Jump to content

User talk:Roger13Zimmerman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2009

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Color light acupuncture has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 02:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletion of Color light acupuncture

[edit]

The article Color light acupuncture has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable, fringe, alt med treatment which makes no claims of notability and has no WP:RS.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Verbal chat 06:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Color light acupuncture

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Color light acupuncture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Verbal chat 06:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Color light acupuncture, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Verbal chat 06:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deletion of "List of color light acupuncture manufacturers"

[edit]

A page you created, List of color light acupuncture manufacturers, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is a test page. Use the sandbox for testing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Falcon8765 (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Color light acupuncture

[edit]

I have nominated Color light acupuncture, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color light acupuncture. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Verbal chat 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been deleting material that is either unreferenced or not referenced by reliable sources.Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just revert

[edit]

I'm making edits that will save the article as a standalone article or be OK to merge somewhere. Articles have to be based on sources and written well. Your own personal preference against colorpuncture isn't held up by the mass of sources, including the founder! You've probably got a connection with the Roze Company, as you including their URL and they use that term: please read WP:COI before you make any more edits. Fences&Windows 23:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Color light acupuncture, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Fences&Windows 23:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read the policy called WP:SOCKPUPPET. If it is found that you have edited Wikipedia from more than one account at a time, you and all those accounts will be blocked. Fences&Windows 23:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fences and windows wrote "You've probably got a connection with the Roze Company". Roger Zimmerman is the Manager of Roze Company[1]. This is a clear conflict of interest, compounded by the fact that you seem to have used your account only to promote this one article.
Roger, I would highly recommend that you step back from editing the article, or commenting on the AfD page, both of which are dealt with in WP:COI. There are editors who are trying to turn this into an acceptable article, but your constant editing on both pages is not helping any. If you wish to make comments about the article, or suggest references or new material, I would suggest that the talk page is the correct place for you to be doing this. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your relationship to these one-edit users?

[edit]

Roger, what is your exact relationship to these users? Please be completely honest, since a checkuser can reveal any deception.

-- Brangifer (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roger13Zimmerman for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my response:

--Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sock puppetry

[edit]

You did one of two things:

  1. You either canvassed your entire family to votestack on that deletion discussion and otherwise trying to own the article (which nobody owns) by scaring other users away, (we refer to this as meatpuppetry) or
  2. You clearly engaged in sock puppetry.

Frankly, I don't buy into #1, but neither is allowed on Wikipedia and are grounds for a block, which I have just administered. Regards, MuZemike 21:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Roger13Zimmerman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My family believes that the Colorpuncture article should remain on Wiki and chose to vote on it themselves. I didn't have to canvass them about it, as they were aware of it because I work from home and they are aware of what I am working on. Besides that - as per Wiki's rules - the decision to keep or remove an article is NOT based on counting the votes but on the merit of the discussions - so it didn't matter if they voted or not, but on the points they had on the article. Also, I did not engage in sock puppetry - this is the only account and username I use on Wiki. Please removed my block - or as a minimum remove the statement that I "clearly engaged in sock puppetry" - that is not true and I don't want that on my record as a Wiki user.

Decline reason:

We have no way of knowing if what you are saying is correct: it might be true, or you might just be saying this, knowing we can't possibly know differently. However, I'm not willing to reverse your block or any of the blocks on the other accounts. Of course, the strength of arguments is what matters in these debates, but people creating accounts in order to vote-stack does seriously disrupt the process regardless, because it's hard to get a feeling for what the general opinion of the uninvolved, non-biased community is. Also, I have little sympathy for your editing goals here, thanks to your decision to use the new article to promote your own business. When your block expires you may edit again but further attempts to promote your business will result in your blocking. So, in conclusion: (1) your argument cannot be proven, (2) the effect of your / your family's actions has been disruptive to Wikipedia, and (3) there is good reason to doubt your motives. Mangojuicetalk 15:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(edit conflict)The problem is twofold. First, your article was overly promotional and made clearly incorrect claims about colourpuncture. Second, you should not add links to, or anything about, your own company per WP:COI. (I see you just removed your comment, but here is my reply anyway) Verbal chat 17:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger: you might find WP:BFAQ of interest. Mangojuicetalk 04:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mangojuice, I think once I am unblocked I will put my suggested changes on the "talk page". I have a lot of suggestions for it.

I am struggling with accepting that I have a conflict of interest (as long as I keep my company name or link out and stay neutral), because the Wiki policy refers a conflict of interest against someone in an organization such as a business or gov'nt agencies. Colorpuncture is neither of these, it is an alternative medicine, so I think anyone should have the right to contribute to it, whether they are in that industry or not. Comparatively, I am an Engineer and my company also does engineering, I feel I should have the right to contribute to a Wiki "Engineering" article without a conflict of interest.

But I will stick with the "talk pages" now, to play it safe. Unless I am officially told I don't have a conflict of interest anymore.

