User talk:Grayfell/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Thanks

Thanks for the guidelines on the autobiographical information on the Gina Smith (author) page. Someone did a Wikipedia article on me a few weeks ago, which I just found yesterday. I wanted to fill out some of the things it left out -- I thought if I made sure to heavily reference everything I added, that ameliorated the autobiographical limitations! Now I know. Thank you also for showing me how to better cite references and make better use of the web links section. gina@ginasmith.com gina Ginasmith888 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)gina

@Ginasmith888: Thanks for responding. I understand the desire to be comprehensive with this kind of thing, but per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI, judging appropriate WP:DUE weight in this situation is difficult or impossible. Your life cannot ever be properly summed up in a Wikipedia article, after all. It's clear that you are editing in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, and I don't want to discourage you from contributing, but much of the content you added isn't going to work. As an example, the larger significance of awards need to be understandable to the reader, so they need to be contextualized and supported by independent sources. The easiest way to do that is by only including awards which have articles themselves. If they don't have an article, they probably aren't worth mentioning yet. A related example would be not relying on WP:PRIMARY sources, press releases, etc. These can be useful for filling in details (dates and such), but rarely for establishing something as being significant enough to mention.

Again, per Autobio, the best course of action is for you to limit contributions to the article's talk page: Talk:Gina Smith (author). You can use the Template:Request edit as a way to invite additional attention. This will not be as fast as editing the article yourself, but it will be much less likely to be reverted. Vandalism and defamatory content is an exception, of course, and you should revert that without hesitation. If it's an ongoing problem, you can request help from others at WP:BLPN, which is carefully watched by many editors and administrators.

I should also tell you that the article was created by a new account that's made a lot very PR-like articles in a short period of time, some of which are about people who are much less notable than yourself. This is how I became aware of your article, and behavior like that raises paid-editing concerns. Undisclosed paid editing is unethical and against Wikipedia's terms of service, for obvious reasons. I'm still not sure what is going on there, and it may be a false alarm, but now you know. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Daniel_Holtzclaw.23Recent_changes_.282.29 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! --Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Corporate Social Entrepreneurship

Hello Greyfell! I agree, we do need people to contribute - the more the merrier! - but the CSE Wiki page was first created based on high quality scientific peer-reviewed academic research. So we shouldn't erase the original definition, because it is 'out there'. The very first theoretical articles on this subject were published in the Journal of Business Ethics (2004 and 2005) after being presented at academic conferences. Then, a scientific investigation was conducted over a three year period and the results were published in a book that was published by the Cambridge University Press (2013). This is the published definition:

A corporate social entrepreneur (CSE) was defined by Hemingway (2005; 2013) as: 'An employee of the firm who operates in a socially entrepreneurial manner; identifying opportunities for and/ or championing socially responsible activity, in addition to helping the firm achieve its business targets. The CSE operates regardless of an organizational context that is pre-disposed towards corporate social responsibility (CSR)/ sustainability. This is because the CSE is driven by their dominant self-transcendent (concerned with the welfare of others/environment) as opposed to their self-enhancement personal values [1]. Consequently, the CSE does not necessarily have a formal socially responsible job role, nor do they necessarily have to be in a senior management position to progress their socially responsible agenda.'[2][3]

Since then, the term has been picked up by other academics, students, business consultants and others. I think it makes sense to keep the original (already published) definition and then we add as we have more information/ new perspectives. Please note that the first reference (number 1) relates to the research of Shalom Schwarz on personal values. This is good practice to attribute sources and Schwartz theory (notably the dimension of self-enhancement and self-transcendent values) was used to investigate CSEs. But note that Schwarz has not researched CSE himself, so the definition that is now on the CSE Wiki is misleading (and insufficient). Many thanks Chemingway (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I believe the lead was phrased in a way which lacked neutrality and was difficult to understand as a summary. There was and still is also a buzzword and formality problem in the article: "championing" is a WP:PEACOCK word, for example, and using a direct quote doesn't justify adding such words, especially not in the very first sentences. The lead needs to be rephrased in a more general sense using a more encyclopedic, WP:TONE. Phrases like "To be a CSE you do not necessarily have to be a manager" suggest that the article is itself "championing" a point of view, which is not what this project is for (see also: WP:YOU). If you can rephrase the lead in a way which is consistent with the academic consensus of what the term means, please do so, but as a matter of weight and neutrality, please avoid crediting yourself in the very first sentence. I know this may seem like the most honest way to go about it, but it's a very poor way to establish significance, as your conflict of interest makes you a poor judge of due weight. If you believe that you are so personally intertwined with the subject that you cannot do that, than your WP:COI is a problem, and you should instead propose changes on the talk page without making any edits yourself. The template wasn't specifically to invite other people, it was to encourage the addition of other sources. Currently most of the sources are from you, which isn't necessarily a problem, but in this case the article needs outside perspectives. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Social Entrepreneurship

