User talk:Grayfell/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon: Jewish Women Artists (March 8, Oregon Jewish Museum)

On March 8 (International Women's Day), the Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education and artist Shoshana Gugenheim will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about Jewish women artists. Click here for more information. You can also express interest or suggest articles to create or improve here. This event is free and open to the public, and will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participation is welcome in person and remotely (for those outside of Portland). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

BRD

Hi. Please explain WP:BRD to me. At 26 February someone was Bold and made edits at the Carl Benjamin-article that were not improvements, and it could not be immediately fixed by refinement. Thus I Reverted those edits today, and was specific about my reasons in the edit summary. Moreover, I already started a Discussion on the Talkpage. I would say that is exactly how the BRD-cycle works. I might have thought that those steps I had taken would be textbook-BRD-stuff. Now, please explain me in what way this is not how BRD works. Jeff5102 (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

There were many intermediary edits to the article which indicated consensus, and the discussion was already ongoing when you re-re-reverted. It's not that complicated. I will post on the article's talk page, where this discussion belongs. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do. Actually, I have abstained from editing this article in February since it is too time-consuming to edit and discuss present-day vloggers. For some reason these problems never occur when I create articles on 18th century preachers. Jeff5102 (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds nice, honestly. What if you had been writing about them in the 18th century? The Internet makes disagreements like this appear more visceral and dehumanizing, but cat-burning and duels existed, so perhaps that's a misconception. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

My guess is, that if we were writing Wikipedia in the 18th century, then the Salter's Hall controversy would have been as much discussed as Gamergate in the present day. Now it is just a redirect (at least, until I find the time to edit it), and nobody holds a grudge anymore for those involved, which saves me from bitter disputes from pov-pushers. That said, please go ahead and edit and discuss Mr. Benjamin's article as you want to. As I said, I do not have that much time on my hands, and thus I have to make priorities in editing Wikipedia. I cannot promise I'll stop editing articles on vloggers, but I do believe I'll find more joy in editing preachers, anti-popes and bolsheviks. Best regards and all the best,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (March 10, Pacific Northwest College of Art)

On Saturday, March 10 (11am to 4pm), the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art, feminism, and women. You can read details on the Facebook event page, or this Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, childcare, and refreshments will be provided. Bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, you're welcome to stop by to show your support! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Mika Johnson

Hello,

You seem to be very active in taking down my active edits to the Mika Johnson page and wanted to comment on your recent edit. I fully understand that I'm new to Wikipedia and am unaware of most procedures, and I am aware that you have a set form of language you're trying to monitor on pages and I appreciate your trying to keep Wikipedia pages to a standard, however, I felt that your recent edit added incorrect terminology to Mika Johnson's biography. I can absolutely understand how one would see "directed and conceived" to be pretentious, however, in this case, it is actually correct in Johnson's role in the project. He did not "design" the VR installation as you have re-edited it to say, the design comes from Achtung 4K and 4each as well as all the visual artists and animators that worked on the project. It should be understood that Johnson did, in fact, conceive the project and he did, in fact, direct the whole installation as well as referenced in the IMDb page on Johnson. I hope you reconsider your re-edit in favor of the correct terminology in reference to Johnson's role in the project. Labeling him as anything else would be unfair to the hard work of the designers, programmers, and visual artists that actually "designed" the project, and on the other side not recognizing Johnson's role as "director" and "conceiver" of the project.

Best regards,

Jantompkins (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jantompkins: Hello. You seem to be only active in promoting Mika Johnson, which is why it seems like I'm very active in taking down your edits. Adding "award winning" is a pretty blatant example of what I'm talking about, and the article was previously edited by User:Mika c Johnson and several other single-purpose accounts. From this behavior, it appears that your goals might not be compatible with Wikipedia's goals.

It seems like you are avoiding or ignoring the comments I posted to your talk page. Before going any further, please disclose your conflict of interest, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you are paid or otherwise compensated for editing Wikipedia you must disclose this fact, per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This is to comply with Wikimedia Foundations's terms of use. This is not optional.

Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising or advocacy, and similarly, it isn't the place for you to share information you personally know or think is significant. If you can find a reliable source which describes him as the "conceiver" of this project, propose it to the article's talk page. Please be aware that IMDB isn't a reliable source, per many past discussion (as explained at WP:ELPEREN). Grayfell (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Psychological trauma

Hi, what I want to talk about is your editing about Psychological trauma. I recently edited children's psychological treatment and now, I realized that you removed. I cannot agree with your comments because, I believe that Forbes is famous and global magazine. I want your feedback as soon as possible. Thank you for reading and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SungMinSeung (talk • contribs) 00:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@SungMinSeung: Hello. First, allow me to apologize. It appeared to me that you were spamming a single site, but on closer inspection, that was my mistake, so I am sorry about that.