The reason I got into the Colorpuncture business is because I believe colorpuncture works, I developed my own unique product and tested it for almost 2 years before I started to market it. Since Wiki's policy states "Wikipedia strives to keep the tone of its articles neutral. Both favorable and unfavorable information may be included,", I will try to get some more positive references up there. Most of the favorable things I put up are deleted now. Though if I find negative articles I will also suggest they get posted also.

I see the article as an informative place to help people make their own decision about colorpuncture.

Electro-acupuncture is widely accepted and used worldwide. They connect electrodes to the acupuncture needle and pulse tiny shocks into the patient. I'll bet this practice took decades to be accepted!!! People trying to discredit it didn't do anyone a favor, just prolonged people from having access to it.

I see a lot of contributors on Wiki that said colorpuncture was not proven so the article should be removed - I think they should be warned for not being neutral!

Sorry to go on so long about this, but this is what I think about and work on all the time.

Take care: --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly explained how you have a conflict of interest, thus: "The reason I got into the Colorpuncture business is because I believe colorpuncture works, I developed my own unique product and tested it for almost 2 years before I started to market it." You're a businessman and you want people to use colorpuncture, preferably your own product. This is why you wanted links included to your company site, and for the article to be called "Color light acupuncture" as that's what your company calls this therapy. You are selling something. This almost certainly conflicts with your role as a Wikipedia editor to edit neutrally. If you edit on engineering subjects close to your company's area, you may well also have a conflict of interest. We all have potential conflicts of interest, and we all need to keep them in check when editing Wikipedia. If we can't, we shouldn't try to contribute. Fences&Windows 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to back off on editing the Colorpuncture article; treat it as if you had a conflict of interest. Promoting colorpuncture effectively promotes your business by promoting its very small industry. As for "warned for not being neutral", the only warning people get for bad arguments is that those arguments often lose in debates. If you do attempt to edit the article you could get in further trouble, and you need to know about WP:FRINGE -- this is fringe science and because of that may need to be somewhat discredited because not doing so would give undue weight to the opinion of a fringe minority. Mangojuicetalk 00:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood Mango. My last statement seems to have disappeared from here; but one point was - I hope that the article helps to inform more people what Colorpuncture is, so more people can have the opportunity to use it to promote healing and better health. Under the current circumstances, I will not attempt to edit the article or even the discussion page for it. Though I feel it needs a lot of work to correctly reflect the present state of Colorpuncture. All The Best, --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, the COI guideline contains the following, which you need to understand:
Consequences of ignoring this guideline
Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences

If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently.

In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

Since your "pet idea" happens to be alternative medicine (and a very fringe one at that), pseudoscientific, and basically gobbledygook, the article will probably end up being a good source of whatever reliable sources have to say about it, and it won't be pretty. You surely realize by now that colorpuncture isn't accepted, not even in the slightest degree, by mainstream science and medicine, IOW it has no proof of efficacy at all. Saying "to use it to promote healing and better health" (without such evidence that is accepted by mainstream science and medicine) is very improper promotional talk. Please don't do it here or anywhere else. (That would be illegal marketing.) Use evidence instead.
I hope that you will use this experience to stop and take stock of the situation, totally revise your way of thinking, and hopefully leave this delusion behind you. If not, then you should probably read our article about true believers. It may help you understand why those who market, promote, and use things like colorpuncture are properly termed true believers, quacks, and pushers of fringe nonsense. Not only is it detrimental to their own mental health to believe such things, it is also potentially detrimental to their customers and patients. It may also be illegal in many jurisdictions. You have invested a lot in this venture: time, money, family, reputation, a whole personal delusional belief system, etc., so it will be difficult for you to divorce yourself from this, but I hope you manage to do it. That way you can reestablish some personal credibility and rescue your reputation.
You seem to have understood our COI guideline enough to at least not edit the article anymore, and that's a wise thing to do. Suggestions on the talk page are welcome as long as they are concerned with correcting inaccuracies and providing possible sources, but don't let your comments spill over into advocacy of the idea. Wikipedia isn't the place to sell it, and advocacy is forbidden here.
I'm only speaking this way to you because this is your talk page. I would likely word things differently if this were the talk page for the article, but here it's proper to offer personal advice. The article is now out of your hands and will have a life of its own at Wikipedia. It is the community's property now. I wish you well and good luck in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to provide your advise and input Brangifer. Though I am a little confused now, you said it is still OK for me to put suggestions on the Colorpuncture talk page (I know I can't advocate my company or product and need to stay neutral), though others have said I need to back away completely. I'd like to put up articles of notability as I find them, or may have other suggestions. If I put something on the talk page, can I assume you'd support me if someone says I need to be blocked for putting "anything" on the Colorpuncture talk page? Thanks --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to participate on the talk page, so long as you aren't pushing for content changes others disagree with. It's not unreasonable to offer suggestions. See WP:BESTCOI. Mangojuicetalk 03:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roger13Zimmerman&oldid=1146517227"