full?sid=8002813e-f2f7-44ae-b822-e134adc2cad3 http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2002/05001/Effects_of_Full_Verses_Parallel_Squats_on.1779.aspx http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/Fulltext/2010/04000/Exploring_the_Deadlift.4.aspx?WT.mc_id=EMxALLx20100222xxFRIEND#P17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenNviolet (talk • contribs) 13:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the impression that any of these publications are particularly notable, and a WP bio on someone in Colker's profession should not enumerate every single article that the bio subject has published. It is not a resume. Furthermore, the collection of links you posted is rather poorly assembled in that it includes dead links[10][11][12], unrefereed abstracts (as opposed to refereed full-length publications[13], and articles that weren't even authored by Colker[14][15]. Lastly, of the full length publications on which Colker's name appears in the author list, in many cases he is not even the lead researcher but rather a secondary/tertiary author. So short answer, obviously, is that this proposed text won't fly for various reasons. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your critique, I’ve eliminated all the dead links and all those links in which Colker was not listed as lead author. Two of them were noteworthy enough to be listed on Medline and one is a link directly from the Journal itself. I’ve also added an additional link to full-length text. I’ve also tried, as you suggest, to better assemble the links and, instead of a new section, tailor it down to one sentence (see below). I am not sure whether it's more appropriate for inclusion in the Intro or Professional section with respective references. Would appreciate additional input, as well as guidance on geography of new submission request.

Colker is a published clinical researcher in the fields of nutrition, human performance, and steroids. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11708699 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11985942?dopt=Abstract http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(01)00800-0/fulltext http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2002/05001/Effects_of_Full_Verses_Parallel_Squats_on.1779.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenNviolet (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. That's a total of 3 publications (you posted two links to the same article) in unrelated areas from nearly 15 years ago, which is highly unremarkable. If there is no reliable secondary source that refers to him as "a published clinical researcher in the fields of nutrition, human performance, and steroids" then it's WP:OR. Incidentally, listing on PubMed (not Medline as you stated) is not a benchmark of notability. Anything published in any of the 43,000 journals indexed on PubMed appear in the database automatically. Journals that are not indexed by PubMed would likely be deemed unreliable for WP, but the opposite doesn't apply (i.e. listing on PubMed does not confer extra credibility). Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I noticed that you've been very active on this guy's page. I'm new to the scene but I made a couple of edits -- happy to collaborate with you and all the other folks on the page

Karthik Sarma (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I look forward to your contributions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the entry for discussing the deletion nomination for a recent article you created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rhys_Morgan).

doktorb _words^deeds 11:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And please also see my first section (re British English) on the Rhys Morgan talkpage. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response I am obviously very disappointed by this decision. The assertion that I did not read the article is highly misleading, not to mention offensive. I have been a Wikipedia editor for many, many years, and have followed the rules and regulations throughout these years. To suggest that I did not follow the regulations is complete bunkum. Using the evidence present in the article, I made a choice based on what I thought was a fairly obvious case - it STILL breaks our rules on blogs, recentism, notability, and bias. The "keep" votes are from people who have an immense level of conflict of interest, and therefore skew the vote something rotten. I am very disappointed that this entire episode has been carried out at my expense, rather than at the article itself. This response will be copied to as many concerned editors in this matter. doktorb _words^deeds 18:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The matter has been settled. The head count was so lopsided against your deletion nomination that the it was given a hasty keep. You'd best be moving on now, but before you do I feel that it is my duty to point out to you that your scurrilous charges of "immense level of conflict of interest" have been made without presenting any supporting evidence. There were more than 15 non-SPA editors that voted keep -- it was unanimous and overhwelming. Please refrain from this soapboxing BS, particularly on my user page where it serves even less of a purpose. Thanks, now move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my followup comment regarding offline legal threats and harassment.[16] Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rhys Morgan, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, while still a schoolboy, Rhys Morgan led an effort to raise awareness of the risks of the alternative medicine product Miracle Mineral Supplement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rhys Morgan.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Did a Google Search, saw in a result from the magazine's site that Magazine was capitlized and made the change. But dug a bit deeper and should've realized it's just Inc. CharlieGrammar (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Charlie. I often go through the same thing with the "magazine" vs "Magazine" issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand why the additions to the article about steeplechaser Henry Marsh are being deleted by you. The additions are a)factual, b)important, and c)clearly sourced. Any complaint about needing non-Wikipedia websites for sources is not valid as I clearly cited non-Wikipedian sources (e.g. http://www.usatf.org/statistics/champions/USAOutdoorTF/men/m3000mSC.asp or http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/images/stories/Rankings/06-mstrank.pdf)  ???? 190.152.183.254 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC) David Graham[reply]

The first source you mentioned was a WP article,[17] and that particular WP article did not have a supporting source to back up the information you wanted to add. That's a no-no. By chance do you know how to add inline citations? If you do, it would help if you could add them to any newly added text so as to facilitate the task of verification and matching sources to particular statements. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have redone the edits, this time linking the sources to the edits in the Wikipedia article. Regarding the Wikipedia source which you mistakenly thought did not back up any claims in my previous edits, it was the Wikipedia entry listing the results of the men's 1984 Olympic steeplechase final, where Brian Diemer is listed as 3rd in 8:14.06 and Marsh 4th in 8:14.25, which I used as support for the edit "just barely losing the bronze medal to teammate Brian Diemer." (I remember watching the race and it was really tight down the stretch between those two.)

There is, by the way, a reference on the Henry Marsh page that is not germane. At the bottom of the page, under references, there is a link to "1983 year ranking," but that reference site refers to ranking by time, not ranking by position. In the body of the article, the statement is made that "Marsh entered the event with the number two world ranking." This is a reference to his 1983 ranking by Track & Field News magazine: Marsh did have the fastest time for the steeplechase in 1983, but was ranked the #2 steeplechaser in the world by T&F News (due to his 8th place finish at the World Championships, where he unfortunately tripped over the last barrier and fell.) I've not done anything about this, but thought I'd mention it...

I have, however, fixed a small technicality in the first paragraph, which states that Marsh "represented his native country in the men's 3,000 meter Steeplechase in four Summer Olympics, from 1976 through 1988." It is true that Marsh made four Olympic teams...but he only represented his country three times in the Olympics, since the U.S. boycotted the 1980 Olympics....so I changed the wording to reflect this ("made four U.S. Olympic teams and represented his country...in three summer Olympics.) 190.152.183.254 (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC) David Graham[reply]

Looks good. Thanks! Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for checking that article. I missed that change when I reverted the other deletion. --McSly (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much. Thanks for keeping an eye on things. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for intervening when I had been accused of acting in bad faith, and would have been forced to an edit war. Thank you also for bringing good sense to the area of herbal medicine. Your namesakes are handsome birds! Nadiatalent (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please proofread. 70.137.157.88 (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern with the article is that it is written more like a scientific review article than an encyclopedic entry. There was also correspondence in NEJM from secondary sources who commented on the research. Inclusion of some of that material might be worthwhile. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean ref "Correspondence: Bardoxolone Methyl, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Type 2 Diabetes" and "Bardoxolone Methyl, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Type 2 Diabetes" from NEJM, which I included? 70.137.145.233 (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a second look. The bioavailability section is way too long, relies too much on primary sources, and generally doesn't read like an encyclopedia. I suggest trimming it down extensively. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of bioavailability. They talk about creatinine clearance. 70.137.145.233 (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, scratch my last comment. That was in reference to another article I was working on and my comments got crossed up. As for the NEJM correspondence, yes that was what I was referring to. It is cited but (a) not given sufficient detail; the letters to the editor raised several issues about the study (e.g., effects on magnesium, vasodilation, albuminuria, glomerular hydrostatic pressure) by Pergola et al., and (b) is not cited correctly; i.e., it is cited merely as a single article entitled "correspondence" but should actually be cited as 4 separate articles: see the following links for guidance[18][19][20][21]. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cited them as one, as NEJM gave them only one common doi and collected and printed them together with the reply of the authors as "correspondence of the related article". But they have 4 different pmids. I did not work on the body of the article but only inserted the related article and this correspondence to improve the sources situation. I thought it is silly to make it into separate citations, if it is merged by NEJM into one, even if pubmed differed. 70.137.144.94 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem silly but they should in fact be cited as separate publications, each with different sets of authors. If you have further comments/questions, please post them on the article Talk page so that other editors can follow the discussion and weigh in if necessary. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uuhh... thats mean! I separated them into 4 different cite pmids, but then citation bot redirects them to a cite of the shared doi, and the separate authors and pmids get lost. 70.137.144.94 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! That's annoying. Maybe there's a work around. As long as the author information is listed in the entry, it's probably not a big deal if the DOIs all link to the same site. Did you try using the URLs for the unique PubMed abstract entries? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really believe that they should stay together, as the authors of the original article have also included a common reply to all in the same communication. As mere communications the authors have less importance I believe, and these communications belong together and with the reply thematically, as NEJM noticed. 70.137.144.94 (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's not the correct way to do it. They have have separate authors and should be cited as separate publications. That's the norm. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Better now? 70.137.144.94 (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks for going the extra mile. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is just friendly reminder to please be careful when removing content such as you did on the article for MuscleTech. You removed an in-line citation stating that it was a "vague overgeneralization -- this was a rodent study; it does not provide support for human supplementation". However the reference and accompanying statement you removed was referencing a 2003 study performed on 16 human males aged 18-32. See [22] When removing content, it's more helpful to discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. Thanks! --Yankees76 ^Talk 23:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. It was a human study indeed. However, the gist of the comment still stands. The entry provided no details on the study but rather summarized it as saying "it supported" the supplement -- that is a vague over-generalization IMO. It's also a primary source, so it's not really appropriate to relay sweeping conclusions about the results (see WP:MEDRS). I also have a bit of a problem with the statement about "the first" lipoic acid-creatine supplement. Although the statement is sourced, the source that's cited provides no reference or data to back up the assertion. Statements like that are generally avoided in scholarly works unless there is very solid support; a common example is when scientific authors claim to be the first to have studied a particular phenomena. Editors will usually reject this and it ends up getting edited to "to our knowledge, we are the first...". To prove that one is first, one has to provide some form of evidence as to how hard they searched for someone that might have beat them to the punch. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems to pass WP:RS fairly easily - I would have no reason to doubt the author. When stating that a product was "the first", generally one would only need to do a market analysis and review other creatine-carbohydrate products to determine if any others contain alpha lipoic acid to make the claim as to wether or not Cell-Tech was the first. I would assume that the author did just that. --Yankees76 ^Talk 13:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily a safe assumption to make. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it's not our job as Wikipedians to second guess the fact checking of a published work or what claims in the book we should consider valid or not; our only job here is to reflect what is listed. --Yankees76 ^Talk 15:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it out job as Wikipedians to abandon commonsense. If it's a tenuous claim that's poorly supported, it doesn't merit inclusion. BTW, you can move the discussion henceforth to the article TPG. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although typically unsourced, the addition of content in superfruits largely came from other wikipedia articles that were sufficiently sourced.

Being so strict about sourcing (almost annal) and deleting content blindly is actually bad for quality information. Think about it. Why would I spend time to objectify a controversial article, if not for the alleviation of controversy?Rickproser (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Content must be reliably sourced; this is WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, would you mind taking a minute to chime in on the nomination for Deletion for WorldVentures. It seems like the other editors are being more stringent than necessary. Between D Magazine, Direct Selling News, and Inc., it seems the company easily has enough merit, but no one seems to be coming to its defense. Virgil06 (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK done. The deletion nomination seems valid to me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Contributor

Do we have a separate Indian Wikipedia ?

Anay jain (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Contributor,

Regarding following editing done by you.

(cur | prev) 21:59, 21 April 2012‎ Rhode Island Red (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,938 bytes) (-291)‎ . . (→‎Authorship: (1) evidence shows two course lists, not "multiple"; (2) sources mention nothing about personality development (3) these are both trivial and will not ultimately pass editorial review) (undo)

I suggest you to see the Neutrality policy and to please read the links specifically in detail before editing anything-

1] It is clearly mentioned on the top right of last page- common to all branches then why you edited it to the word course. The line talks about all branches of engineering...that is a much broader area as compared to a course. Do you want other contributors to present different link for each branch and fill the whole page. This is not at all fair.