There are still a couple of problems with the edit you made.

Please carefully review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before going any further. This guideline specifically discourages the use of blogs and content published from outlets that do not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Being famous and global doesn't matter. Forbes website does publish some usable content, but must of what it publishes is "contributor" content, or advertorials. Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising, we have to be careful with this content.

The other problem is that Wikipedia has stricter guidelines for how we give medical advice. Also, Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Psychological trauma is a medical concern, and while the advice was reasonable, we need very high quality sources before putting it on Wikipedia (per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)). The source may be usable, but it should be discussed on the article's talk page first: Talk:Psychological trauma.

I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Diamond Foundry edits

It is perplexing why you would remove the bulk of the content as well as references to widely read literature. This is not acceptable. Please disclose your vested interest, if you have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.43.232 (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not have any conflict of interest. Let me ask you directly, do you have a conflict of interest? If you are paid or otherwise compensated for editing Wikipedia, you must disclose this, per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This is not optional.

The "widely read literature" you refer to were all WP:PRIMARY sources documenting routine listings and listicles. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, so this material should not be included without reliable, independent sources explaining why it is encyclopedically significant. Further discussion should be held at the article's talk page: Talk:Diamond Foundry, not here. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Your Recent Message

Hi Greyfell thanks for the message. In order to keep the information of the Generation Identity wiki page correct, I think it's important to use sources and references not taken from the opinion pieces of other scrupulous media sources.

After all an organisation is most accurately presented through it's own policy's. To label a right-wing group as 'white supremacists' purely because third party outlets have stated as such simply isn't factual and appears to be abusing the objective stance that wikipedia prides itself on. (A good ultimatum would be to contain certain authors/journalistic outlets quoting that they think a certain opinion is true, but claiming something as fact is deliberate misrepresentation.)

I would also suggest researching the mission statement and philosophy behind Generation Identity to further understand its motives. Better yet criticising my correction specifically.

Hopefully we can reach a mutual agreement on this webpage.

Thanks, FactChecked1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecked1 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is the article's talk page, but before doing that, you should know that Wikipedia favors reliable sources, with a strong preference for third party sources. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting the organization. Your opinion that these sources are not being factual is just that: your opinion. Wikipedia does not, and cannot, treat your opinion as more important than that of reliable sources. The article should summarize what the group is and why they are noteworthy according to independent sources, because if people want to know what they have to say about themselves, they can go to their website. Again, the place to discuss this further is the article's talk page. Oh, and by the way, I don't think "ultimatum" or "scrupulous" are the words you meant. Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Factcheck1

I gave a 3rr warning which was ignored so I made a report. They ignored the notification for tat, and were blocked for 24 hours. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Not allowing correct information to stand.

Distinct difference between alt-lite and alt-right

Alt-Lites support isreal, rejects ideas of neo-nazis and white nationalists. They still enjoy trolling online, but they are nowhere near on the alt-rights level.

I think by far one of the funniest things is that Grayfell reverted Laura Loomer's alt-lite status into alt-right (Even though she's a jew and hates Richard Spencer).

The point is that Grayfell hasn't studied the "alts" enough to know the difference. TheHitmanY2J (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So... you're talking about me in the third person, but your posting this on my talk page? Does TheHitmanY2J realize how silly this makes TheHitmanY2J appear? If reliable sources call her alt-right, that's all that matters to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not interested in your original research, or anybody else's original research. See WP:V and WP:RS etc. Next time, consider discussing this on the article's talk pages, instead. Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Andrew Scheer WP page

IP2620, who has now made an account named HamishScheer (who you reverted on The Rebel Media WP page) is engaging in disruptive editing.

Specifically, he is trying to provide guilt-by-association by inserting 'The Rebel Media' into the Andrew Scheer WP page as many times as humanely possible amd vise-versa. This is undue weight. The alleged connection this editor is exagerating is that Torch (an IT company whose president is Hamish Marshall) provided IT services for The Rebel and hundreds of other companies. Marshall later worked for Andrew Scheer by providing polling data.

This could be briefly mentioned in a sentence or two, but IP2620 made an account named HamishScheer (an obvious combination of Hamish Marshall and Andrew Scheer) and is intent on being disruptive despite many warnings on the Andrew Scheer talk page. This editor even started a Hamish Marshall article by inserting Scheer and the Rebel into it a ridiculous amount of times. This editor has been using blogs, Twitter, and YouTube as sources. Even those sources have been misrepresented. Please help police the Andrew Scheer WP page as well as other WP pages that this user is vandalising.199.7.156.244 (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Does a man going out with a guy not make him gay?