Hi Greyfell, please can you also look at this page,too. These different types of entrepreneurship are distinct, but related to each other, so the distinctions and connections need to be made. My contributions to the page have been deleted - about three times, now? Thank you very much. Chemingway (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See above. I recommend discussing this further on the article's talk pages instead of here, since this is a content issue. Thanks Grayfell (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

ScanBurger Nuorgam

Well, I think that it can be mentioned as the most northern fast food chain restaurant in the world, if there aren't any other as northern fast food chain restaurant, even though that chain is just a regional one. (Not remarkable as themselves, but only for their extremity - in this case, for their extreme location) --91.159.92.102 (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, but we need a reliable source specifically saying that no other fast-food restaurant is more northern. Otherwise it's original research. I think such a source would have to be independent of the chain, because that's more reliable, and also so that Wikipedia isn't just providing free advertising, y'know? Grayfell (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Website builder

Hi, Grayfell, First of all I want to thank you for the revision of my addings. You've deleted my addons to the Website builder article and noticed that "superwebsitebuilders.com wasn't a reliable source the last time it was added, and it still isn't". But as for me that site is rather reliable source with historyб good rankings and a great number of topic-related materials. As you can see, there're a lot of information about website builders and I didn't find those listed features, that were deleted, anywhere except that website. So I ask You to undo your deletion.Thanks. Donets.Aleksey (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Donets.Aleksey

Sorry, I don't agree. Being a WP:RS is not about how useful or popular a site may be, it's based on having a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. I don't see any indication of editorial oversight, or other signs that it's reliable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI#User:Wikibreaking personal attacks and WP:FORUMSHOP

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I would appreciate if you could comment there. Thanks, ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for letting me know. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

you are not owner

Grayfell you are now crossing the limits. Seriously if u did not stop deleteing my contribution. I am going to make it legal. And please remember wiki is for all and each contributions are valuable. Why you deleting Mahika from list of people from assam and actress from bollywood cant u google her or you have no time exploring thing else. Please mind your own work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popopo222 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 January 2016‎

@Popopo222:

1. Do not threaten to take legal action, as that is strictly prohibited by Wikipedia. This is explained on your talk page.
2. The article has been repeatedly deleted under multiple names (Mahika Sharma, Mahika sharma, and now it looks like Mahiika Sharma). This was decided by a community process, which I did not take part in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahika sharma. I did not actually delete any of those articles, either, that was done by administrators. You are free to try and recreate it using a draft, which has also been explained on your talk page. As a draft, I would be happy to try and work to help improve the article, if there are reliable sources. Not everything found on Google is reliable. The article you keep recreating is not ready publication, and all biographies of living people must be held to high standards.
3. Look at List of people from Assam. Notice anything? Mahiika Sharma is the only red link on the page. What does this tell you? That page is a list of other Wikipedia articles, and should not contain red links, because those aren't helpful for readers or encyclopedic. Grayfell (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell the page will be soon created as trust me Mahika is a famous name User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] the page will be soon created as trust me Mahika is a famous name from assam with being miss teen to social worker. She have all profesnl link with times of India to twiter with 20k followers. Kindly help me creating her page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popopo222 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 25 January 2016‎

@Popopo222: Did you read about making legal threats? You must answer this. Do you take back your legal threat? You must answer this also.

To make the article, start it as a draft first! Otherwise the article will get deleted again. With a draft, you can use her name spelled properly, and you can get feedback from experienced editors. Wikipedia:Articles for creation is a good way to make the article. Be patient.

The number of twitter followers doesn't matter for this. If you are talking about this and this, those are not good sources. You can read about what is needed here: Wikipedia:Notability (people). I am looking for sources, but I don't see many. Start with a draft so other editors can make sure sources meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell dear I created that, but its looking like Draft:Mahika Sharma I want it to appear normaly like other celeb pls help

@Popopo222: You have not answered my question. Do you understand why threatening to make it "legal" is NOT acceptable?

The article isn't ready to be published yet. It still needs better sources. When it's ready it will be moved. Have patience, please. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell kindly help me creating the page Mahika Sharma else deleting it. Hope the links are notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18beauty (talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@18beauty: Hello. Yes, I am working on the article. Unfortunately, the sources are still not very good. Please see: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Sources must have a good reputation. Wikipedia doesn't use gossip sites, press releases, or promotional material. Just being mentioned by Bollywood sites isn't good enough. The article reliable needs sources talking about her roles. Sources need to be deeper and from better sites. Keep looking, but do not be surprised if the article is rejected again. Grayfell (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell man she is model and social worker too. Links attached are all talking about herself. What more is expected. Check Sonam Lamba page issues but yet article alive with no much refferences. Atleast this article should also get alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18beauty (talk • contribs) 07:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@18beauty: Chill out. I can't create the article. I am not an admin. You guys created it so many times it's been WP:SALTED, so only admins can create it now. I'm just telling you that it needs better sources. You don't have to believe me, but I have a lot more experience than you. If you want my help, or anybody's help, try to be nicer, okay? Sonam Lamba has a Times of India article as a source. It's not a great sources, but it's much, much better than what's at Draft:Mahika Sharma. But yes, there are other bad articles. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia, sometimes bad ones slip past, that isn't an excuse. Those articles should be deleted or fixed too. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you are a fan of this person, you should write a good article about her with real sources. Having a bad article is an insult. Or are you being paid by someone to write an article about her? Is that what's going on here? Grayfell (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell we are fans of her as said before who is gona pay. Popopo222 is posting a link and you deleting why??? The biography section is powerful and the site is also very was popular and wellknown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18beauty (talk • contribs) 10:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@18beauty: People try to pay for articles very often, and it's against the rules of Wikipedia.