2) There is clear mention on top left of last page of link Subject-personality development. The title of the book is also on personality development. What else is needed? Please read in detail before you edit so that the time of other contributors can be saved.

3) I object on the line " books appear on the reference list". The title of that content is Reference Books and two books of patni are mentioned under that title. Why you altered them toappear on reference list unnecessarily. This approach is biased and absolutely unacceptable. Please don't adopt different policies while editing the same subject as per your wish. Go as per the evidence.

Contributor has the right to hold a opinion that ujjwal patni is not notable but to prove that..facts must not be altered or misrepresented... We cannot interpret the citations as per our own wish. If the citation is reputed, the mention is specific, we must admit that.

Looking for other senior contributors who impartially help, guide and mentor the not-so-experienced wikipedians like us with their experience to improve the pages.

Thanks

Anay jain (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Contributor,

We will try our level best to bring ujjwal patni page up to your standards. Kindly help us in doing so.

1] Regarding the Guinness world record - The main source GUINNESS WORDS RECORDS shows the name of organization Durg Bhilai Lifecraft ...We have also presented a news from The telegraph, that clearly mentionS the name of Dr Ujjwal patni ( The Telegraph is a highly reputed Indian national daily )

2] We have also presented some new links to highlight his significant achievement as a trainer and author.

3] Some links are in hindi and some are in english because the subject is from India and Hindi is national language , however we are trying to present notable sources in English also for your better understanding.

Will keep on working with you to improve the page.

14.97.137.72 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help us to improve ujjwal patni page- Restore few notable points with the help of presented links

Dear Contributor, Kindly look into the following issues. I am little bit new to it so forgive me for mistakes if any. Kindly help us in improving this page because ujjwal patni is very notable personality from India

1] "Regarding the removal of Guinness world record winner" from Ujjwal patni's page, I would present the following link.Since that was a record made by a choir/group, Guinness world record had not mentioned individual name. The news in the prestigious national daily of india makes it clear that Dr Ujjwal patni was the chief organizer and head of the team. Kindly check the news link below and restore.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050919/asp/jamshedpur/story_5242939.asp

2] Regarding the removal of the word corporate trainer from the first line, i would say that in the final revision ujjwal patni is limited to only Multilevel marketing where as he is a famous personality as a author, success coach and corporate trainer. Regarding the removal of Kamal patra in awards section, i would humbly like to bring in your knowledge that Kamal patra is the biggest national individual award given to one one individual yearly so pls restore the word KAMAL PATRA as he is proud recipient of KAMAL patra for the year 2006. The following link clearly states that Ujjwal Patni is a leading international success coach and a corporate trainer from India. He has also received GUINNESS World record.

http://jainsamaj.org/magazines/ahimsatimesshow.php?id=117

3] 3] Regarding the removal of the word Government from pt sunderlal sharma in award section shall also be corrected because this is a offical prestigious award given by the government and it is a official acceptance of the quality of work done by dr Ujjwal patni. It is clear cut written in the link presented below that The Chhattisgarh Government has selected 24 eminent personalities and social organisations for various state awards to be conferred on them on the valedictory function of the Rajyotsav '2010' here today.

http://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/India/20101102/1621615.html

Thanks

1] "Regarding the removal of Guinness world record winner"

The source does not mention Ujjwal Patni so it is not suitable for inclusion (please refer to WP:VER).

2] "Ujjwal Patni is a leading international success coach"

If that is the case, then the claim should be supported by frequent coverage to that effect in reliable international publications. I don't see such evidence. All I see are are a few very obscure regional sources from India. Since this is not Indian Wikipedia, you need to would demonstrate broader coverage.

3] "this is a offical prestigious award"

Not by WP standards it isn't; for the same reasons cited above. I would argue that by WP standards, Patni is not notable enough to merit a WP page (See WP:BIO). Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the page in new light, Lets discuss it issue wise, Other contributors requested to improve the page...

Dear Sir,

I don't want to be a part of Edit war rather i would love to be a part of discussion. However I am continuously seeing new links from reputed newspapers, websites and other sources and unable to understand why are you deleting them grossly. I think we must talk on the same. I find ujjwal patni very much notable (WP : BASIC WP: ANYBIO, WP : AUTHOR )

Revision as of 22:04, 20 April 2012

((1) this is not notable enough for the WP:LEAD; (2) organization itself may not be notable at all; (3) a picture is not an adequate source (WP:OR under reliable sources))

Clarification -

(1) If you don't find it notable enough in the lead, it could be included in the award section, Pls suggest.

(2) The organization is a training accreditation non profit organization so It would not be fair to question the notability of the organization. They are not stating that ujjwal patni is no 1 or single. They have published a list that shows the renowned trainers as per their evaluation parameters. We are no one to challenge their parameters. By any measure, this inclusion surely indicates the quality of his work as a Trainer.

(3) The name of ujjwal patni as a renowned trainer can be seen there with his image and the whole list is presented in the same way so nobody can deny this inclusion. We must relate the inclusion with other achievements to authenticate in case of doubt. This inclusion is supported by the Best Corporate Trainer of India Award mentioned in the award section that supports the quality of work of subject.

The certification is also displayed on the website www.ujjwalpatni.com as an additional source. After relating contents of the page, I don't require more citations.

Revision as of 22:07, 20 April 2012

Regarding Tarun Kranti Award/Puraskar

Clarification -

(1) I have cited a link that clearly mentions Dr Ujjwal patni as the chairman of Tarun award. All the other ctations contain photographs to support the same. However I am looking for more citations on this.

(2) I have cited the original press release from the government department of Public relations of Madhya pradesh , the biggest state of India. This citation asserts the importance of award as The Governor of state himself presented the award and made an official press release too. This is sufficient enough to make it notable.

(3) I have also cited newspapers giving prominent coverage to Tarun Kranti award with photograph . If we don't understand a foreign language, we can relate the photos very easily. In India the main language is hindi, so the subject is right in presenting the citations of top hindi newspapers of india.

(4) As an additional source, a link of Ujjwal patni's website is added, which presents a special page on Tarun Kranti award puraskar with photos.

(5)The winners are all prominent personalities and already have a place in wikipedia thus justifying the notability of award

The citations are very reputed with proper title, publishing date and the publisher details. All the citations from multiple sources focus exclusively on the award and winners in same context. By relating all this , i feel that Tarun Kranti puraskar is important enough to be presented specifically so a special section has been created. I would request you to talk before deleting.

Anay jain (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Anay jain (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the new section you added. on the Tajun award. Much of the information added was on the awards recipients rather than on Patni himself. Similarly, the sources cited mention recipients but do not focus on Patni. I've trimmed out the portions that were not directly relevant to Patni. What remains is roughly one line of text. Not really necessary to offset this in a separate section, but this is a relatively minor point compared with the other more serious issues with the article.

I'm still of the opinion that Patni does not meet notability requirements, for the reasons I've stated already. I don't see any evidence that he is notable outside of a very small sphere in India. While he may be known for some of his accomplishments in India, his broader notability is not in evidence. For instance, I see no mention of him from any source outside of India, and many of the Indian sources that mention him are in Hindi and cannot be verified. So he may perfectly acceptable for inclusion in Indian Wikipedia, but not English Wikipedia. Ultimately, we'll have to let a larger audience of editors decide whether or not he meets notability requirements. It is not to be judged unilaterally by either you or me.

Also, please keep in mind WP policy on original research which states:

"Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research...In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."

In other words, a photo cannot be used as source to back up a textual statement.

Lastly, would you mind continuing further discussion on the article's talk page so that other editors can follow along. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Contributor,

I would like to add the names of important books that are present on Flipkart but not mentioned in the article. I also want to add the number and names of languages. Languages are very important for an author. Pls guide, how to go ahead. It doesn't feel good when we put in so much of hard work and and you delete that without a single discussion. Instead of deleting and reverting the hard work in one go , can we discuss a little bit for the right things.

Anay jain (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to work on the page of Ujjwal Patni. I find that you have done great contribution on that page, i have also seen your work on the page of Karan Bajaj. Would you guide and allow me to rework the page of Ujjwal Patni on the lines of Karan Bajaj

TRANSASIA (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for slow moving edit warring at MonaVie. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 17:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Rhode Island Red (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

A block for edit warring with no warning or discussion seems like a breach of WP protocol in this case; I do not see how it warranted. Properly sourced content was removed from Monavie by someone claiming that there was general agreement to delete. This was not the case. My restoring the content to the article indicated tacitly that I objected to the deletion. Properly sourced content should not be deleted without consensus. Why no warning? Why the itchy trigger finger? Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