How do we determine it then? Genuinely curious. Not trying to start an argument or troll. ( SailingOn (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC))

First, maybe I'm wrong, but to me it looks like the photo depicts a man holding a date, as in the fruit of a date palm. Maybe it's an olive? Even if this isn't just a silly pun, we must still wait for him to say "I'm gay" or for some other reliable source to explicitly say it and judge based on context. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, and interpreting someone's tweets is original research. You may not be trying to troll, but Watson is, by his own admission, a frequent troll. Even if we took this tweet sincerely, going on a date with another man doesn't mean he's gay, it also doesn't mean he's bisexual. It could just mean he's having dinner with a guy, or it could even, hypothetically, mean they are both men who have sex with men while still being straight. "Date night" is an ambiguous, casual expression which means very little. Grayfell (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, also, see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. This absolutely should not be added as a category until it's explained in the article, but it shouldn't be explained in the article until more reliable sources are found. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Appreciated. Everything you've said makes sense, and I appreciate you taking the time out of your day to clarify it. ( SailingOn (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC) )

Advice needed from an experienced Wikipedia editor on interacting with other editors

Hi. I would like to ask for your advice, if you don't mind. You already gave me good insights on Refuse Fascism page and I learned a lot. recently Dave Rubin page was vandalised and I reverted the vandalism and it almost got to an edit war. It is not an ideal page and has some clear parts which as written as PROMO and need rewriting, but the guy just vandalised the page as you can see from edit history. You probably saw that, since you have edited the page after that and I found your edits very fair. Now this person is on my talk page, calling me "white supremacist", "troll", "sock-puppet", "iq of 80", "trying to be Milo", etc. User also claims that he will keep edit-warring until one of us gets blocked, because he/she doesn't care. Judging by his talk page he already has been blocked three times in row recently, despite being a Wikipedia editor for 12 years. I really don't want to waste energy with engaging with that person. What is a procedure on Wikipedia to stop such conversations? Can you block a person from interacting with you? Or should I escalate it to admins? Should I erase his slander from my talk page? I've tried to read appropriate policies, but got drowned by the amount of material and not sure how to proceed. Would yo advise please? Thank you. FreedomGonzo (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@FreedomGonzo: There's a lot going on here, so it's hard to know where to start.

In general, you are allowed to remove comments from your talk page. There are some exceptions, but none of these appear to apply in this case (WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING explain this). Also, you are allowed to tell editors not to post on your own talk page, and they are typically expected to honor this with some rare exceptions. Repeatedly ignoring such a request is considered disruptive. I'm not sure what I would do in your situation, but I sure wouldn't fault you for just deleting the entire thing. If this escalates, admins will still be able to see it easily enough.

At a glance it seems like their behavior is unacceptable. If this editor continues to behave this way, I would start a new post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where administrators will see it. Be succinct in describing the situation, but include plenty of WP:DIFFs so others can see exactly what you're describing. The easiest way to do this is to copy and paste the external link to the page where these edits have been made, like this.

If you post a discussion of an editor to that noticeboard, you are required to notify that editor on their talk page, even if that editor has 'banned' you from posting there. You can post {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to their talk page to notify them of this discussion. (Copy it as you see it when reading this page, not as you see it when editing this page. You should not see the term "nowiki".)

Any discussion of an article's content should be held at the article's talk page, but it seems like you already know that. Grayfell (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Lifevantage

Hi - Regarding LifeVantage redirect, I saw the version you deleted. Completely agree. The sources failed all Wiki criterias. However, I do feel that it was the authors/editors mistake because a number of sources were not used at all. Makes me wonder why. Can I attempt to recreate it or is it protected? Ofcourse, it would be reviewed by admins/new page reviewers but I am new to Wikipedia (never created a page) so I wanted to check if I can even attempt to create it. Globe2trotter (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Globe2trotter (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Globe2trotter: Hello. I was WP:BOLD, or reckless if you like, when I turned that article into a redirect, My hope was that it would save everyone some time. I explained this at Talk:LifeVantage Corporation. It is not protected, and I am not an admin. That article was a small dilemma, because it makes sense to have an article on the company more than the product, but the overwhelming number of reliable sources are about the one notable product. Wikipedia uses independent sources for notability, and the article was functionally spam for the company. If there were reliable sources, I did not see them, but of course that doesn't mean they don't exist. Press releases and blogs are not usable for this, in case that was in doubt. I would suggest starting a discussion at Talk:Protandim, but before you do, please review WP:ORG, which discusses how to tell if a company is notable enough for an article. If you are involved with LifeVantage, you have a conflict of interest and should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, if you'd like). If you are compensated for editing Wikipedia, you absolutely must disclose this fact per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure; this is not optional. I don't say this to scare you off, but because this is a serious problem which is especially common with multi-level marketing/direct marketing companies, and so it should be handled with caution. Grayfell (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I really appreciate the time you have taken to reply. I have absolutely no COI with the company or are being paid to edit.I am just curious. There are articles that I've read about the company in a number of major finance websites like seeking alpha (also because I like reading about healthcare stocks). I think the issue is that this company has a number of press releases (more than normal) so it becomes more cumbersome to find the ones that are independent but I do feel they exist. In any case, thanks for your time. It is much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globe2trotter (talk • contribs) 07:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