I explained why I removed the source in the WP:EDIT SUMMARY. You can read that in the article's history: [1] You should also leave an edit summary, too. The Bollywoodlife source is a circular reference. It takes information from Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot use it, because information must come from outside of Wikipedia. That's why we have sources. Understand? Grayfell (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Where can I access my deleted edits?

I apologize for violating policy. I can't imagine all of my edits did so however, so I wonder if I could still see them anywhere, since I neglected that basic rule of backing them up. I would really like to know which did violate the guidelines. I suspect that references to living persons were the most serious.

However the article as it stands is woefully unsourced. I will try to improve that by listing sources of information on the AIP and also making them available online (not in the AIP article indeed, but on the official AIP web-site).

The section on the so-called "2008 Leadership dispute" is a prime example of unsourced content. Note that footnotes 7-13 contained in that section are now all dead. So the previously most sourced section in the AIP article is now the most unsourced. This is due to three factors I believe. 1. the passage of time, requiring adjustments to links so they still point to the same information, that remains available somewhere on the web, 2.The normal retirement of current event information on some sites, so that the information is no longer available online (unless the Wayback Machine can help with that), 3. The deliberate withdrawal or relabeling of content by the King Faction, recognizing the failure of its efforts.

I deleted the dead footnotes in my now deleted edits. Was that a violation of policy? (Not a rhetorical, but a serious question.) If the principle of sourcing is strictly enforced, that section should be entirely deleted. I was not deleting it, but expanding it and (I believed) correcting it. However I realize that at some point the expansions became more a first person account, which even this newbie now recognizes was beyond the guideline boundaries.

I know for a fact that this dispute began at least as early as 2007. I have the testimony of others that it in fact started in 2006. I can with some significant effort find some evidence of that online. I hate to think that my first-hand information will prove useless, so painfully was it acquired. But 2006 and 2007 are before 2008. The dispute lingered until the last suit was decided in 2011. So the title is clearly misleading. The origins and final results were from 2006-2011.

I will now adopt a policy of collecting the references before I post edits. I will list them on the talk page for the American Independent Party article before using them. I would appreciate your assistance and advice. BraveLad (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@BraveLad:Hello.

As you've said, there were multiple problems with your version. Content should always be sourced. Wikipedia has millions of articles, so as a pragmatic matter, this often slips through the cracks and we have to pick our battles, but expanding unsourced content is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Please see original research. The kind of sources also matters. Sources must be verifiable, meaning that information you personally know to be true but which can't corroborate isn't generally usable. This information must be published in some way by an organization with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. See WP:RS for details. Sources don't have to be online, but if a public or academic library couldn't track down a copy, then it's probably not going to be considered verifiable. If you have access to records or official documents, be cautious of policies on WP:PRIMARY sources, as well.

An additional, equally serious problem with your version was that it was written in a non-neutral way, with the clear intention of painting the party in a specific, favorable light. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy (see WP:NOT). Examples in your version include the use of boldface, editorializing words, and a general essay-like and conversational tone which, as you've noticed, isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Several of the terms you used, such as "States' rights" (see: States' rights#States' rights as "code word"), are loaded language, and would need both context and unambiguous attribution, otherwise they read like euphemisms. Likewise, outside sources are clear that the party is opposed to immigration, regardless of their website's extremely vague statements on the subject. Wikipedia favors outside, academic assessments of topics, warts-and-all, not personal familiarity. See WP:NPOV and WP:TONE for more on this.

References with dead links should not be removed just because they are dead. The Wayback machine and other archives are useful, as well as off-line archives for some material. This is a common misunderstanding, but see WP:LINKROT for an explanation. This is partly why filling in details of references is important; it facilitates tracking down dead links. Your edits are preserved in the article's history, which can be accessed by clicking the "View history" tab from the page in question. If you are using a desktop and haven't changed any settings, that should be in the upper-right hand corner of the page, next to the search bar. Please carefully consider what I've said before restoring any of it, though. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

MGTOW

Hi Grayfell for some reason I’m unable to access my previous account we are made a number contributions to Wikipedia before so when you criticise my work under the rules of Wikipedia entries you have made a misnomer. My latest contribution is under the name Gabriel Burnet. It was about MGTOW and was a project that took 12 months to put together along with the interviews and citations for every single sentence and statement within that modification meeting the criteria set for Wikipedia.