There were no edits contravening 3RR and discussion here about another user blocked by the same admin, about the same article has lead to them being unblocked. SmartSE (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that admins also look at User_talk:AndyTheGrump#April_2012 - I was blocked at the same time, for supposedly contributing to the same 'edit-war'. Multiple contributors have agreed that the block was unwarrented, and I have been unblocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain the situation Andy. Cheers! Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My account is still showing up as blocked even though the block was lifted. Can anyone explain what's up? Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the autoblock was still in place - should be cleared now :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... haven't unblocked many people before. Is it ok now? SmartSE (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rhode Island Red, I am trying to write the above mentioned article about the german coach, entrepreneur and artist. Now I see that you are deleting everything that reveils the importance of this personality, e.g. the link to the british design group (In the Swim), an exhibition managed for the group in 1993 by Diez, in those days director of Designlabor Bremerhaven, or you deleted the Istanbul movie produced by Diez. I admit, the article is by far not complete, but it does not look very fair to delete my whole work in this early stage and to contemplate on "Notability not established". A bit more patience would be very kind. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability tag was added because I don't see any evidence that the subject is notable for English Wikipedia. There isnt a single English citation. The video links were deleted because YouTube videos do not meet with WP sourcing guidelines. Please take some time to read about on WP policies on articles...WP:PUFF, WP:BIO, and WP:RS to start. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A re-write of the USANA article has been proposed on the talk page. I've also made mention of a new article which has yet to be incorporated into the article.Jean314 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the ref "mayo full" to "vickers" there is still a <ref name="mayo full"/> which left a red cite error on the page bottom. Did you want to change "mayo full" to "vickers" or delete it? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some knowledge about the artist, HA Schult? And are you sure that the information you have deleted, is wrong? I don't think so. Therefore, please do not remove contributions based on reliable sources such as catalogs, books and articles on the artist. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of right or wrong; merely whether or not the text is reliably sourced -- a fundamental rule of WP:BIO. I did not remove anything that was properly sourced. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text is reliably sourced, as there are many references to exhibition catalogs, oeuvre catalogs, books and articles on the artist written by art critics and art historians. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I did not remove anything that was reliable sourced so it's unclear to which edits you are referring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the details given in the text can be found in the many publications on the artist. Schult is well known in Germany and also internationally recognized. As you are still removing important information from the Wikipedia article, you may consult the many press releases and articles cited on this page in order to get a first impression on the artist's life and work. However, we can leave the two tags on the Wikipedia page if you are happy with them, though I do not think that they are necessary. But do not remove material written by Wikipedians who are better informed on the subject than you. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...no need for the uppity attitude or boasting. Since you are writing the article, the onus is on you to provide in line citations that support every statement. It's just that simple. Kindly refrain from edit warring and just follow protocol. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are the person who questions the sources I have used, although you do not seem to be well informed about Schult. You have even deleted a quote from the Deutsche Welle, falsely claiming that it is self-published. I do not think that this is an appropriate behavior in the given situation. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not I am "well informed" about HA Schult is irrelevant, and you aren't doing yourself any favors by repeatedly making this accusation and suggesting that the problem here is my ignorance of this barely notable German garbage artist's contributions to society rather than your noncompliance with WP:RS and WP:VER. The DW article in question listed Shult's name underlined at the top, so it's easy to mistake him as the author. Nonetheless, when a source says something vague along the lines of "art critics say he is a modern day (whatever)", it carries little weight unless the critics are named (as per WP:REDFLAG). More importantly, you previously challenged me to consult "the many press releases and articles cited" about Schult, but this is clearly a fools errand because the source that was cited most often (6 out of the 12 citations) is an obscure out of print 1978 publication in German (i.e., HA Schult der Macher) for which you provided no link that would enable verification. This raises an issue at to whether the artist is even notable enough to warrant a WP entry in English Wikipedia. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at a few more sources and I think I the argument for notability is fairly sound. That aside, I think the main issue here is that the article relies too heavily on that one old obscure source in German (HA Schult der Macher). The article would be better if it relied less on this one source (it accounts for 6 of the 12 references cited) and included more content from reliable English sources, like ArtNews, and and these[23][24] which aren't cited yet. I also noticed that ArtNews said that his work had been "compared" to that of Christo, which IMO is a better source and a better quote (more neutral) than the slightly more exaggerated one saying that he "has been called the 'German Christo' for the epic scale of his work", although, really, an argument could be made for the latter as well. You know, you're not really far away from having a good article about Schult, and I'll be happy to work with you going forward to bring it up to the highest caliber. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, if you are the artist himself, or a second party writing on his behalf, that's OK too. If that's the case, it might be worth reading WP:COI, but having a COI doesn't necessarily preclude you from contributing (although in some situations it's at least frowned upon) or require that you reveal your identity (although such transparency is encouraged in the case of a COI). If you need input, I'll be happy to help out. I actually think some of the artist's works/happenings are pretty interesting...especially the plane crash into the NY garbage dump. My issue is just that I'm a stickler for procedure and good encyclopedic writing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I partly do not understand your argument. I am not Schult himself, but I am well informed about his work. Just for your information: the 398-page publication, HA Schult der Macher is an oeuvre catalog of the artist, edited by four authors and including essays written by German art historians, reprints from newspaper articles dealing with the artist's happenings, and discussions of all works by Schult previous to the publication date. It is the standard publication on the early work of Schult. Therefore, it is quoted six times in the first part of the article. However, I am thankful for your help if it does improve this article. Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, it's an obscure, very old, and out of print source, so it can't be readily verified -- it's not ideal IMO; it would be much better to find secondary sources in English that quote the original source. And in what way do you think that the work is a "standard publication" about Schult? What standards are you referring to? Are you saying that he is a subject of academic interest and academic articles are citing this older work? As I said before, it's best not to lean on a single source too heavily because the article needs to reflect a balanced POV of the subject; not the POV of a single source, and in this case, the source in question is particularly problematic for verification. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This publication is the best and most complete source on the early work of the artist. I still do not understand your argument. There are many excellent publications on artists now out of print. What is of more interest to me in order to improve the article, however, is to add some more illustrations, for instance this one, which I found on the Internet, or a similar one, as it shows the influence of Caspar David Friedrich on the artist. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've elaborated on the issue further in response to your comment on the Talk page.[25] Let's continue the dialog there. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help in the discussion on the Monavie article. I am new here and do not know all the processes. For that I apologize. I initiated the DR because one editor in particular was getting abusive in both his tone and language. I was not sure what else I was supposed to do to address that issue. If there was a better way to handle it, please let me know. I only included you because I thought they were asking me who all had been involved in edits on the page. Sorry if that was not what I was supposed to do.Tonyhammond (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and thanks for dropping by. If something like that (i.e. you feeling that someone is being abusive) happens again, you can leave a comment on my talk page and I'll do what I can to help resolve it. That said, I think you should have relied on the Talk page to sort things out, as the move to DR came too early IMO, and it's not really the ideal place to address user conduct issues. I also think that some of the changes you are arguing for (eg, removing the page entirely) are way over the top and, therefore, more likely to generate strong reactions and opposition. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rhode Island Red. You have new messages at Johnmoor's talk page.
Message added 11:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

As per your reaction to my removal of unsourced material on the page, please ensure to follow Wikipedia protocol of assuming good faith. If those closer to the page want the unreferenced material up on the page still, that's fine, I was simply cleaning up what I thought to be a fairly messy article. I will add citation needed tags instead.Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction (adding a warning tag on user page for content blanking) was appropriate. You blanked a significant amount of material that was properly sourced. You also removed text about a study and claimed, incorrectly, that there was no verifiable citation, when in fact there was.[26] I can assume good faith -- that it was all a big mistake -- if you like, as long as you don't do it again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also follow Wikipedia protocol of being civil Rhode Island Red. The page is not properly cited throughout, I have therefore added citation requests where appropriate on the page.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been uncivil, so it escapes me why would you feel it necessary to lecture me about civility. I'll have a look at the tags. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not just removing all of them :) Only real question I have is--why put up the ingredients of the drug if it's not something that has ever been mentioned in the press or otherwise. Just seems kind of promotional to me, but I may be being too hard on this.Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(A) It's not a drug; (b) listing the ingredients is not promotional -- when it comes to defining Protandim, there is no question more fundamental than "what's in it?" and "how much?". Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally disagree. Most important thing is: why should an encyclopaedia assert that this item is so important to have such a lengthy article and how does this subject figure into society. Not price and product description :) Do believe the product has a website and paid press releases for that kind of information, and that Wikipedia is not Consumer Report, lol. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um...ok. Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you add a source to Frank Vandersloot that includes a quote, and yet not allow that same source to be used in the lead? Is your source not valid?Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you posted this in relation to Protandim, but if you have any content questions it would be best to post them on the article's Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RIR, You recently went in and blocked me as an editor on the protandim site i went through what i thought was correct protocol and after fiddling with some pages figured out the TALK page and discussed edits with others. I made several simple suggestions (under title LM) based on bias language and no one objected. One citation was objected so i left that out based on Wiki standards. There were two areas taken out of one section, one was due to the citation no longer being valid or provable, the other was an opinion of testing and yet may be true the other method utilized was accepted enough to be published in peer review and also true but it leads a reader to a think one way without expertise.

I would like to be reinstated as an editor. Please look at the talk page under LM, the rationals, the language changes for the sake of keeping things neutral. informative and factual. Additionally some sources were referenced incorrectly, it made a statement that the studies were paid for by the company but if you look at the references, the studies have who they are paid by on it and they list federal monies, grants, etc.

Thank you! LM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.17.4 (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)If you have been blocked, then you need to follow WP:AAB, post an unblock request on your own page and address the issues that got you blocked in the first place. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading the talk page and reviewing the new sources before simply reverting for a 3R violation. There are now equal references referring to Melaleuca as either a direct marketing company or an MLM company, and I've been quite careful to leave MLM at the front of each comparison. To simply erase sources without any explanation is not reasonable. In addition, if no source is provided linking the DSA to MLMs, this copy should be removed. I will now remove the in use banner.Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Red ! I wonder if it would be possible to reach a compromise in the VanderSloot article; that is, regarding the MLM dispute. I propose deleting the phrase from the lede paragaph and inserting a separate subheader into the body of the story that will give "both sides" of the dispute. Frankly, I would like to see the whole issue abandoned, but I can see now that would not be possible. What do you say? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best course of action would be for you to stop refusing to get the point and abandon the issue. It's consumed too much time already and when you ignore the fact that this so called "issue" has been raised in 3 different forums already, none of which supported your POV, it becomes an issue of WP:TE. The reality is that a majority of sources from across the spectrum have identified the company as an MLM, so I don't see any way of getting around that. We've already addressed the issue of nomenclature regarding MLM vs direct marketing, and pyramid selling/schemes. The company is for all intents and purposes an MLM, so manufacturing a controversy about where none exists would involve WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and/or WP:FRINGE. This has already been pointed out to you many times. I'm always game to consider reasonable new proposals and new WP:RS, but I think I've scoured through enough already to draw the conclusion that you're fighting a futile battle and beating a dead horse. After a point, this crosses the WP:NPOV line into WP:ADVOCACY and WP:TE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm very happy to see you remove the tag. I've noticed that you have been keeping an eye on the article - I'm not sure if you are aware, (although perhaps you are), but the original article was paid for by the company, and the recent edits were presumably also based on a contract. You've been doing a great job of keeping it neutral - I don't know the topic well enough to clean it up myself, so the tag was just to see us by until someone like you could fix it. :) Thanks for keeping an eye on it. - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for monitoring the Visalus page.I appreciate that. I made a couple of additions on Friday and I noticed that you completely reverted them. I understand why some of the edits I made might be considered promotional.

But it appears like you completely reverted the page, meaning even the positive edits have been lost. Like you rightly pointed out, this is an encyclopedia and it's important that the information on it be neutral and accurate. The current page wrongly states that the primary product of the company is the Vi-Shake.

A quick review of the company's official website will confirm that this is wrong. Their Challenge program is however a significant part of their marketing efforts. I'm always opened to discussion so if you think I'm wrong, please let me know and why. Pending your reply, I plan on re-including this information again within the article. This time, I'll try and lay off the puffery and pointless promotional content. If you do spot anything that you consider inadequate, please let me know. It would help me become a much better contributor on future articles.Carlang (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhodeIsland,

Thanks again for monitoring this page. I've done some research and the only pages online that suggest that the company's primary product is the Vi-Shake appear to be basing their information on the Wikipedia article (as evidenced by the date they were written). Some articles even have direct lifts from the wiki page. I might be wrong, but unless you have some solid references backing up that assertion, removing it may be the wiser course of action. If you do have references backing up that sentence, then adding it would be great.

I've added what I believe is a brief-non promotional section on the 90 day challenge. It's a significant part of the company's operation so not addressing it would be wrong. I also reinstated the spokesperson section on the page because I'm not sure how that can be considered promotional and appears to be a common feature on hundreds of other pages. I'm assuming it was accidentally deleted with the page revert. Kind Regards Carlang (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to sources cited in the article: "The company's weight-management products, which include Vi-Shape meal-replacement shake and Vi-Trim Clear Control Drink Mix, form the bulk of its sales".[27] I have amended the article to include this information verbatim. The blurb about spokespersons was deleted because no WP:RS were cited. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. Like I said, I wouldn't want to add anything that falls on the wrong side of Wikipedia's rule. Thanks again for keeping an eye on the page and the updated content (particularly the IPO). Carlang (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhodes, I noticed you reverted the change I made the to 'Product section', with the astute observation that the section is dedicated to products and not the Body by VI chalenge. I don't have a problem with this.

However, I currently intend on creating a separate section for the Body bi Vi Challenge. Like I mentioned earlier, its a significant part of the company's marketing campaign. I'm not as versed with the rules of wikipedia but I am unfamiliar with any rule that expressibly forbids the creation of such a section. I don't intend to include any promotional content within. If I do please feel free to delete it with reasons.

I've reviewed several other Wikipedia pages with related content (e.g South Beach, Slim Fast, Weight watchers and Special K among others) and from all indications--highlighting the marketing campaign (Jenny Craig) and discussing the products (Slimfast 2009 section & Special K) appears to be permitted within reason. Breaking up the page into different sections of different topics is even the recommended format with writing articles.

Thanks for all your efforts on the page. I really do appreciate it.

I intend on adding a short section highlighting the Body by Vi Challenge. If you should decide to delete it, I'd really appreciate it if you could give me a good reason, beyond a few summary words.

Kind Regards Carlang (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best option is to propose new text on the Talk page for discussion. Dealing with the Body by Vi Challenge will be tricky. All content in the WP article should be based on reliable secondary sources, but to my knowledge, the Challenge has not received significant coverage from such sources. What we want to avoid is advocacy/promotion and non-encyclopedic content. I don't see that there's much worth saying about the Challenge other than perhaps the line or two that's already in there. I also had a look at the articles on Special K and Slimfast 2009 and saw nothing in there about promotional gimmicks like the Vi-challenge, so there's no precedent there that I can see. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since this discussion pertains to article content, it would be best if we continued this on the article's talk page so that other editors can have the benefit of reading it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've added a few references that I believe meet Wikipedia'reliability criteria. If any of them are wrong, I can delete them.

The reason I mentioned the Slimfast page was that it had a more detailed overview of the products offered in the dietary program--Additions that would likely be flagged as 'promotional content' if a similar approach was used with the Visalus page.

If you visit the Slimfast page and scroll down to the Current (2009-Present) section. You'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm just trying to understand why its permissible on one page and considered promotional on another.