OUSB and posting

Hello Grayfell, I hope this is how to start a new topic with you. I am new on Wikki, I just published and finishing the OUSB e-book. I did not make any intentional negative promotional in the sacred name bible translations list. it appears you deleted my addition. I want to know what was wrong about that. I am new and don't understand your position about deleting and appearing to be threatening me with words that I don't understand. Please help me understand. Livethankful (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Livethankful

I have responded at the user's talk page, for simplicity. Grayfell (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

NPI

I made, s while ago, a request at RPP. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

""Not An Argument" is not how Wikipedia works"

Shouldn't it be?

The point of wikipedia is to provide the best and most accurate information. That says nothing about consensus or lack thereof. Isn't there something about ignoring rules in Wikipedia codex that makes each rule a suggestion and not a hard rule? Making my contribution a great exception.

1 Consensus is an appeal to popularity. Worse still, its an appeal to popularity to a tiny subsection of the population that may or may not know what the hell they are talking about, making wider scrutiny impossible. 2 I see zero, ZERO credible sourcing done in that passage. The Times ran a tabloid story on Moleneux throwing around unobjective and inflammatory language like "cult". This was a single event, that was clearly reported on in a tabloid, pulp fiction-type manner. And then to interpret that as "he has been described as having a cult" like more than a single set of reports that have come out non tabloid sources is fcking ridiculous and highly disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N9812389 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with your approach, but to start with: no, it shouldn't be how Wikipedia works. This isn't a debate platform, it's an encyclopedia, and the goal isn't to convince true believers, it's to reflect what reliable sources have to say. Neither my talk page nor the appropriate article's talk page is the place to change Wikipedia's stance on WP:CONSENSUS.

There were four sources for the cult accusations, and many more where that came from. Describing one of those sources as not credible doesn't actually make it not credible. ("Not an argument" as yer boy likes to say). It is credible because it meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing. In addition to The Times, there is also The Globe and Mail, Channel 5 (UK), and The Daily Beast. There's also The Guardian, New York Magazine, Vice, Wired, etc. Don't think those are reliable for some reason? Discuss it on the article's talk page.

Did you... censor yourself by not typing all the letters of "fucking"? If "fcking" is acceptable, so is "fucking", and if it isn't, you shouldn't be using either. If you want to have some sort of argument, you should at least be able to communicate clearly. Better yet, work towards consensus instead of treating other editors as enemies right off the bat. Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah Yes.

Thank you Greyfell I am new to this. I do have a source for the last person that I added but do not know know how to add sources. Perhaps you can do it for me. https://www.susqu.edu/about-su/newsroom/first-african-american-grad-to-discuss-civil-rights

Again I do have a conflict of interest being in the fraternity but was not asked to make any edits.

Bit64 (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bit64: Hello. Thanks for discussing this, and welcome to Wikipedia.

The general pattern for lists of "notable alumni" and similar is that they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Notability (people). "Notability" has a slightly esoteric meaning on Wikipedia, but simplified, this means that person has been covered by reliable, independent sources in at least some depth. Press releases, such as this one from Susquehanna University, are almost never considered sufficient for meeting notability guidelines, as they are not independent of the person they are covering.

For convenience, and to maintain verifiability, Wikipedia:Write the article first is often cited as the inclusion criteria for lists. If Lewis is notable enough for inclusion in this list, he's likely notable enough for an article. Do you think there are sources demonstrating his notability? I briefly looked for some, but the only thing I found was this Energy.gov profile which is also not independent. This doesn't mean better sources don't exist, of course, and if you know of any let me know, or if you know of any details that might help find such sources, let me know. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (April 13, University of Oregon)

On Friday, April 13 (3pm to 6pm), the University of Oregon will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art and feminism. You can learn more at the Dashboard page, or our Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, and snacks will be provided. Please bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, we urge you to stop by to show your support and have snacks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Dangerous (book) talk page

Hi there! I removed the ghostwritten section because the source was questioned as being unreliable in the talk page and after around a week there had been no response by Ceoil of anyone else. If you have any information on ghostwriting the book please let us know on the talk page. If there is no further discussion I'll remove the bit. Thank you for your time. --1.136.108.194 (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I posted a response just as you posted this. Even if I had not, please do not edit war, even if you think you are correct. Please see WP:BRD. A lack of discussion is not always a sign that WP:CONSENSUS is for allowing the proposed changed. If necessary, there are ways to resolve disputes, or attract additional impartial attention if this cannot be resolved on the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Negotiation

Hi, please do note delete my content that I spent a lot of time researching. Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasLonghorn2020 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@TexasLonghorn2020: Hello. Did you see the very first sentence of this talk page? It asks that you post new comments at the bottom of the page.