You made no attempt to point out where the allegations of bias are, or even cite one. Without a single example the normal conclusion would be that this article does meet with the standards of Wikipedia and you personally disagree with it and deleted it on preference. With the fact that I interpreted 327 sources and cited multiple sources including the official MGTOW website I believe I have the academic validation that you do not. I do not wish to the same misnomer as labelling you as a bigot. So I suggest that you reread the submission and follow the links before you make an unfounded accusation and violate the terms of agreement of Wikipedia yourself. What has been submitted is accurate and academically reinforced something your reasons failed to do when rejecting those modifications (you have no examples or argument for this position violating the Wikipedia policy agreement). I can hand over thousands of media sources if you wish to read and watch them yourself, as I am open to dialogue and the free dissemination of information rather than escalating this to a formal complaint of misconduct.

Happy to hear your from you Gabriel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Burnet (talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gabriel Burnet: Are you saying that you have another account which you cannot access? Please disclose the name of that account to avoid being blocked for sock puppetry, which has been a serious problem with this topic in the past. Who is "we"? Are you saying that your account is being used by more than one person? That's not allowed, again, per WP:SOCK, but if this is just a typo, please proofread your comments before posting.

Your version of the article was unacceptable for multiple reasons. For one thing, it reintroduced content which had previously been removed by consensus built on the article's talk page, which is where you should be discussing specific content changes. That is far from the only problem, though. That version included a great deal of analysis and non-neutral wording which, regardless of sourcing, was not handled appropriately. Opinions and analyses must be attributed instead of being presented in Wikipedia's voice, and they must be presented with due weight in proportion to reliable independent sources.

Again, these are not the only problems. The use of mgtow.com in the lead is a violation of WP:EL and its use as an 'official' link has been discussed and rejected for the article multiple times already. There were also so many grammatical and formatting errors that your version was difficult to read, and it was neither encyclopedic nor academically sound. I don't see these supposed 327 sources in that version, or any version, as it looks like there are swathes that lack any sources at all. Using interviews you have conducted (if I'm reading you right) to build the article is original research, which is not acceptable. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which means that 12 months of work must still align with the consensus built by the larger editing community. The article and its sources have been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men Going Their Own Way (which I did not contribute to), and on the article's talk page, and elsewhere. That's how Wikipedia works. You will need to make your case at the talk page, instead of just making sweeping edits and expecting them to remain unchallenged. Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In the first proof there were grammatical errors and that’s why I updated it later. My first intention was to save my page for later submission and future editing. Saving the incorrect version the later modification was my error. The word “we” came from the interview I did with Barbarossa the most prominent MGTOW figure and was not intended for the final submission. I did not know that “save” was final submission. I thought that you were editing my personal notes this was a misunderstanding and very distressing. But your error was to assume that the second submission was identical to the first. That is not a challenge it was a dismissal. I did try to navigate to the place for final submissions and discussion but got lost in navigation. Wikipedia interface is hard to use and is not like riding a bicycle if you can direct me by link to the discussion page you will be greatly appreciated.

My original content producer name was CheekyBastard which has obviously been blocked because of new name policy what was not in place when I made the account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Burnet (talk • contribs) 05:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gabriel Burnet: There were major grammar and formatting errors in both versions, and there are major errors in your newest version as well. Are you trying to take the high road when your previous account, CheekyBastard (talk · contribs), was blocked five minutes after its last edit (in 2007) for making fart and camel toe jokes? C'mon now. If you want to make test edits, try creating Wikipedia:User pages or a user sandbox, or at the very least, use the Help:Show preview button. Steam-rolling your version over the previous one against consensus is WP:EDITWARRING and will lead to another ban. Discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page: Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. Every page on Wikipedia has a talk page. Your edits are preserved in the article's edit history: [2] Do not make changes until they are ready and properly sourced, and review the history and talk page first. Grayfell (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

American Renaissance (magazine)

I presume you know about WP:3RR and that you are at 3RR. The other editor hadn't been given a warning so I've done that now. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, understood. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Meninism

Grayfell, I read your comments, I'm not sure that I totally agree with you but I don't want to edit war, so I'll leave it be.

I also removed the words "semi-satirical", because those could be taken as an opinion, so i thought it best to remain as unbiased as possible.

Schuddeboomw (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"Semi-satirical" is supported by many reliable sources, and this point is also discussed at length on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Deep Patel

Hi, Grayfell. I saw you marked three of my sources as unreliable on Draft: Deep Patel. To address your first concern, Huffington Post blog(s) are reliable sources according to WP as it’s clearly stated, “some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.”

Every article on Huffington Post’s blog receives editorial insight. In addition, as far as I can tell, the author of the article is a “professional” as she is respected in the field of business as she holds an MBA. FYI, WP editor, i_jethrobot also agreed that it was an “independent reliable source.”