Hi Rhodes,

I've reviewed the statement 'Dr. Michael Siedman a Michigan-based otolaryngologist who "dabbles in herbal medicine".' and I believe it encourages an unnecessary biased view against the subject WP:UNDUE. The subject in question has two degrees in the field of nutrition and two patents in a similar field. I appreciate the fact that the writer used the words the words 'dabbles in herbal medicine' while writing an article but using it as a basis for the doctor's description, given the majority of articles to the contrary, would be wrong and against wikipedia's policies.

Wiki's WP:NPOV rules states "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article".

I might be wrong but I also believe that adding statements like 'dabbles in herbal medicine' would also amount to negative puffery as it introduces an unnecessary bias. WP:EUPHEMISM

Think what would happen if people chose to replace Bill Gate's qualifications in his wiki entry with some other article that described him as a man who 'dabbled into computers' just because a lone article described him in this light.

Wikipedia rules states "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence".

If you have more than one article with a similar opinion then a case may be made. But basing the bulk of the content of an entire Wikipedia page on the opinion of only one article (with an obvious bias against the subject) would be a violation of wiki's rules.

Thanks again for all your input.

Kind regardsCarlang (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Seidman has only one degree in nutrition (a bachelor's degree) -- not two. A bachelor's degree in nutrition does not engender expertise in herbal medicine. The two are entirely different fields -- i.e. nutritional science is not "herbal medicine", and studies at the undergraduate level have nothing to do with practicing medicine period. His field of specialty is otolaryngology, which also has nothing to do with herbal medicine. He is employed by Visalus, and thus there is also a COI aspect that bears consideration. To date, the only substantial piece of journalism on Visalus that I'm aware of is the Metroactive piece; everything else seems like a cut-and-paste from a Visalus brochure. The text in the WP article describes that Seidman is an otolaryngologist who, as Metroactive's Matt Stroud pointed out, "dabbles in herbal medicine."

There are also serious issues about the legitimacy of the marketing of these products. In one company video, Seidman (pitchman for the company) suggests that Vislaus products can treat high cholesterol (12:53),[28] and in another, the products are being promoted for the treatment of diabetes.[29] This is snakeoil marketing at its worst. Extra sensitivity is needed here so as not to promote questionable, deceptive, or potentially illegal sales practices. Incidentally, Seidman also plugs his own line of vitamins.[[30]. There's a morass there and we as WP editors should be very careful as to how we tread around it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhodes;

Visalus products are officially described as 'nutritional products' and not 'herbal products'. An assertive comment about his degree in nutrition would therefore be justified. A flip remark about him dabbling in herbal medicine on the other hand is unnecessary. And considering your astute observation that "herbal medicine is not the same as nutrition, including it would be pointless.

I understand that you might have concerns about the legitimacy of the products, but wikipedia's neutral rules state that when editing we should "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." You're using YouTube videos to back up your argument and we both know that those are not considered reliable. I could just as easily find a dozen videos that prove that Visalus is the new wonder drug in the same forum.

I'm trying to write a neutral and objective article based on asserted facts. The earlier bloomberg reference that I inserted (in the page you reverted noted that Seidman at the very least completed a B.S in nutrition and has worked with the NIH on several cases. Choosing to include puffery comments while ignoring the subject's qualifications just because of your personal opinions would qualify as biased.

Kind Regards Carlang (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg source that you refer to as an "article" is nothing of the kind. It's little more than a database entry, and typically such entries are provided by the subjects themselves. It's not on the same par with real journalism, as in the case of the Matt Stroud source. The use of "dabbles in herbal medicine" seems well justified based on Seidman's vitamin website and some of his other writings. It passes the basic acid test for legitimacy and so should not be censored. You have inappropriately deleted the citation of Stroud's article in the section in question and at the same time you resorted to WP:SYNTH in trying to play up Seidman's credentials.

It's also unclear as to what you were referring to when you said that he has has "worked with the NIH on several cases" or how that would be relevant to Visalus. And again, a BS in nutrition has virtually nothing to do with the practice of medicine, herbal or otherwise.

The videos I linked to above are not being cited as sources for inclusion of the article; however, they are from official company events and they provide insight into the services that Seidman performs for the company (i.e. snakeoil-like product pitches) and how the organization markets its products in general. It underscores why we have to be especially sensitive about becoming accomplices to misleading advertising.

You also said "I could just as easily find a dozen videos that prove that Visalus is the new wonder drug in the same forum". Please provide those. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhodes, I'm not trying to get into an edit war with you. It appears like you've missed my point. Calls for me to submit videos from unreliable sources are unnecessary.

Unless I've missed something, Wikipedia stress on writing objective and neutral articles. When you start a section on the company's product's, highlights its creator and then insert a comment by someone who claims that Seidman 'dabbles in herbal medicine' you instantly discredit the authority of the subject in question and by extension its product. That's a biased form of writing. The section is supposed to be about the company's product NOT the doctor's qualification.

I'm not trying to paint Visalus in glowing light. If you'll notice, I did NOT remove the section where Michael Shermer questioned the claims of the company because its sourced and obviously an opinion. But you can't discuss the creator of product. Include an observation made by another professional. And then choose to NOT include his official academic credentials. Wiki's neutral law states: WP:YESPOV Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view. Again. That would be biased.

Wiki's law states WP:Impartial 'The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone'. It's obvious from the article that the quoted source, does not think much of the contribution.

Finally, Wikipedia is supposed to be a forum for accepted facts as related to the content. Visauls is not described as a herbal medicine company or a company involved with herbal products. The 'dabble in herbal medicine' statement is therefore NOT necessary and only serves to further a biased thread.

I've removed the references to Dr Seidman's 'dabbling' because I believe it detracts from the subject of the page. To preserve neutrality, I've also removed any references to his qualification.

I really appreciate your contributions to the site. And from what I can tell, you do not appear overly fond of the company based on what you've seen. But that doesn't mean that the company does not deserve the same impartial article tone that Wikipedia demands.

Carlang (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the premise of your argument; I just don't see it as being on the mark. The statement about Seidman is not an expression of my personal opinion; it's a direct quote from a WP:RS. The source states that he is an otolaryngolgist (i.e. an MD; and this point is included in the WP article) who dabbles in herbal medicine. So your argument about not excluding certain points of view contradicts your edits (i.e. arbitrarily removing the "certain POV" of Matt Stroud). In fact, it was you who sought to exclude a certain POV.

The Stroud article expresses skepticism about Visalus' promotional claims, and it refers to the use of Seidman's image (used apparently to grant the products an air of legitimacy) as part of the broader issue of product/business opportunity claims. It's perfectly reasonable to express some degree of skepticism about an otolaryngolgist developing vitamin supplements, since the 2 fields are entirely unrelated. A clinical chemist, pharmacologist, or doctor of nutrition has qualifications that would be directly relevant to developing vitamin supplements; not so with an ENT. I've looked at quite a few of these nutritional supplement companies and a universal feature is that they hire talking head "experts" to be the face of the product and provide an air of scientific legitimacy. Visalus apparently is no exception. The issue come to a head when Seidman is seen onstage plugging the products as a potential treatment for hyperlipidemia.

Incidentally, you are misinterpreting WP policy. The goal is not to record accepted facts per se, but rather to report what WP:RS have said about the subject. The inclusion of opinion is perfectly acceptable as long as it is properly attributed to the source, and as long as it doesn't blatantly defy WP:COMMONSENSE or other core policies. It is a "fact" that Stroud said that Seidman dabbles in herbal medicine, so there's no reason why WP can't report it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhodes,

I understand the point you're making. My point is that extensive talk about Seidman would be better served on his own page and not the page discussing another product.

More importantly, the phrase 'dabble in herbal medicine' has NO PLACE in the product section because it only suggests to the reader that Visalus manufactures herbal products, which isn't the case.

You are right to point out that the inclusion of opinion is acceptable in Wikipedia. But that rule always has to be used within the context of the subject.

If the product section was discussing herbal products, then that phrase would have some merit. It's not about including voiced opinion about Dr Seidman. It's about including voiced opinion as RELATES to the content.

To put it into perspective, its a well known fact that Steve Jobs made several harsh comments about Bill Gates in his biography, saying "Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he's more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology. "

Yes it is sourced.

Yes those comments were made by a reliable source.

But including those comments in the 'Microsoft page under the product section' would be wrong because it is out of content and merely discredits the produc--creating an obvious bias.

On the other hand you could include those comments in a separate page about Bill Gates because in that instance, it would relate directly to the subject. Like I said earlier, this debate would have even more merit if the Visalus was officially selling herbal products. It's not, so I see no need for pointless deviation.

Good call on the POV (as relates to otolaryngolgist). I missed that when making the edits and I've adjusted that. I understand that you have questions about the company's business approach and claims. But like I mentioned, we have to be careful to ensure that the article remains neutral and unaffected by your opinion. You're right to point out that "It's perfectly reasonable to express some degree of skepticism about an otolaryngolgist developing vitamin supplements, since the 2 fields are entirely unrelated"

But if you were to mention that the doctor was an otolaryngolosit with (at the very least) a degree in nutrition earned at an accredited university, people would undoubtedly be less sceptical.

Kind Regards Carlang (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you may already know, WP:WikiProject Conservatism is under fire for vote-stacking, where members of this group (and certain fellow travelers) pile on to an article and vote as a block to create a local false consensus so as to push a conservative POV. The reason I bring this to your attention is that GeorgeLouis just went there to get support.[31]

I hope that, with the additional scrutiny that this group is currently under (see their talk page!), they will hesitate to take this opportunity to show up at Frank L. VanderSloot, but I figured you ought to know. I'll keep an eye on the article, and I strongly encourage you not to be drawn into an edit war with them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. That's a violation of WP:CANVASS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entire WikiProject is a violation; that's why it's under fire. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this posting, which was made four days ago. I apologize if anybody was offended about my making it known to an Interest Group that there is an article that falls in their domain. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to discussion on where the COI template should go. My main reason for placing it in the article is that the editor in question has a history (albeit some time ago) of edit warring. My concern with having it on the talk page instead of the article is for editors who go to the article but not the talk page. Having the template in the article may encourage more objective eyes to examine the article closely. I also suspect, but can't prove, that either more than one editor associated with the product (or one editor with multiple usernames) has edited the article. But I certainly agree that there haven't been many significant COI edits recently. Cresix (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Got your message. No you certainly didn't step on my toes. Thanks for your message. Cresix (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sticking up for me. This is BS WTF! Salon.com and Rachel Maddow are credible sources and reference me -the y reported MY STORY of bullying from VanderSloot accurately. Also I wrote this for Boing Boing on VanderSoot http://boingboing.net/2012/03/21/how-mitt-romneys-anti-gay-bi.html Right after. As for the Op-Ed in the Idaho Statesman would not have been printed if there were any factual errors.

I do not get on here very often at all and I find this system confusing and non-intuitive. Perhaps you might help educate me about how this is suppose to work.

Thanks Jody

All in a day's work Jody. The statements were well backed up by secondary sources so it was a no-brainer. Let me know if you have any questions while you are learning the ropes here and I will be glad to point you in the right direction. Cheers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collect#COMPLAINT_-_Removal_of_References_on_Frank_L._VanderSloot_page

Dear COLLECT - After looking around I discovered a message you wrote that attempted to explain why you removed all references to me in the Frank L. VanderSloot page. I am published and/or referenced in a number of legitimate National and independent medial outlets such as well respected journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Rachel Maddow. I am also recognized for my work on LGBT issues. The Idaho Statesman Op-Ed would not have been printed had it contained factual errors. It is relevant to the larger story. As for being self-published, many independent journalists, like me, have their own blogs and do write well sourced credible stories, with or without editorializing. Here is some of my work that has been published or referenced in national media and independent media. FAIR.org in their Magazine Extra! - Idahomophobia -In a conservative media market, anti-LGBT bias thrives http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4341 BoingBoing.net - Don't let Mitt Romney's anti-gay billionaire backer whitewash his intimidation of critics http://boingboing.net/2012/03/21/how-mitt-romneys-anti-gay-bi.html Southern Poverty Law Center Magazine The Intelligence Report The Story Behind the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/winter/the-story-behind-afas-bryan-fischer BoiseWeekly.com - Regular Contributor http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/ArticleArchives?author=1654400 Boise Weekly - Exporting Homophobia: American far-right conservative churches establish influence on anti-gay policy in Africa Won 2nd place at Idaho Press Club awards 2010 for Watchdog / Investigative Report for this work that too 6 months http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/exporting-homophobia-american-far-right-conservative-churches-establish-influence-on-anti-gay-policy-in-africa/Content?oid=1767227

Furthermore I have been cited as a credible source on a number of LGBT related topics including:

1. Last May by bestselling author and investigative Journalist Jane Mayer in her New Yorker expose on Bryan Fischer 2. My work on Exporting Homophobia was referenced in Frank Schafer’s book Sex Mom & God (pages 255 & 256) 3. My SELF PUBLISHED "Nampa ID Recreation Center Denies Same-Sex Families" http://may-chang.com/?p=146 was cited in the The prestigious Williams Institute, a national think tank at UCLA Law that produces high quality research with real-world relevance, September 2009 Memorandum: “Idaho Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Documentation of Discrimination.” I am insulted that because I am ALSO self-publishing means that I somehow do not maintain source and references credibility or that my opinion is not a legitimate part of the story. To removed other references of me published by Glenn Greenwald and produced by MSNB's The Rachel Maddow Shoe appears disingenuous and suspect.