Additions to Wikipedia should be verifiable. While I appreciate that you researched the content you added, you need to include your research in the article through citations. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. You may also find Help:Referencing for beginners useful.

Your recent edit to Negotiation removed many pictures and navigation links, as well as breaking existing citations and sourced content. Once you have found reliable sources, please edit more carefully, or discuss these changes on the article's talk page: Talk:Negotiation.

Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell, it is not in your place to remove my comments or others. It is also not your place to tell me if I am a beginner. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasLonghorn2020 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not remove them. As I explained on your talk page, I moved them to the bottom of the page, per Wikipedia's guidelines. If you're not reading what I'm writing, what's the point of even starting a discussion? Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Note

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cilinhosan1 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cilinhosan1: So are you going to comment on the article's talk page, or not? Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who should do it, since you are the one who needs the consensus to change the article. Cilinhosan1 (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cilinhosan1: I did, and I've already asked you to join that discussion multiple times. If you revert and then ignore what's being said, what's the point? Also, I'm not the one who made those changes in the first place. Multiple other editors have worked to include this description since at least the beginning of March. You are not just reverting me, you're reverting dozens of edits by multiple editors. At this point, the burden is on you to at the very least participate in the discussion. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

AfriForum

Thank you for continuesly working hard to remove vandalism from this page. I see a user keeps removing reliable sources and information, what can be done about this? DumaTorpedo (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@DumaTorpedo: Hello. Please do not edit war! The article will get locked (perhaps on the "wrong version") and editors will get blocked. I would not go so far as to call this vandalism quite yet, but I get why you say that. The absolute best thing for the article would be reliable third-party sources which explain what AfriForum is and its history. The article needs much better sources. Not just recent news blurbs, and not just passing mentions, and certainly not the organization's own site. The more depth of sources we have, the better. The article does read like a press release, but unless sources actually call it a white nationalist organization as a defining trait, Wikipedia cannot do so. Please feel free to join the discussion on the talk page, also. Grayfell (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay I see, thanks for the heads up — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs) 04:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Cernovich Article bias

Regarding this message you sent about my edits to the Mike Cernovich article:

"Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Mike Cernovich. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)."

I am relatively new to the wikipedia editing scene, however I don't see how any of my edits violate Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I would kindly like to be informed where my edits have breached this policy. The very reason I made the edits was to remove blatant bias from the article so as not to misinform future readers of the page. Furthermore, many, in my own words, "Contentious left-leaning web articles," such as posts from CNN, Huffington Post, The Washington Post, MSNBC and others are used to back up lofty and claims regarding Cernovich. It is often tempting to show bias in such ways, especially when dealing with such an equivocal figure as Mike Cernovich.

An obvious example of left-leaning bias can be seen in: "Michael Cernovich (born November 17, 1977) is an American alt-right[6] social media personality, writer, and conspiracy theorist."

Here the article states that Mike is a member of the alt-right as if it is a fact. This is clearly not a fact but an opinion. At the very least, the author of the article could have written something along the lines of, "Michael Cernovich (born November 17, 1977) is a American conservative social media personality, writer, and conspiracy theorist commonly associated with the alt-right." The articles used to back up this sentiment all provide an opinionated view on Cernovich's political alignment.

(https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/17/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-social-media/index.html)

(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lady-gagas-jacket-draws-nazi-comparisons-from-alt-right/)

(https://www.businessinsider.com.au/alt-right-civil-war-twitter-cernovich-milo-alaska-2016-12?r=US&IR=T)

(https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/10/31/splc-analysis-small-community-extremists-twitter-responsible-majority-message)

(http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/06/inside-donald-trumps-twitter-bot-fan-club.html)

Instead, it would be much more neutral and reliable to take a statement directly from Michael Cernovich's website, Danger and Play:

"I have my disagreements with the alt-right, but let’s get a win for the right in America before hashing it all out. The current attitude on the right is to fight with your own side rather than to give leftists hell. Under that model of politics, men are losing due process rights, the suicide of whites is at a record high, and there are several Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil. Until the right wins for once, I have no interest in arguing with the alt-right or disavowing anyone. Once the right has some actual power, then it will be time to have an ideological civil war. Until then, nah."