As for Seeking Alpha, the same principle applies. Every single article receives editorial insight. Plus, what I used as a reference from their site is not a “blog.” All content on Seeking Alpha’s website is characterized under 4 categories: Articles, PRO Articles (receives a certain number of views), Instablogs and StockTalks. The reference I used is an “article,” and not a blog. Wikipedia’s article on Seeking Alpha clearly states “in contrast to other equity research platforms, insight is provided by contributor base of investors and industry experts.” In addition, as mentioned in WP: “In 2013, WIRED magazine named Seeking Alpha one of its, "…core nutrients of a good data diet." WIRED: 101 Signals. In 2007, Seeking Alpha was the recipient of Forbes' Best of the Web Award… and in 2011Seeking Alpha was listed as #1 in Inc. magazine's list of Essential Economic blogs.”

Lastly, from my research, The Mill Magazine is a reliable source in the context of the article. I’ve also had two editors from Wikipedia’s Live Chat tell me it was fine to use. The article published about Patel’s book was composed by their “staff” meaning the content was not the opinion of only one writer of the site.

Thus, with all the evidence I have compiled for the sources you had doubts about, I have respectfully reverted the edit you made. Editor2626744 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Edits

Hello again, Grayfell. I'm not trying to get into an edit war with you, but I've reverted the edits you made again because the sources used clearly fall into WP's guidelines. BLPs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons) states that "some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." And once again, that would apply to the HuffPost's blog posts I used as references.

For further reference, WP reiterates that when identifying reliable sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources), "some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."

The same thing applies to Seeking Alpha... I'm not sure why you keep saying the Seeking Alpha reference is a "blog" when it clearly is published as an "article" on their site, which has full editorial oversight and is reliable according to WP's guidelines. Editor2626744 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

See the draft's talk page. Do not revert again without discussion. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect page on Thakur Anukulchandra

Hi, I had created this page Thakur Anukulchandra to redirect to the page Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra, but you moved the same (reversed the redirect) since honorary titles should not be part of article titles. I had done that only to ensure the partial name reaches to the correct page. The name is actually Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra. I am ok with the other page Thakur Anukulchandra not being there. Please could you undo your edit? Thanks and regards. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Atreyeemaiti: Hello. The best place to discuss this is the article's talk page: Talk:Thakur Anukulchandra. The article was previously at that name where it was deleted for being a WP:COPYVIO. I still think it would be better to stick with the old name for consistency, and also because it's more neutral, per Wikipedia:Article titles. Article's should not generally use titles, but if Sri Sri or Sree Sree are universally used by independent analysts as well as followers, then I wouldn't object to reverting. This should be discussed first, and again, the article's talk page is the proper place for that. Thanks Grayfell (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell for your quick reply. I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Thanks Atreyeemaiti (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I received a ping, so we can continue the conversation at the proper place. I will respond shortly. Grayfell (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Awards and Recognitions

Hello, thanks for your contribution, request you to kindly highlight the sources which are too promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarikaran32 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sarikaran32: Hello. I have reviewed your edits again. Every award should have its own article explaining why it is significant. An example is the Fortune Global 500. That ranking has an article that explains what the award means, with reliable sources. At the very least, the award's issuer should have an article. None of the ones you listed had articles.

Also, all of the sources you used appeared to be press releases or similar. This content must be supported by independent sources from reliable outlets, see WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. Unfortunately, this problem is wide-spread, and many similar articles also have improper awards sections. This is not a valid reason for adding more, however. If you find other articles with similar awards sections, let me know and I will clean them up. Wikipedia is WP:NOT for promotion. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Good catch!

Good catch on the sockpuppet - I ended up just deleting the page for the book. It's not something that we could speedy as a creation by a blocked user since the original editor wasn't blocked until the SPI, but it was mildly promotional-ish. I've left a note on the now deleted article stating that I'd restore it to a non-sockpuppet account. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'll delete Draft:Deep K. Patel under the same premise. I have no problem with someone getting the content if they're not a sockpuppet, but it's mildly promotional. I figure that the only person that is truly interested in improving it is the now blocked editor, but if anyone wants to take a crack at it then I don't mind restoring it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Great, thanks! The book will come out in a few months. As I told the sock, I seriously doubt it's going to meet notability guidelines before then, but we'll just have to wait and see. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming Art+Feminism events in Oregon

Art+Feminism logo

You are invited to participate in Oregon's upcoming Art+Feminism events, which will be held in Portland and Eugene on Saturday, March 5, 2016. Please see the following links for additional information, or to sign up:

---

• Portland: Yale Union (800 SE 10th Avenue), 12:00–5:00pm
• Eugene: Architecture and Allied Arts (A&AA) Library (200 Lawrence Hall, University of Oregon), 12:00–5:00pm

---

About Art+Feminism: Art+Feminism is pleased to announce its third annual Wikipedia edit-a-thon, an all-day event designed to generate coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia and encourage female editorship. Last year, over 1,500 participants at more than 75 events around the world participated in the second annual campaign, resulting in the creation of nearly 400 new pages and significant improvements to 500 articles on Wikipedia. For more information, see Art+Feminism.