I Think you get the point!

I get that past edits related two another pages were not adhering to policy. I was corrected and have complied ever since. Changing the spelling of my name should not disqualify credible reporting.

I would like to remind you, that the items you removed were correctly added by someone else - NOT ME! I there respectfully request that you please return all references to me that you removed, and correct the spelling of my name, which was what started this in the first place. Thank You, Jody May-Chang Independent Journalist May-Chang Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jody May-Chang (talk • contribs) 18:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Just wanted to let you know that I strongly believe my prior edit to the dose translation in the Bacopa article to be correct, and that I have undone your revision to reflect that belief. I've also cited one article which supports the idea that conversion of animal to human doses is non-linear, and must account for other variables such as body surface area. For your interest, here's the source of the forumla I used: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17942826 Best, Quikfastgoninja (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RIR, You recently went in and blocked me as an editor on the protandim site i went through what i thought was correct protocol and after fiddling with some pages figured out the TALK page and discussed edits with others. I made several simple suggestions (under title LM) based on bias language and no one objected. One citation was objected so i left that out based on Wiki standards. There were two areas taken out of one section, one was due to the citation no longer being valid or provable, the other was an opinion of testing and yet may be true the other method utilized was accepted enough to be published in peer review and also true but it leads a reader to a think one way without expertise.

I would like to be reinstated as an editor. Please look at the talk page under LM, the rationals, the language changes for the sake of keeping things neutral. informative and factual. Additionally some sources were referenced incorrectly, it made a statement that the studies were paid for by the company but if you look at the references, the studies have who they are paid by on it and they list federal monies, grants, etc.

Thank you! LM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.17.4 (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)If you have been blocked, then you need to follow WP:AAB, post an unblock request on your own page and address the issues that got you blocked in the first place. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you here. Remember to ask Santa for a fireproof suit and an aqualung. Writegeist (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned early from my WP:Wikibreak and have made additions to the Request for comment here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be at 4RR in 24 hours on Frank L. VanderSloot. Your reverts are at 23:17 20 Jan [32], 00:21 21 Jan [33], 00:53 21 Jan [34], 15:36 21 Jan [35], and at 15:52 21 Jan [36] amounting to 5RR in under 24 hours. I ask you to self-revert your last edit - you will still have broken 3RR, but I would not report you. The 5RR is not ignorable. Collect (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits exactly twice because you were inappropriately blanking reliably sourced content from the article.[37] If you keep it up, you may (and should be) blocked. Don't make baseless 3RR accusations to excuse your own tendentious editing. Get a grip! Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR applies to ALL reverts - not just reverts of a single editor - and you well ought to know it. Are you refusing to self-revert your FIFTH revert in 24 hours? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are driving over the edge of a cliff. I suggest you rethink your approach. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...to note that Roadpeace's user page was created on 30 May 2007, NotLTD's on 30 May 2007, and Imaginenow's on 14 June 2007. All the best to you. I see you have been repeatedly attacked by another user who was recently warned for edit-warring. Keep your cool—your incisive mind is an asset to that particular article and talk page—and don't forget (George Bernard Shaw's?) pig-wrestling metaphor! Writegeist (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you noticed that these 3 accounts fit the profile of sock puppets. I would expect that this would be immediately apparent to any reasonably objective and experienced editor. Thanks for the advice too. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - they do not fit "sock" definitions -- the one and only article they intersect on is FLS, and three of the four have made edits on multiple articles. (Caloi Rider mainly edited an article on a triathlete) You make a big deal that thre of them registered in a 2 week period in 2007 -- and the number of new editors in 2007 was huge (well over 20,000 new editors in that 2 1/2 month period) -- the fourth editor was 2 months prior - thus the universe of "socks" as you think evidence works is quite a few thousand. Lastly, their language is not the same - making this a witch hunt about these four (WG elided "Caloi Rider" from his "research.") Next time you seek to provide "evidence" think twice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RIR, my apologies that my message to you has brought your attacker snuffling around here. In future I'll invite you to my talk page, where he is excluded. Writegeist (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It doesn't bode well to see an editor doubling down on the defense of citing a few flyby SPA/(probable)sock-based comments as consensus to justify edit warring and POV pushing. Given that he requested that I never post on his Talk page, and that I warned him just today about a personal attack, it's surprising that he came here to rant. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good Luck! Some editors are maddening to deal with. Wikipedia should be fun. I've learned to ignore certain editors and just walk away. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhode Island Red. I just saw this edit. Please be careful about casting aspersions, i.e. accusing others of misbehavior or impropriety without evidence. I suggest taking a break from the RfC for a few days. There's plenty to do without being stressed and without the risk of further complications. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lengthy trail of evidence of misbehavior. As for impropriety, how best to address the issue? I think it's important and an underlying cause of the chronic problems with the article. Would you suggest a user conduct RfC? I've proposed taking this to ArbCom everal times. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think escalation is necessary. I do think you need to cool off because your recent edit summaries are getting pretty tense. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My interest is not in escalating the conflict but resolving it conclusively, and I think the user conduct issues factor into that (it's been like a never-ending game of whack-a-mole). However, you've done a great job managing the current situation so far, so I'll take your advice and hold out on the user conduct issues and RfC/ArbCom for now. Thanks sincerely for your efforts. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is not acceptable. You need to be civil with discussing with others. This, compounded by the issues I wrote to you about above, don't seem to be going away. I strongly suggest you take a break from the RfC. Any more comments or edit summaries like that will result in a block. Butting heads with other edits will do nothing to help your case. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it seemed like good-natured sarcasm to me, and a non-disproportionate response to being falsely accused of equating Vandersloot with a Nazi. If you think the response crosses the line, I'll ease back. Though I really think that there should be repercussions for making stupid off-base Nazi remarks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, you were the first to bring up Nazis. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, yah...but we both know that there was a world of difference in context; what I said originally was benign and then it was grossly misrepresented. But I hear you and I appreciate your skillful diplomacy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rhode Island Red. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Self-Licensing, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rhode Island Red. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Self-Licensing.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Self-Licensing}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to Boydbastian on the Myron Wentz Talk page and I believe he appreciates the concerns I have. I would still appreciate your input just to make sure I'm not being heavy handed with the topic. I want to make sure I'm being fair with the article content so if my concerns are misplaced I'd appreciate a correction.Jean314 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jean. No I thought you were very diplomatic and evenhanded in your response. I find in general that the only awards that would be worth mentioning in a WP:BLP are those that are reasonably well known (at least in specialist circles if not by the general public) or have received significant independent press coverage, otherwise their inclusion tends to be just pointless self-adulating fluff. In the case of Myron Wentz, I agree with your take that the award is not notable and worse still, the award's name (evoking Albert Einstein) rides on the coattails of a similarly titled but well known/reputable award (i.e., Albert_Einstein_Award), so there's an additional issue in that sense which needs to be taken into consideration. You made the right call. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Protandim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xango. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide recommendations to resolve matters you deem important on this page. Everything on the page is a fact based on well-respected and peer reviewed journal articles that are appropriately cited and contain the most up-to-date information from the public domain on the development of bardoxolone methyl. Specific suggestions would be appreciated to make the article better. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrf2-fan (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have outlined the issues of concern on the talk page. If you seek additional clarification, please post your questions there. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NFE2L2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page De novo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Superfruit, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 20:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Helmut Diez. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My input has been provided. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, you apparently like to police the Talk:Burzynski Clinic and hat (censor) posts that you claim are PA, yet when there is obvious & clear PA against me [38] you let it slide just fine. I call that hypocrisy. I call that prejudice. I call that agenda-driven. (Hatting your perceived adversaries; letting slide those who attack your perceived adversaries.) I'm supposed to respect that and extend good faith to you?? Give me a lobotomy first, then maybe. IHTS (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comment in question was a completely irrelevant personal attack,[39] and it was collapsed in accordance with WP:TPO It did not pertain to editorial content, which is what the TPG is reserved for. If you want to belabor user conduct issues, then you need to take that to the appropriate forum -- the article talk page is not the place. I will even guide you through the process of filing a user conduct RfC if you don't already know how to do it. As for the TPG, policy states: "comment on content; not on the contributor". And yes, you are expected to extend good faith to all editors at WP; lobotomy notwithstanding. If you keep doubling down on your uncivil and off-topic conduct on the article, you will most assuredly become the subject of a user conduct complaint and/or a block. The belligerent tone of what you posted above on my user page is also unacceptable. I hope you don't choose to push the envelope any further. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good job sidestepping the point. (Do you know what "discussion" is and topical points within discussions? Or do you need remedial help?) BTW, you can drop your repeated RfC threats. (Do you even know why?!) IHTS (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made the point very clearly -- the talk page is to be used for discussion of editorial content only. It is not to be used for making comments about other editors -- such off-topic comments get collapsed (as per WP:TPO) because they are counterproductive to the editorial purpose of the TPG. If you have an issue with the other editor you were railing against, the TPG is not the place to air the grievance. I offered to help you bring your user conduct complaint to the appropriate venue (e.g., RfC). Bear in mind that you undermine your position when you make abusive comments like calling another editor "asshole",one[40] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding superfluous tags to articles written by other users. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained quite clearly that the notability tag is not superfluous.[41][42] Remove it again and you will have violated WP:3RR and a block will likely result. Please don't push the envelope. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, your explanation has lacked any evidence. Please do not add these tags again, as these art historians are clearly notable. Concerning this matter, you may contact other Wikipedians who have written on art historians. Thanks. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by another user:

@ User:Rhode Island Red If you're really an academic, I ask you to stop being a fool. Do you even know what BLP means? The guy is dead! [43] Stop plastering silly tags on new articles and leave people alone. You have no idea how annoying it is to create new articles and have people plastering tags all over them. They create a mess and put people off contributing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC) (Unsigned comment left by Wikiwiserick).[reply]