It is stated clearly here by Cernovich himself that he has "disagreements with the alt-right." Here, it is evident Mike disagrees with many notions presented by the ill defined alt-right.

(https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mike_Cernovich) quote from Cernovich above

Further in-formalities and bias can be seen in the Cernovich article: "In 2015, Cernovich wrote a self-published self-help book, Gorilla Mindset,[21] in which he talked about how women should submit to "dominant alpha males"."

The source used to back this up was an article from the New York Times: (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/mike-cernovich-bio-who.html). The source states, "Women follow the strong men, and the weak men follow the women. It is and always will be that way. -Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich)Jan.27,2016," however the article author has taken this to mean, "he talked about how women should submit to "dominant alpha males"," propagating left bias and booting neutrality out the back door by jumping to a tall conclusion.

Remember, my intention, like yours is to create a more neutral representation of Mike Cernovich which is free from bias or hidden agendas. Please consider these concerns of mine and hopefully we can take Wikipedia one step closer to being a more reliable source and a less opinionated place.

Cheers, --1.144.107.242 (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC) User:1.144.107.242

Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and in the future, please use the Help:Preview feature to insure your comments are readable. Sorry to be rude, but all of this has already been hashed-out countless times already, and you're not saying anything new. To show respect for other people's time, please also try to get to the point quicker.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source that summarizes the academic and journalistic mainstream. If you are stating that the New York Times etc. are not reliable because they have a bias, or because they reach conclusions you do not agree with, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. The New York Times has a much, much better "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" than Cernovich himself, and it's this reputation that is called-for by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Further, calling this a boldfaced opinion doesn't make it an opinion. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting Cernovich's ideas or opinions, therefore we summarize reliable, third party sources as to why he is notable. He is notable, according to reliable sources, for his far-right/alt-right/alt-light conspiracy theories and for trolling on behalf of those positions. He is not notable, as far as I have read, for anything else.

His blog is neither a reliable source for statements of fact, nor is it an independent source for neutral commentary. WP:BLPPRIMARY sources can be used to fill in non-controversial details, but since reliable sources repeatedly link Cernovich to the alt-right (as a defining trait, no less) his claims that he isn't alt-right are controversial. By definition they are controversial, because they are controverted by reliable sources.

The points you have raised have already been discussed on the article's talk page: Talk:Mike Cernovich. Further discussion should be held there, not here, and again, try to be succinct. Posts to my talk page may be reverted without comment, at my discretion. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thought you deserved a cup of coffee for your contributions to quelling that asinine back-and-forth on Creativity (religion) and the talk page! Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 03:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule

Please stop your disruptive editing. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate the 3 Revert, as you did at Northwest Territorial Imperative. 47.137.185.148 (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly spamming links to a neo-Nazi website is several flavors of vandalism all rolled up into one. Vandalism is exempt from WP:3RR. Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Odd

I can see why the first editor might have landed there, but the second? Doug Weller talk 19:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... Both created within a couple of weeks of each other in 2016. Both have edited Wiktionary. Both relatively narrow focus, but vaguely interested in conspiracy theory stuff. I dunno. I'm not sure if this is SPI worthy or not, and I've got a thing to take care of. Grayfell (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Trans_man#Biological_vs_Social_View_of_Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userwoman (talk • contribs) 01:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility

You shouldn't call another editor a "Nazi apologist" in an edit summary[1] especially if their edit history doesn't support anything like that. It's a valid question whether the wording belongs in the article if it isn't supported by the source. No need to poison the well in the edit area that disagreement means you're a Nazi. If you don't have the patience for that (as you say), maybe take a small wikibreak. Thank you. --Pudeo (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Evola was a Nazi in every way that mattered, regardless of what he liked to pretend after the war. I do not have any patience for Evola apologists, and Evola apologists are Nazi apologists. Grayfell (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Sex toy

Thanks for message about references/citation. I have added one that I hope covers off your suggestion that my edit was original research. I felt obliged to add a "citation required" prior to my edit so that the citation I had added did not appear to cover earlier information in the paragraph. I note that much of the article is without citations. Floripa 00:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheldon Boddy (talk • contribs) 00:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Floripa: Hello. As you might imagine, sex-related articles get targeted with a lot of spam. At first this is what I thought you were doing, but clearly I was mistaken, so I apologize for that.

Regarding the patent, you may want to review WP:PRIMARY. Patents are better than nothing, but ideally this should be summarized from a secondary source. Sex intersects with medicine, also, and Wikipedia has higher sourcing standards for medical content: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). This is just something to keep in mind.