You received this message because you have attended a Wikipedia meetup in Oregon or contributed to WikiProject Oregon. To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

About Gabriel Cousens' malpractice

Hi Grayfell and thanks for your input.

I have here 2 secondary sources about Gabriel Cousens' malpractice record

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/special/raw-vegan-gurus.shtml

https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/2012/11/raw-food-does-not-cure-diabetes/

Could you tell me what my next steps are?

Given that the subject is not a really known person, and most of the citations are self-published, and the previous versions of the article quite glorifying, and most of the third party mentions unflattering, I would not trust any of the self-published content, including schools, and I believe this doubt is reasonable. Actually, I doubt this page should even exist.

Any thoughts about it?

00:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Cafnas (talk)

@Cafnas: Hello. The Gabriel Cousens article has a complicated history. The talk page is currently mostly empty, but it has two lengthy archives (Talk:Gabriel Cousens/Archive 1 and Talk:Gabriel Cousens/Archive 2). Some of those discussions are on what qualifies as a reliable source. Articles about living people must be held to higher standards, and articles about medicine also must be held to higher standards, per WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. I don't think Diabetes Daily or BeyondVeg are reliable sources by Wikipedia's guidelines. They look like interesting and useful sites, but not for this. I'm not defending Cousens, but he is a living person, and reports on criminal behavior and similar need to be held to high standards, for obvious reasons. This official documents on the malpractice information are brief and esoteric and needs an expert summary before it should be included. Otherwise it's not really clear to a general reader what they signify. I would like to include this info, but caution is called for here, and sources need to be good.

Before those talk page discussion, the article was previously deleted three times for various reasons. The most recent deletion was after a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion (here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Cousens) where Cousens himself requested the article be deleted. After that there was a deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 5), and then another AFD nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Cousens (2nd nomination)) where it was decided to keep the article. This doesn't mean that the article must stick around forever, but it's worth knowing why the article was kept. All of these are pretty tedious (or at least, the parts I was involved with were), but it demonstrates that this is a messy issue. I'm not eager to go over it again right now in depth, and I would have to look over the current sources, as well, but I would tentatively support deleting it again. The notability guideline is here WP:NBIO. I will take another look at it again when I have more time. I hope that's at least sort of helpful. Let me know if you have any more questions. Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Wow, I had no idea of the tumultuous past of this article. I'm new to this. Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain.

There is the phoenix new time article, but since it is already used as a citation, I assume you don't think it is good enough as a secondary source?

01:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Cafnas (talk)

Good catch. It's a fine source, I just didn't notice that it was mentioned there. Another editor has used the primary sources to include the info, and I've added and slightly expanded on that with the New Times source. I would probably be best to continue this discussion at Talk:Gabriel Cousens. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Amway article

Waste of time

No idea what you mean by "badge of shame". I refer you to Template:POV for correct usage of the tag, which the user who added it followed correctly. Yourself and Rhode Island Red however are ignoring correct usage for removal. I would suggest for example you follow the recommendation "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight" and contribute to the discussion. --Icerat (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Tags damage articles. They can, in cases like this, allow minor content disputes to undermine an entire article. A badge of shame is when an improvement tags is used to hold an article hostage unless POV changes are made. I see it a lot on contentious topics such as racism or pseudoscience, where they are promptly removed as gaming the system on behalf of WP:FRINGE interests. Wikipedia in general is only slightly more willing to accept this for commercial interests like this, but I personally have no patience for any of it. That you have not edited in years and are only bringing up your general complaints about the article now, after another WP:SPA complains, suggests that your intentions are to use this to shift the article towards a more flattering light, which is against Wikipedia's policies and philosophies. You would be better served answering the points raised on the talk page, and only restoring the tag with great caution after such avenues have been fully exhausted. I see no reason to continue this discussion here. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Honestly review the literate on Amway, Grayfellow, you'll find that WP:BALANCE would require us to "shift the article towards a more flattering light". There are dozens of books and even more academic articles on the topic. I stopped editing Wikipedia because of editors like RIR deleting any information that didn't fit their worldview on the topic of MLMs. Today for example I removed text from the section on Poland that was false, not reflected in the sources given, and contradicted in the other sources. RIR reverted those changes, and you've made no action to correct his actions, despite the fact you clearly are monitoring the article. Why? --Icerat (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Again with the loaded questions? It was funny at first, but now it's just insulting. Also, "Grayfellow"... Is that supposed to be cute? You're not really showing me much respect, so it's hard to take seriously your advice to review the, uh, "literature" I think you meant. I get that English probably isn't your native language, much like your "colleagues" who've been supporting your edits, and I'm not trying to make fun of you, but if you should slow down and be more careful here, otherwise you lose all credibility when attacking others for similar minor mistakes. Actually, just stop doing that regardless, it's rude and counterproductive. If Rhode Island Red made any errors, and I'm sure it's totally possible, the thing to do is explain them on the talk page. From what I saw your changes to the Poland section were not obviously an improvement, but I don't really know. The section was a mess before, and it was a mess after. I'm not saying you were wrong, I just didn't really see what you were trying to do, so I'm not inclined to restore it. I don't speak Polish, (do you?) and I don't particularly trust Google Translate, so I'm not inclined to get involved without a better grasp of the issue. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Amway - NPOV dispute

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) 00:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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!