I have asked you several times already to tone down the hostility and refrain from making personal comments. I understand that it can be annoying when other people edit your work, but that's par for the course on WP and should be expected. Resorting to WP:OWN is never a good idea. The reason for the tags has been explained already as well, so your charge is a case of WP:IDHT. It's also not a good idea to pretend to be another editor or to disguise your comments using a fake signature. WP:SOCK and WP:TROLL behavior is frowned upon to say the least. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a misunderstanding here: Wikiwiserick copied here at 16:07 in this diff the "comment by another user" made by Dr. Blofeld on their own talk page in this diff at 15:57. Perhaps they should have put it in a quotation box or something to make it clearer what they were doing. There was clearly no pretence or fake signature involved, just a lack of clarity in what they were doing. WP:AGF PamD 22:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of edits and the user suddenly forgets how to post their own signature, a diff edit, and an edit summary? It's a misunderstanding entirely of their own making. Given the circumstances and the hostile attitude, it stretches WP:AGF past the breaking point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marc Elias, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am teaching a class in which students chose to revise a Wikipedia page on a subject of their choosing. The goal (obviously) is for the students to improve the quality of the page, and add useful new information on the chemistry of the molecule. I noticed that you reversed all of the revisions done by one of my students, and I'm wondering if everything in it was incorrect or whether some things were improvements? We are new to wikipedia, and would like to help, but we might not understand all the rules yet. I apologize if protocol has not been followed. Ajfrontier (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the history tab on the article page, you will see my edit summary which clearly explains the main reasons for the reversion. If you have any questions beyond that, please leave them here, or better still on the article talk page where it can be discussed in greater detail. Note that editorial discussion rather than edit warring is WP protocol. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one currently working the wiki article for Bufotenin for my assignment. I have noted that you have made revisions that redid what I have done. I see that citation is a big issue. I have been working on my sandbox and have redid some of my edits to include a better citation, which will include an actual link to the journal article I am getting my information from. Also for the table idea, I thought the table would be better than text since I believe it organizes the information a little bit better. I did not really remove any vital information from the original text. I just organized it in a way that might be addresses the main point of each experiment. Please let me know what you think of my comments and maybe I could possible redo some of my sections to work help out the wiki. Sorry for any inconveniences I may have caused along the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pszewczy (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, now worries. Thanks for dropping by. Sandbox is definitely a good way to approach this and I'll be happy to have a look and offer my two cents. Proper referencing is a must, so it's good that you're working on that. A couple of key pieces of critical information that were deleted include references to Bufo alvarius and mushrooms as natural sources of bufotenin. The details are critical IMO, and there's no reason for arbitrarily deleting this; it would make the article worse. I'm not that keen on the table idea, although I understand your rationale for proposing it. There are a few general issues: (1) WP is an encyclopedia and encyclopedia's are for the most part, text based. Tables don't explicitly explain information; they merely summarize it succinctly. (2) Organizing information into tables can be a form of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in cases where the information was not specifically summarized in such a way by a reliable source.

I see that you made a couple of fairly innocuous edits as well that got reverted, so my suggestion is that if you want to tackle a few of the non-controversial ones, then make a few of those edits separately, that way they're easier to undo if necessary (as opposed to revising multiple section in one go), and then work up to the more elaborate edits. And holler on my talk page any time you have question or are looking for another set of eyes. Cheers! Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh BTW, one of your edits that got deleted was a pop culture section that mentioned the Simpsons and Family Guy. I think that's potentially a good addition so if you want to pot that back, go ahead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added merge templates to Cutco and Vector, but on the Cutco talk page I only see a four-year-old discussion. I think that is plenty old to be considered stale; would you be willing to start a new thread with your merge rationale at Talk:Cutco? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presently tied up so I can't get around to doing it just yet, but I agree that this would be the logical next step. It really makes no sense to have these as two separate articles though since they aren't individually notable, wouldn't you agree? Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tending that way. I haven't done a search for sources to see if coverage of Cutco could be sufficiently expanded to be a descent stand-alone article. Stylistically, merging Vector into Cutco would leave us with a Cutco article dominated by its Vector division. VQuakr (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe vice versa then? We'll have to give it some more thought. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding essential nutrient, the policy regarding proposed deletions is quite clear - the template can be removed by any editor who objects to deletion and if it is removed it must not be replaced. If you think the article should be deleted, please nominate it for deletion through WP:AFD instead. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you nominated Essential nutrient for deletion, you should notify the article creater, Bensaccount that you did so at User talk:Bensaccount. In the future, you can go to the article's history to see who the original creator was. Blackbombchu (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Done. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no article that you linked in that notification because you typed N instead of n in the link. If the link is red, there's no article it links to. How is Bensaccount supposed to click the link to the article then the link to its deletion page titled "this article's entry"? Blackbombchu (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phil Driscoll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal Court. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After two weeks of full protection there was no productive discussion of the issues on the article talk page. I let the protection expire to see what happened. The edit warring started back up. I have been asked to fully protect the page again. I do not want to protect the article from all editing so I have decided to try a different tactic. First I am going to restore the article to the version that I had protected, I know, it is the wrong version. Now, you are warned that if you edit anything in the article concerning the tax evasion conviction without first getting a consensus on the talk page, I will block you. I recommend trying some form of Dispute resolution. If you question my actions you can discuss them at the Administrators' noticeboard. -- GB fan 11:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if it looks like an edit war, but according to rules, and edit war is with 3 reverts within a 24 hour period on a single page, and I only did one revert for each single page.

However, your objections do have merit. A possible workaround with this whole thing with "amway safeguards" is if it is not enough to put on its own article, to put in conjunction somewhere else. But the term does appear in other literature, albeit not with great frequency.

Ll1324 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITWAR is not the same as WP:3RR. Edit warring refers to overriding another editor's contributions while failing to make a constructive effort to resolve a dispute. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it somewhere else isn't going to solve the core problems that I outlined, but for now that's beside the point. We are both apparently in agreement that this does not merit an article page. So perhaps you'd care to delete it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article called this a think tank, and the activities described are typical of think tanks. Why do you object to the category - which seems more precise and helpful than Category:Advocacy groups, which is rather poorly defined?Rathfelder (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article had erroneously described the group as a think tank but there aren't any sources to indicate that it ever functioned as one. An organization like seems to more closely fit the profile of a health advocacy group (Category:Health advocacy groups) or health education organization (Category:Health education organizations). Advocacy groups is broad enough to cover either. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you about the section. Come to think of it, it would be better placed in "oxidative challenge in biology". Nevertheless, I do not reach to understand why these articles are not valid for Wikipedia. They come from international peer-reviewed journals, both of us know that there are much worse references on Wikipedia. I could admit that in vitro studies are not appropiate for medical sections, but they are valid for biochemical and molecular sections. --Fiquei (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that in vitro studies are invalid per se; just that they represent the weakest form of scientific evidence and typically have limited relevance for encyclopedia readers (c.f. WP:MEDANIMAL and WP:NOTJOURNAL). Secondly, they are also primary sources, which makes interpretation problematic, since the experiments may not be reproducible and do not necessarily reflect a scientific consensus; e.g., the way a thorough review article in a top journal or a good current textbook would. Additionally, among the studies you cited were two that were conducted in isolated leukemic cell lines (e.g. HL-60 cells), which have very limited relevance to human biology and may not even be relevant to other cell lines. Also, cobbling together a group of individual in vitro studies and drawing broad conclusions is a form of WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, the discussion of apoptosis has no direct relevance to antioxidants, the topic of the article. Lastly, stylistically, the writing/meaning was somewhat unclear. Hope all that helps. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your concern and summary, and request that Fiquei pay more attention to the editorial and prose goals of the encyclopedia per WP:NOTJOURNAL, sections 6-8. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An additional concern that has come up is that Fiquei has been inappropriately inserting the same reference into a slew of different biology articles. It looks like a case of self promotion. I have since reverted those edits and trust that Fiquei will stop doing this. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I do not understand. I was just trying to complete some articles with the above-mentioned references. I suppose I have wasted my time. Do not worry, I did not mean to bother you. I will leave these articles and you will be able to edit them as you prefer. --Fiquei (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I consider this is not fair. Let us focus, for example, in U937. It is written "U937 can be grown in DMEM or 1640 medium plus 10% fetal bovine serum. Atromentin induces apoptosis in human leukemia U937 cells.. Well, you consider that the citation for atrometin is cool, but not mine for TNF+CHX. Really? What happens if a write the reference in the previous sentence, I mean "U937 can be grown in DMEM or 1640 medium plus 10% fetal bovine serum. Is that a unappropiated too?? Much more than Kim & Choong (2009)? Why? --Fiquei (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fiquei, I am assuming that you had the best of intentions. However, it appears that you are the author of the two articles that you inserted citations for into several WP articles. These edits were not consistent with policies and procedures of WP, particularly with respect to WP:PROMO and WP:COI. As for the types of culture media that can be used to grow U937 cells, the study you added was not a hallmark reference on the subject. Hope you understand. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read the reference carefully. It is not about Amway being a pyramid scheme at all. It is a tax lawsuit. I am reverting it back.--Historik75 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not with that source per se, but rather NPOV. There are numerous sources cited in the article that refer to the pyrmaid scheme investigations, so while that one source in question may not have been appropriate for the lead, there are several others that are. Lead has been modified accordingly, consistent with the original version. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In order to keep the article NPOV, I added a reference to 93 F.T.C. 618. When we say that Amway was investigated as a potential pyramid scheme, it would also be fair to say that it was not found to be one.--Historik75 (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to admit it but after this lengthy conversation I have come to a conclusion that no consensus regarding the inclusion or omission of the FTC case in the lead can be reached. Therefore, I would like to inform you that I have requested a dispute resolution process. I hope that the validity of arguments based on reliable sources will eventually win so that we can have an unbiased article both with cons and pros and vice versa. Best regards,--Historik75 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

The name was deleted because the person appears to be a living person, and thus is entitled to be benefits of WP:BLP which reminds us that non-notable persons should be written about conservatively, and that accusation of a crime 20 years in the past about a non-notable person do not belong in articles where that person is not the actual topic of the article. I think you would lose little by removing the person's name as a result.

For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction.

The case at hand seems not to assert a conviction, thus the name should not be used. Collect (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. I had thought it said he was convicted but apparently not. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: You recently removed information on the Collagen article—your argument being that “one company-sponsored study is not sufficient evidence for encyclopedic standards.” However, according to this additional source there are multiple (at least 5) clinical trials that corroborate the study in question. That being the case, I have reverted your edit, citing this additional source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.42.134 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source you mention above does not meet WP citation standards (c.f. WP:RS and WP:MEDRS). Your addition was reverted by another editor who suggested you take any concerns that you may have to the talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bharat Aggarwal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rhode Island Red and thank you for taking the time to go through not only the Nature's Sunshine page, but the proposed edits that I submitted. As you can probably tell, I'm new to the Wikipedia content process, and with a conflict of interest, I'm reluctant to do anything directly. I would, however, like to add more content to the page and do so in a fashion that will withstand scrutiny.

What is the best way to proceed? I agree that my original edit request is very promotional, and I want to avoid editing just to see it reverted, which will occur if this isn't done correctly. Should I edit the original draft, cut out fluff and resubmit?

In doing this, I understand that not all elements will be positive to the company, such as the content you reverted regarding the SEC suit from 2009. These are facts; it's history and I'm not going to argue over it. Is there a way to balance the negative, punitive aspects of such events with some of the preventative steps that were taken in the aftermath, i.e., hiring a new CFO and General Counsel, replacing board members, and replacing the CEO a year later (the CEO and CFO were the two employees named in the SEC suit and they are no longer with the company)?

Please let me know, and thank you for your time and help.