Oh, also, please take a look at WP:SIGNATURE, as that makes things much easier for everybody. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help/advice and the apology. I'm wondering if you still have objections to the image of the two 3D printed rings. I get your point about decoration, but I'd put it up because their production seems to me to be an interesting application of this technology. --Wheldon Boddy 04:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheldon Boddy (talk • contribs)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

VeritasVox (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Jack and Dean of All Trades

Hello Grayfell. I hope you are fine. Since you are more of an expert on YouTube-matters than that I am: please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack and Dean of All Trades, which is about a web-series which has about 680,000 subscribers. I believe you might be the better judge here to see if Wikipedia will be a better encyclopedia when this series has an article on Wikipedia. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

Can you tell me what was wrong with my contribution to the HR page? Below is the entirety of my contribution:

Positions within a human resource organization include the Chief Human Resource Officer, Benefits Administrators/Director, Compensation Administrators/Director, Learning Managers, Recruiters, Organizational Development Administrators/Director, Trainers, Union Relations Specialists, and Directors of Diversity & Inclusion. [2] At smaller organizations, the HR Generalist handles many or all of the responsibilities of the HR organization.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Personal Brander (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Personal Brander: Hello.

Please avoid corporate blogspam, as this rarely has the reputation for fact checking and accuracy required by WP:RS. When produced by businesses, "white papers" are are grey literature and are seldom reliable. These kinds of thing are only usable in specific situations. Broad generalities should be supported by independent academic sources and should never be used as filler, and Wikipedia should not be a platform for advocacy or editorializing. For example, explain what People Analytics is in direct, neutral terms according to reliable sources. This should be done only to explain the connection to Human resource management, otherwise details belong at the target article. Again, do not promote the concept, only explain it.

Additionally, thebalancecareers.com does not appear to provide enough clear signs of editorial oversight, such as named editors, or any corrections or retractions, making it unlikely to be reliable. You may find WP:RSN useful if you feel strongly about this. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I can see how what I wrote in the people analytics section might come across as promotional. I will review and revise. In regards to my first edit on Human Resources, if I deleted the reference to thebalancecareers.com in the HR section, would there be any issue with my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Personal Brander (talk • contribs) 20:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Personal Brander: Information on Wikipedia should be verifiable, so a source should be included. Certainly not every human resource department is going to have all of those positions, and some are going to have other positions not listed, so this seems subjective and ambiguous. Wikilinking to related articles would help, but this needs sources also. Summarizing what a reliable source has to say about these positions would be much more helpful than listing them, but this is obviously much more ambitious, so I understand why this may not be practical. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I gotcha. Thanks for the input. I'll do a little more research and consider these suggestions, but you might have to delete a few more things before I get the hang of it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Personal Brander (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Talk:Julius Evola, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Southwestern Advantage

Hello Grayfell, the information on the Southwestern Advantage page is quite outdated and is lacking an abundance of information. As a simple starting place, under Program (paragraph 3), Southwestern Advantage did away with $500 Letters of Credit years ago. The paragraph could more-accurately read, "Students provide the company a Parent Support Letter, in which the endorsers state their support of the student's participation in the program. This parental endorsement allows the company to ship training materials to the student free of charge."

Under Criticism, this opening statement should be removed: "According to the anti-human trafficking charity Polaris, organizations often send their recruiters to target unemployed young people and college students with promises of high profits. These companies only hire employees as independent contractors to avoid following the Fair Labor Standards Act's mandates for minimum wage or overtime pay.[10]" This statement unfairly implies that Southwestern Advantage is one of the un-reputable companies and operates as such. This statement also makes an unfounded generalization that Southwestern Advantage only uses independent contractors to avoid mandates and minimum wage requirements, when in fact the very purpose of the program is to be an entrepreneurial endeavor where students learn to operate their own small businesses. Small businesses owners and entrepreneurs do not get paid minimum wage or hourly rates. This paragraph would read more fairly and factually if those first two sentences were removed.

Please advise; thank you. Rryandavis (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rryandavis: You should propose changes to the article on the article's talk page. Since Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising, these lines are unlikely to be removed. MLM affiliates' status as "entrepreneurs" is largely rejected by credible business experts, and Wikipedia strongly favors reliable, third-party sources over a company's own promotional material.