Yup, thanks. I'll keep an eye on it and respond when I get a chance. Grayfell (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

CM

I presume you know he was blocked for 42 hours last night. The page itself is under discretionary sanctions which of course apply to all of us, and he's had 2 DS alerts relevant to the page. I think he has real competence problems (there's a bit of discussion on my talk page) and I don't see him as able to grasp the concepts he's dealing with or our guidelines and policies. Ah, I should ask you if you think I should add a talk page header saying the page is under DS. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed the block right after I reverted. In hindsight maybe I should've waited myself, but I can't fully convince myself this wasn't disruptive enough to be vandalism. I've frequently felt baffled by CM's comments and responses. I can't tell if it's CIR or something else, but I guess it doesn't really matter in the end. I agree with MjolnirPants' assessment, and as for the header: yes. I have AE on my watchlist, so if it comes to that, I may chime in, but I think shorter is sweeter at this stage. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Daniel P. Sheehan's Bio

Grayfell, Thank you for your comments on the Citations for Daniel P. Sheehan's bio page. However, I wanted to point out that the authors bio page actually does directly state that he is working on a book that is due in the fall of 2016. Here is the quote, "Dan is the author of THE PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE for COUNTERPOINT PRESS of Berkeley, California and will publish his second of three books for COUNTERPOINT PRESS in fall of 2016 entitled: RULERS OF THE REALM." It is the very last line of the author's bio page at: http://danielpsheehan.com/about/biography . I personally feel that this is enough evidence to be able to cite that Daniel Sheehan is working on a book, I have heard him mention the book frequently in his public lectures around the santa cruz area. He also mentions it in the Coast 2 Coast interview that I attempted to link to, which you deleted (fair enough, you need to pay to hear the selection anyway, not a great source). Daniel Sheehan also mentions the book in several discussions with interested fans on his public figure Facebook page. So I personally know that Daniel P. Sheehan is working on a book, he himself has mentioned it many times in Public, on publicly available radio, and in public forums online, and it indisputably says that he is on the bio page of the author's own website (link above). I am going to put the citation back in linking to his bio page, again where he specifically references the forthcoming book in the last line of his bio, please do not delete that source.

In regards to the problem with "Peacock" language I will have a look to tone down the rhetoric, and add more sources to cite Daniel Sheehan's achievements, which are many. NoahX76 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. The source does not, however, mention that the book is about Kennedy, and while it could be argued that it's being implied, sources should directly support attached statements. It's not clear why it's so important that it's being included in the lede, which is generally supposed to summarize important info from the body of the article. With those point in mind, I'm going to adjust it accordingly. If you can find verifiable sources which explain that Rulers of the Realm is about Kennedy, then it likely would belong in the body of the article. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Cult leader who murdered his wife

Ha! Bastards keep vandalizing Scientology pages, thinking they're being clever. :) Damotclese (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, this wasn't that clever, and even the clever stuff gets old very quickly... Well, okay, there have been a very few that have made me laugh, but it's rare, and this sure wasn't one of them. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

IYogi

Why is Pacer not a reliable source when the court itself refers to Pacer in it's online website as a source to get data from ? --http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/ecf/documents/ElectronicPublicAccessFeeSchedule_000.pdf

Engine Gone Loco (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Engine Gone Loco: Hello. It may seem fussy, I know. Pacer is reliable, but it's very, very poor for establishing weight. Lawsuits happen all the time and deciding which ones to include and exclude typically requires independent coverage for context. Court documents are the quintessential WP:PRIMARY sources. Most readers do not have the technical expertise to interpret them or evaluate how significant they are, and it's far too common to see them used to impart a specific POV. For comparison, The Washington State action looks to be well documented, and that's the kind of coverage that very clearly established a lawsuit as being significant and clearly contextualized. Grayfell (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Help with Jarret Myer?

Hi Grayfell! I'm reaching out to see if you might be able to help me with the Jarret Myer article. I suggested some improvements several months back and have generally had positive feedback about them, but no one has been able to make any edits. I won't do it myself, because I have a financial COI and prepared the suggestions on Myer's behalf. If you have time, would you be able to take a look and tell me what you think? I realize this may not be quite in your wheelhouse, but since you were so helpful on the Tipper Gore article, I thought I would ask. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited January, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juno. 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) 10:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Is R2-45 about shooting someone?