NTin-Daddy (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for dropping by. My first recommendation is to read WP:COI if you haven't already. Being upfront about your COI is commendable and I thank you for being straightforward about that. Editors should not directly edit articles with which they have a COI, so asking questions on my Talk page or the article Talk page is the proper way to proceed. Again, thank you for complying with policy. Going forward, it might be a good idea to mention your COI on your user page, and with respect to article content you can draft something in your Sandbox and then send me a link here on my Talk page and I'll give feedback. Alternatively, you can do so on the article Talk page, but make sure that other editors know about the COI issue. Best wishes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with WP policy, I added a COI template to the Talk page of the article identifying you as a connected contributor. This allows you to contribute to discussions with transparency about the COI. Cheers! Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate an explanation of the revert you made to the article USANA Health Sciences here. I originally made the edit to the lead in order to bring it into compliance with WP:LEAD, the very guideline you cited in the revert. While certainly a controversy, it is hardly mentioned in the body of the article as compared to other controversies, such an entire section devoted to a lawsuit, which goes unmentioned in the lead. In addition, it makes up one of five sentences in the lead, giving undue weight to a smaller controversy. Obviously that's just my opinion and I'd like to hear yours. Best, Griffinofwales (talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 06:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NP. You seem to already be aware that WP:LEAD dictates that any prominent controversies are to be included in the lead. The fact that several of the company's executives had lied about their qualifications was reported by multiple sources; it clearly qualifies as a "prominent controversy" and therefore belongs in the lead. That there may exist other prominent controversies (which ones those are you did not specify) is an argument for including them in the lead as well, not for expunging the details about the executives lying about their qualifications. The lead as it stands now is quite short. WP:LEAD specifies that it can be up to 4 paragraphs. So if you feel that there is a weight issues, it can best be solved by adding more content to the lead rather than deleting material. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. While I agree that the executives lying was reported by multiple sources, if we compare this to other instances of executives lying on their resumes, we do not see it mentioned in leads. See Yahoo's CEO being fired over it, Radioshack's CEO also stepped down over resume lying, and Bausch & Lomb's CEO also lied on his resume, though never fired. In the first two articles, the only mention is a blurb in the timeline, similar to USANA's article, and it's not mentioned at all in Bausch & Lomb's article. I note that in USANA's case, the executives didn't even step down, so while it was apparently widely reported at the time, that doesn't necessarily justify inclusion, even if the lead were to be expanded to a proper length (if we use the other articles as any example). The other controversy I was referring to was the section devoted the lawsuit, which is completely ignored in the lead, however my focus isn't on the lead itself, but on the inclusion of the sentence regarding the execs. I don't have any real investment in this issue either way, as my active editing days are long over, and I simply fix things as I come across them. Thoughts? Griffinofwales (talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 10:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD is unambiguous when it comes to the inclusion of prominent controversies. Whether or not this standard has been applied to the Yahoo or Bausch & Lomb articles is largely irrelevant. Perhaps it should be included in those articles, but I’m not working on them so I’ll leave that to other editors. Perhaps the omission in those cases is because they are mega-cap companies that are highly innovative, have huge portfolios, and receive extensive media coverage as a result (i.e. an issue of relative weight), whereas USANA is and MLM supplement company that is relatively small, doesn’t seem to innovate anything of consequence, and receives far less media attention, mostly in the context of reports on financials and advertising sponsorships, aside from coverage about their lawsuits and critiques of the products and business model. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R - On curcumin, I am not going to revert your revert, even though Nelson, the ref I left is an excellent secondary source, and the ref I deleted was a short review of that review. David notMD (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both are valuable. The Baker paper comes from an excellent source (the journal Nature) and provides a much more accessible summary of the key details reported in Nelson. In that sense, Baker is a secondary source on Nelson (or tertiary if you consider Nelson to be secondary). There is no reason why Baker should be deleted, so thanks for not doing so again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RIR, I'm curious why you made this edit? You do know that anyone may remove a prod for any (or even no) reason whatsoever, and the article can't be prodded again, right? Nominating for AfD, as you did soon after makes sense, but I can see no reason why you would undo my edit. LadyofShalott 01:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. Error on my part. I went back and did the AfD nom to rectify the situation. Thanks for understanding. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Wikipedia is concerned all Pharmaceutical companies are healthcare companies. The categorisation is heirarchical. Arguably Chemins isn't a pharmaceutical company at all. Perhaps it should be in Category:Nutritional supplement companies?

Rathfelder (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Category:Nutritional supplement companies makes sense. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before you scream "whitewash" make sure you are not stepping into things that will bring DS sanctions on you.

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthinnutrition about the edits you are restoring. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't scream anything. Perhaps content blanking would have been a more apt description, but regardless, I saw no basis for deleting the content that was restored. It's simply an editorial disagreement, apparently. I don't see what you mean by bringing up DS sanctions and sockpuppets. Can you please bring me up to speed in case I'm missing something? Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot click on the link above and make sense out of what you see, you have no business editing about living people - your comment above is astonishing. I have notified you of the DS formally now. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have "formally" (?) informed/threatened me at least twice now and I still don't understand the gist of your argument. Would be nice if you could just state your point clearly instead of being condescending. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are asking me to read this? Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This part seemed relevant. Have you read it?

"Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you two stopped your feud? I see and respect both of your impacts on the fringy areas of medical science. Here, appears RIR unknowingly stepped in some dog fecal matter (the Truthinnutrition sockpuppetry fracas), which is entirely different from having contributed to said mess. Anyway, hope to see your continuing contributions to good science in the future. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i have Created a Motivational Speaker's Page Vivek Bindra and i am facing some complication but i have seen your Work That you also Publish a Page Like That so Please Help Me To Do That.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

K.Gourav (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and the major issues were that: (a) many of the sources cited failed to meet WP:RS (b) the tone was overly promotional (see WP:PROMO), and the subject does not appear to be sufficiently notable (see WP:BIO, particularly for English-language WP (i.e., the subject has not received prominent coverage in reliable English-language media sources). It seems highly likely that the entry will ultimately be nominated for deletion based on lack of notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank K.Gourav (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for helping with the BBB rating on the Just Energy page. I used the Houston link because the Mississauga page says "No Rating". Do you have any suggestions on how to update that so it's more accurate? Does "No Rating" equal an F? (Just trying to get it right, sorry!) CCrema (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CCrema! Thanks for asking. First, it's bit dodgy using BBB reports for satellite offices rather than the head office, unless the report is remarkably bad I suppose (i.e., dire warnings/a lot of consumer complaints) or it's mentioned by a secondary source. The BBB as a whole isn't considered to be a particularly reliable source because they have had issues in the past with companies paying for better grades. A good letter grade or the absence of complaints isn't noteworthy on it's own ; i.e., it couldn't be reliably cited as though it's a seal of approval, endorsement, etc; and also in part because it's a WP:PRIMARY source. It would generally be cited only if it's noteworthiness were established by the detail being mentioned in a secondary source, which often happens. The letter ratings and other information provided in BBB reports can also change over time, so there can be a situation where a company gets a scathing review, tons of consumer complaints, and and F rating at one point in time but eventually over the years the rating goes up and the old report details get flushed. In that scenario, the fact that it once had an F-rating and a scathing review doesn't become less noteworthy, so it wouldn't be right to simply replace the old details in the article with new details. In the case of this article, I am assuming good faith that the F rating existed when the source was accessed by the editor who added the detail in the article (back in 2014 if I'm not mistaken), so I was reluctant to remove it outright, but if push came to shove it might have to go. For now, the paragraph about the BBB has been sandwiched in the chronology instead of being given extra prominence by appearing at the top of the section, which takes care of the WP:UNDUE problem at least. BTW, if we discuss this further, probably best to move to the article talk page. Saves having to say the same thing twice in case the issue comes up again down the road. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, makes total sense! Thanks for the detailed explanation. No more questions for now, but if they do arise I'll make sure to move over to the article talk page! CCrema (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rhode Island Red. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RIR, I think your reversion here was a little hasty/heavy handed. If you look closely, I replaced an out of date 2016 company prediction (which didn't happen), by a current forecast. I don't think we need MEDRS for this - just RS. You actually restored something that IMO was even less encyclopeadic. Your subsequent 3 edits I feel were also heavy handed and unhelpful as they removed good/useful info and left just the clearly inaccurate 2016 prediction. - Rod57 (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The problem with the material in question is that either wasn't based on reliable WP:MEDRS (e.g., based on company press releases) or it was non-encyclopedic. For example, a planned clinical trial might be mildly newsworthy, but it's not encyclopedic. The planning of a trial is unimportant; it's the results that matter. Data based on un-refereed publications (e.g., meeting abstracts) also fail to meet WP:MEDRS. I see a bit of overselling of an investigational drug that may or may not be safe and effective for treating anything. The material in question failed to clearly draw that distinction and leaned toward WP:PROMO. I'm open to suggestions and further discussion though, so do let me know if you have any thoughts to add. Rhode Island Red (talk)

I made a few more edits. Have a look at the diff and you'll see where I'm coming from.[44] Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours claimed to be for the reason "Agree with the sentiment but it doesn't look like this has approrpiate permissions. Reply on Talk if necessary." (sic). As can easily be seen, you also used that edit to revert changes made to the content of the article, which is a WP:BLP.

Can I assume that this was unintentional on your part?

Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. My point was about whether the image had appropriate copyright statement/permission for use, which did not seem to be the case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are the changes that you made. Please review them, and then let me know whether you now understand the question. MPS1992 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see now. yes, the edit in the body text was inadvertent, although I see that there have been several intervening edits on that content since, so it's a moot point now. I'm good with the current version. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will proceed to fix that momentarily. MPS1992 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear though, just because the removal was inadvertent doesn't mean I support this edit[45]. Like I said, I'm good with the article as it stand now. If you have any more questions/comments, let's take it to the article's talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited DoTerra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand this. When PiePieSi submits an edit describing, in detail, facts about actual legislation that has been formally introduced into the United States Congress, sourced with a link to the actual bill, you promptly omit it claiming, “a bill under consideration is not critical news; sourcing is a slanted op-ed.” But when I delete a single sentence merely describing unsourced, anonymous “calls” to allegedly enact unsubstantiated, vaguely defined anti-MLM legislation by some unknown number of unnamed countries somewhere in the world, which has had a “Citation needed” tag since it was originally added almost 16 months ago (during which time no countries have enacted legislation to make MLM illegal), and I cite the identical reasoning that you did, you restore the omitted text claiming that my (your) reason is now “insufficient”. Can you please explain your reasoning? Mwave (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary mentioned "foreign" as part of the rationale for deletion,[46] which isn't valid. As I understand it the statement that you deleted is supportable but was lacking citations, hence the citation needed tag. I'm pretty sure those sources exist, so the proper move would be to find sources to cite rather than purging the sentence; at the very least bringing up the issue on the talk page would have been preferable. I also noticed that you may have a WP:COI with respect to this article, which would preclude you from editing it (but not participating on the talk page). Cheers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also bears pointing out that the contributors who have been editing the article lately include an WP:SPA[47]][48] and what appears to be a reactivated sleeper account.[49][50] Doesn't look good and brings extra scrutiny. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "foreign" should not have been included in my edit reasoning. It was inappropriate on, dare I say, multiple levels. Besides not being a valid reason for deletion (in this context) it wasn't even a valid point considering the sentence I omitted states "various countries" (so could include the United States), and was extraneous to the point even if true.

Having said that, I was quite surprised by the rest of your response. After reading many of your reasonings over the years I had come to expect at least an attempt to provide a cogent presentation of facts and a couple of supporting reference to specific Wiki policy. Instead, you just offered a few weasel words in defense of essentially one long weasel sentence. This may come across as backhanded, but I sincerely mean no offense. You’re one of the few editors of this page that, in spite of your obvious bias against MLM, appeared to put some thought and discretion into your edits rather then execute obligatory, knee jerk deletions or restorations designed only to keep the page skewed far to the negative. And since I was using your own reasoning for deleting PiePieSi’s edit, and my deletion was of text that was so clearly so far more violative of the same tenets you cited, I actually expected you would let this one stand (or, at least not be the one to undo it).

You are certainly free to believe this or not, of course, but I addressed this here in your talk page because I didn't want to embarrass you on the more highly trafficked MLM talk page by pointing out that you had just undone a far less egregious edit than was the text I deleted, based on the identical premise that I based mine on (sans the “foreign” flub). Amongst the small clique of editors who control the MLM page, you are one that, despite your bias, I don’t believe has a deliberate anti-MLM agenda nor executes gratuitous edits merely to keep the page negative (alas, it seems you are the only one). I am also a card carrying member of both JREF and CSICOP and have actively exposed quackery and Pseudoscience, including working directly with the FDA in their investigation of MMS (although my favorite target was the MLMed Amega Zero Point Energy wand), so we certainly have some common ground. Thus, I didn’t want to risk alienating the one editor here that there might even be a chance of working with someday to fairly balance and neutralize this page.