As I said on your talk page, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide). If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid directly editing articles in almost all cases. If you are paid or otherwise compensated for editing any articles, you must disclose this, per Wikipedia's terms of service. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Bangladesh Air Force

You added Su-30SME to Bangladesh Air Force from an unreliable source. Did you read the source before adding it? The Source says "to be purchased". It does not say that Bangladesh Air Force purchased Su-30SME. Please do not promote Russian fighter jet in Wikipedia for personal gain. This is the current OFFICIAL inventory https://www.baf.mil.bd/?page_id=1125. If you still add content from the unreliable source and keep promoting Su-30SME without mainstream media or official press release as the source of the content, you could be banned from editing. Your history of editing also says you engaged in an edit war. Stop adding Su-30SME to Bangladesh Air Force. There is no official confirmation by the buyer (Bangladesh Air Force) and seller (Russia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tribalact (talk • contribs) 00:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal gain? Edit war? I made a single edit to the article, so calm down and assume good faith. The edit you are referring to was a revert. The reverted edit included commentary directed to another editor by name in the body of the article, which is totally inappropriate for many reasons. Grayfell (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson

What do you mean with: "Source about judge is not about Robinson"? I can understand the criticism about the source, but on the other hand reliable sources are hardly covering this story so this was the one I could find. AntonHogervorst (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant what I said. Per WP:EL, external links should almost never be included in articles, and Park Square Barristers link has absolutely nothing to do with Robinson anyway, making it pointless and distracting. There are multiple major problems with your edit, which would need to be discussed on the article's talk page. If reliable sources aren't discussing something, why are you putting it in the article? As I hope you already know by now, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not WP:OR, and not personal opinions. We're not a newspaper, and we're not a gossip column. Again, the place to discuss this is the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul Tucker

Hi there - can you please clarify what was not okay with the FSB and BIS sources on Paul Tucker's work while at the FSB? I'm struggling to think about better sources and I think the contribution was quite informative and interesting (on top of correct) for Wikipedia users. Many thanks for any insights you can provide.

Best, Chospo (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chospo: Hello.

Please take a careful look at Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources, especially #Why independent sources are required. These standards are especially important for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, such as the article on Tucker.

Articles should, whenever possible, use third-party sources. Press releases and profiles-pages from organizations Tucker has belonged to are not third-party. These source are acceptable for routine information (such as birth dates and colleges attended) or for contextualizing information supported by third-party sources (such as responding to allegations). Directly citing a quote from a speech Tucker gave is not neutral unless this quote is supported by a reliable, independent source. When Wikipedia editors chose quotes like these without this context, it risks cherry-picking.

I have re-added the line about him being chair of the Working Group on Cross-Border Crisis Management, as it provided context for the next paragraph, which I missed. I have also removed another quote. The entire article seems to rely too heavily on affiliated sources, but this is a more difficult problem to solve.

I hope that answers your questions. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Thank you for this. I will look into it and try to find better sources if available.

Many thanks, Chospo (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

General sanctions alert

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism of Mubarak Muyika

The changes made on the page Mubarak Muyika do not meet WP:NOV. Mark Zuckerberg is an american business icon notable for computer programming and ultimately founding facebook. References of Mubarak Muyika as Mark Zuckerberg has been clearly sourced, clearly explained in the sources, independently collaborated by more than one independent & notable source. Your arguments do not meet WP:NOV,are not realistic and are lamely circumstantial aimed at poking holes and changing the narrative of the article through frivolous arguments for reasons yet to be established. You seem to have a continuous habit of changing articles and vandalizing articles based highly on circumstantial arguments that reflect bias esp from edits you have previously made. You are the kind of people destroying the fabric of what wikipedia was built for (freedom & neutrality) by being busy bodies apart from the meaningful contributions that are valid. It is imperative that you correct your attitude and behavior towards neutral points of view and sabotage information access for reasons known to yourself. Maybe ego, bias or yet to be known. by Jacobbs2090322 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow. No, that's not how Wikipedia works. This isn't a platform for promotion. Attribute opinions to people instead of WP:WEASEL words, and avoid superficial churnalism. You should also avoid personal attacks when your edits are challenged. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Rajneesh stuff

Thank you. I just saw this message. Sorry if I accidentally made an edit after you.

Vague a bond (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Vague a bond (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Vague a bond

Hey!...

...How come you didn't get one of these?. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I will add, with humor, that you are also very arrogant, all of you. With a sense of humor like that, they must've been the class clown at that real university that they attended. I am, of course, being sarcastic because I'm so irritating and arrogant. Grayfell (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Dispute

Hello, please be aware you have been included in a dispute. Please see find the link here: [2]

Thank you for your willingness to improve Wikipedia!Barbarossa139 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Damore

For the edit, my reasoning was that when/if eventually Damore gets a free standing page, the link would already be in place for it. --Deleet (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's obvious. In the meantime, anyone clicking on that link is going to be mildly surprised or confused, making it an WP:EGG. The link to the document is in the same sentence, making this redundant, also. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)