But this is your talk page, so going forward I will absolutely take all future discussions, objections, and questions regarding your edits to the applicable article's talk page. So, personal stuff aside, I’ll get to the issue at hand over there.--Mwave (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does come across as backhanded but more importantly, very off-topic, and for that I have no patience. You asked for an explanation as to why your edit was reverted. The explanation was provided. You accepted/agreed with that explanation. The interaction should have ended there. You don't need to reflect on whether you think I am the most/least unbiased editor; instead of commenting on other editors, comment on content. I am not offended per se but I do get put off very quickly by off-topic comments and soap-boxing. That certainly includes explanations about your off-Wiki activities. This isn't a kaffeeklatsch; it's for discussing editorial content. For that purpose, please use the article TPG going forward. Also please pay attention to what I wrote about your apparent COI and exercise due caution. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inventing your own false interpretation of what the reference says. I have edited the phrasing to reflect what it actually states, not what you just imagine or want it to say. Yahboo (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is unduly uncivil and wildly off base. It's as though you aren't even reading the source. Your edit has now been reverted by 2 different editors so please respect the source, stop trying to whitewash the article, and take any concerns you have to to the talk page instead of edit warring.[51] Your editing, comments, and WP:SPAstatus belie a pretty obvious NPOV/COI issue so now would be a good time to step back and refrain from editing the article directly.Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop falsely claiming that I am "whitewashing" the article. And if I am being "unduly uncivil" what the hell do you think you are being? You are the one who is distorting and disrespecting the source. Your editing and your comments are totally absurd and ridiculous. Yahboo (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring over this with 2 different editors and haven't made even the slightest attempt to use the talk page to address whatever issues you have -- you are obligated to do so. There is no basis for the edits or claims you are making about the source/material in question, which would have pointed out in detail had you ever bothered to raise the issue on the talk page. You were duly warned and now have been reported for edit warring.[52] Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rhode Island Red. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For tireless work confronting edits made by people from MLM and dietary supplement companies. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what time of the day it was when I was submitting edits to the article and talk page yesterday. Why would I have received a warning 8 hours BEFORE I started editing? Makes no sense why a warning would have been sent for no reason. Sounds like a technology glitch to me. And yes, I "plum" forgot the process as you said. I don't use Wikipedia every day as you do and it had been nearly a year and a half since I last made any attempts to correct info. So yes, it is possible that the average person can forget when they are not in it day to day like you. Also, I don't care if I am "outed as a COI violator." You guys are taking this way too seriously. All I wanted to do is update incorrect and outdated information and sources. If there is a way to remove my account please do ASAP. When I go to my account there is no place to do so. I want nothing else to do with this website please. Melizdean (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So you think you can argue your point by pleading ignorance (and forgetting that your working for the company whose article you were improperly editing was a violation of WP:COI) and laughably blaming a fictitious technological glitch? If you don't want to participate in WP anymore, stop participating. Don't complain to me about it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! DNA0089 (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to discuss on the talk page but reverting and saying "per talk" (especially when there is nothing on talk showing consensus) is edit warring. I have no problem with adding this back if there is a consensus, but there currently isn't one. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely cannot use Wikipedia’s voice to assert somebody’s unverifiable claim to be true. Claim is just a claim, for good or bad. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea as to which detail you are referring. No one has used WPs voice to assert anything. Your edit[53] has been reverted because it improperly synthesized the source (also the edit summary made no sense). You also blanked Young's statement without justification. If you have an issue with that, take it to the talk page please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to see how you could have made an oversight in framing Young’s fired former employee, now a competitor who profits from negative claims against Young, as if he was a current employee at the time of the claim. Could easily come across as an intentional obfuscation to paint a misleading picture. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is not WP:NPOV. If you have any constructive editorial comments to make, please leave them on the talk page rather than here. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an editing matter, this is conduct. You put factually incorrect information into an article. Stating a claim was made by an employee when the person was in fact not an employee at the time of the claim. This seems serious. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are objecting to the phrasing of content that was added to an article -- that is an editorial dispute, not a user conduct issue. The text added to the article closely followed the text in the cited source. Melodrama aside, I would appreciated it if you would not post about editorial issues here on my TPG but rather on the article TPG, as I asked you nicely once already. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seacret, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Phoenix and Cosmetic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have first-hand knowledge that the legal claims made against Forever Living Products and its related entities in California for Proposition 65 were unfounded. Forever Living Products successfully defended all claims against it and its associated companies, including reimbursement of over $500,000.00 in trial costs following its successful defense verdict. The current statement in the Wikipedia page is misleading - Forever Living Products still sells its products in California, and they were not found to have lead in the products. The cases resolved in Forever Living's favor. I advise that you please allow this change to go through. Lead trial counsel, Carol R. Brophy says “It’s rare for trial counsel to get more than a pittance in costs following a trial victory.” The allegations against Forever Living, therefore, are unfounded.

http://www.prop65news.com/aloe-vera-awarded-561000-in-trial-costs

Environmental Research Center v. Aloe Vera of America Inc. (San Francisco Superior Case No. CGC-11-515588).

Not a WP:RS and it doesn't back up the text you had inserted in the article. WP is built by citing WP:RS. Firsthand knowledge has no place, nor does WP:OR. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rodney Howard-Browne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Parsons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain Walidou47 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, RIR, we are crossing paths on a user, and I noticed your "user warning" templates are missing a signature. They identify you but don't end with the typical signature. You can see other warning templates users have left on that user's page (and others) and see that it is missing. I don't know if you're using a helper to leave the templates, but in any case, it's a FYI. tedder (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey good to know. Thanks for the heads-up. Didn't realize that was protocol with the templates, but I'll add signature going forward. Thanks again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why deletion of content is happening. I had truth about Qnet' with proof. Let me the exact reason behind this deletion. Riyakumari8462 (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I'm not sure what your doing for the page. There is no sign on the page that you started the page or that you are in charge of judging the worthiness of the changes. I made the information more factual and realistic and did not remove any actual historical information of your biography. The references were not removed but rather I made the statement about him in relation to the facts that we understand, not from a biased judgement which your edit reflects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilSong1980 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you removed 4 references -- not cool; neither are edit warring and accusations of bias. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I accidentally removed the references the second time I edited. You mentioned that other people were disagreeing with my edit but you are the only one who has mentioned it. According to what I see as fair speaking, my statement about him shares less bias than your statement. To call someone a conspiracy theorist as you did infers that he has invented the conspiracies. These conspiracies preceded him and he merely joined in with agreeing to them.

As well, the coding war has two sides. Why do you think that I am the one at fault if you are doing the same thing by bringing back your same edit? As well, I changed my edit so that it fits both your viewpoint and my viewpoint which to me is another sign of fairness from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilSong1980 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had the references merely been removed once, the excuse that it was an accident might be plausible but you did so 4 times,[54][55][56][57] which cannot be construed as accidental and clearly constitutes blockable conduct (violation of WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR).

Note that I was not the only editor who reverted your edits,[58].

The article refers to the subject as a “conspiracy theorist” because the 4 WP:RS cited (the ones you tried to remove 4 times) all refer to him as a “conspiracy theorist"; thus, inclusion of the term is entirely consistent with WP:NPOV. Since you have already crossed the line with respect to WP:3RR consider yourself fortunate that you were only warned instead of being blocked outright, but please be aware that if you do it again, it is a near certainty that you will be blocked from editing, perhaps permanently. Also be aware that scrutiny is even greater for WP:SPA and WP:COI editors.

In the event that you have anything further to discuss about the article content and relevant editorial matters, please do so on the article’s Talk page rather than here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously almost professional at this process of editing people's pages and warring with them over edits. You understand the techniques of accusing people of the same things that you are doing in case they try to accuse you first so that you will have a greater chance of being favored by wikipedia judges.

I think I have edited three pages in the last five years so I am experienced in this process. I only found out three days ago that people can even communicate with each through wikipedia when you sent messages to me. I don't know where the talk page for the article is which is why I continued to talk to you here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilSong1980 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits and edit warring were inconsistent with WP policy, as indicated -- it's that simple. Your edits were reverted for the reasons that were explained and you were simply warned not to edit war. Take it as a learning experience. There are no "judges" here; just a community of editors. The article's talk page can be reached by clicking on the tab that says "Talk". A more gentle approach is recommended. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What more gentle approach than including two opposing views within an edit, as I did by removing the original author's judgement and replacing it with observation while still leaving the historical facts untouched, would you have recommended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilSong1980 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just take it for what it's worth and move on. You'll figure it out over time; or not. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. In your experience, would you say that editing in Wikipedia is based more on common sense and fairness or more on the opinions of majority, including people working together, using multiple accounts, etc to uphold their opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilSong1980 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PILLARS WP:GS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you finished your investigations such as checking if I have more than one Wikipedia account and if I am edit-warring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilSong1980 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't investigating you for edit warring; I was simply giving you due warning as per policy. The warning still stands and if you resume, a block will be the likely result. We're pretty much done here now so if you have any comments to make about content/editorial issues, please take them to the article talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your investigation about my account in regards to the possibility that I am using more than one Wikipedia account has not appeared to be closed so I assume it is still open.

I will follow the advice that you gave on my Talk page and collaborate with others in editing a page. I don't have experience with Wikipedia so it will take a while to gather a team that is in agreement as you have for your editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilSong1980 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of experience is abundantly clear. In case you're alluding to WP:TAGTEAM, note that it would be a very blockable offense. The first sign of such activity would result in prompt administrative action. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this WP:TPG discussion ended. If you have any editorial issues to discuss about the article, use the article's TPG. Sayonara. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your message: "Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus". It's good advice and I can see it would have helped if I had known that technique before.

Thank you for ending it. I'm still waiting for the message of your investigation of sockpuppetry about me to be closed so I can be assured this has ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilSong1980 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, use the article TPG going forward. No more posts here please and thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have communicated with you on the TPG with no reply for two days which is why I have continued our dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilSong1980 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask once again -- stop posting on my TPG -- this is your last warning. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering why the only thing you are adding to MONAT's page is only negative content and just rolling back any positive edit that is made. "[[Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. "Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus" I don't really see the good faith in your edits, any chance you can actually edit the content instead of deleting it? You are actually adding more and more bad links to it. I don't see how your contribution to this page is neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77pdrino19 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. The content for this encyclopedia reflects the balance of what the best quality WP:RS have reported most widely about the company, and that coverage, as you probably are aware, has been overwhelmingly negative. Attempting to artificially "balance" the article with positive (i.e., WP:PROMO) content would be a violation of WP:NPOV. There are some basic details about the company that could be added and you can propose them on the article's Talk page. Also, you should be aware of WP:COI. BTW, you haven't interacted here long enough to abandon WP:AGF so keep the faith. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you tagged World Orphans for notability way back in 2016, so I thought you might be interested in the deletion discussion I just started about it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you edit the above mentioned person’s page Rey0927 (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Young Living, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bergamot.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The problem with Young Living is that you are reverting back to a version which is far too close to the original text. Specifically, the text in the article:

Between 2013 and 2014, the FDA received at least 11 reports of Young Living customers claiming serious adverse event reactions to the company's products. In one case, in which a woman claimed her esophagus exploded after using Young Living's AlkaLime drink, ultimately requiring intensive care and surgery, the FDA concluded that the cause was a possible product failure. The other incidents were determined to not be due to possible product failures, but the result of other issues, such as incorrect usage or an allergic reaction.

In 2014, Young Living settled a lawsuit with a woman who claimed that she experienced severe burns after rubbing the company’s bergamot oil on her skin and spending two hours in the sun, sustaining permanent injury to the skin of her throat and wrists.

The original source is almost identical:

Between 2013 and 2014, the FDA received at least 11 such reports of Young Living customers claiming serious adverse event reactions to the products. In one case in which a woman claimed her esophagus exploded after using Young Living’s AlkaLime drink. She ultimately spent time in the ICU and needed surgery. When the FDA investigated that incident, in 2013, the agency concluded it was due to a possible product failure. ... When the FDA investigated the other incidents, it determined they were not due to possible product failures, but the result of other issues, such as incorrect usage or an allergic reaction.

In 2014, for instance, Young Living settled a lawsuit with a woman who claimed that she experienced severe burns after rubbing Bergamot, a citrusy essential oil, on her skin and spending two hours in the sun, sustaining a permanent injury to the skin of her throat and wrists.[59]

Unfortunately, this is seen as close paraphrasing, and is an issue under the copyright policy. Rather than delete it outright I prefered to rewrite it. If you don't like what I've written, I'm very happy for you to take a stab and rewriting it or modifying my text, but you can't simply revert the text back into the article. - Bilby (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough suggestion. I'll take a stab at it. The changes you had made though were not merely copy edits to avoid close paraphrasing though. They contained quite a bit of editorializing and deviated too far from the sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For making thousands of contribs to enwiki! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 17:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]