Hi Grayfell,

At Talk:R2-45, there is a discussion about whether it is about shooting people. To me, it seems to be pretty obvious that this is the case, but I'd like an independent POV. --Slashme (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientology beliefs and practices

Hello Grayfell. Regarding my addition of passage from Alan Black's paper. I am dumbfounded as to why you seem to arbitrarily label this is an "unreliable" source. The same paper has actually been cited at #2 on the same Wikipedia page. Who is to decide that this is unreliable? You mentioned also that this is an SPS. How so? How are you able to determine that this paper is "extremely obscure?" According to whose standards? Please enlighten me as I want to understand what can be used as a reliable source. I believe that my edit on the Dynamics is sound and adds much to the section, and I attest that it should remain. The edits on the lead section are also meant to enrich the section from direct quotes from Scientology text, to further contextualize the information here.Livetoedit1123 (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The Black source give no indication that it was ever actually published. The Theta.com source is even worse, as it give no indication who wrote it or when, and it's republished at a Scientology website, but not as a proper article, just as a text-dump. Changes to specific articles should be discussed at those article's talk pages, not here. Also, methodically making trivial edits to non-Scientology articles does very little to assuage WP:SPA concerns; in fact, it does the opposite, as it gives the appearance of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. If this is a concern of yours, consider putting more effort into some of the other topics you edit. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

We need to talk about the Neo-Nazism page. Please stop deleting my undoing of biased revisions.

Fascism and Nazism are not right-wing. Nazism itself is left-wing totalitarian/authoritarian. Likewise, fascism is not exclusively right-wing, it is simply a branch of authoritarianism that constitutes oppressive repression of political dissidence, and demagoguery through mass-media propaganda, extreme nationalism, and cult-of-personality tactics. I am honestly willing to debate you about this, because I really don't like seeing masses mislead to believe that a sick and disgusting ideology such as neo-nazism is some sort of poster child for fascist and racist policies that have nothing to do with the right wing. Discrediting by disassociation is a shameful tactic, and this is worsened by the fact that it simply isn't true.

Please respond, because I really want to find a compromise for the neo-nazi page. I don't think misleading curious masses via left-wing bias is the right thing to do.

J-rod916 (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC) With respect, and with peace and intelligence in mind, - J-rod916

Why are you posting this here and not to the talk page discussion you started? Regardless, your definitions are not widely accepted by reliable sources. As has already been discussed many, many times, neo-Nazis are generally considered part of the extreme right wing. If you don't agree, you need to find reliable sources and continue the discussion at the article's talk page. Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. Grayfell (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Women are everywhere"

Hi Grayfell. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stream Energy logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stream Energy logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The first 40 results on Google.

Just hard enough to inspire you to heal that year-old scar on Wikipedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Wikipedia Page

Anuj agarwal name was used twice but why you have removed other two names from key people Please let us know the reason for removing key people name from the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Page. For Anuj Agarwal the reason I understood that it was given before also but deleting other people names also I din't got the reason. Please clarify the reason and also give some suggestions Harman Ahuja (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Harman Ahuja: Wikipedia isn't a directory of employees. The CEO is generally considered acceptable to mention because he or she is the highest ranking executive. The importance of the other positions is not clear, even with the sources you provided. The sources mentioned that they held those positions, but that's not enough to support them as being "key people". The company has thousands of employees, correct? Mentioning those people without explaining why they are encyclopedically important to the company is unduly promotional. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. Additionally, Wikipedia accounts are only supposed to be used by one person. Sharing accounts is strictly forbidden. Do you understand this? Answer please. Grayfell (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I understood thanx for your response Harman Ahuja (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wes Craven

Mr. Craven's profound impact in the field of filmmaking, especially in the Horror genre, is widely accepted across a very wide range of sources familiar with the matter (as reflected by the many sources i provided). Further the commercial successes of his many works and the influence of them, as well as their meaning in popular culture are well documented and can easily be checked. You may pay a close look at all the different sources i provided and see how the additions i made to the article are indeed valid. I understand that you seem to have questioned the objective nature, however my contributions i.e. specifications in the introductory part shall not be mistaken as personal opinion or even favoritism, (which i certainly never intended). So i think my contributions should be restored and are perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia quality standards and do not merely display a subjective point of view, but are much rather a meaningful and objective fact-based addition to the introductory part about Mr. Craven. Greetings from germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.158.131 (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've responded here: User_talk:84.135.158.131#April_2016. Grayfell (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

An edit you reverted

Hi. I saw that you reverted an edit to Phantasm (film). I agree that it was likely refspam, but what neutrality issue did you notice? I rewrote that text and thought I resolved the issues. I was just going to let it go, personally. I'm too tired of dealing with drama to chastise the user for spamming citations to what looks like his own website. But this particular edit was, in my opinion, a minor improvement to the article, as it went a little more in-depth into something the director had previously discussed in other interviews. It's not a big deal, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your edits were definitely an improvement, and if you want to revert I'm okay with that. My edit was perhaps knee-jerk, and I've looked more closely at the interview. I think agree there is content worth considering, but superficially the screenwriter is basically saying "it took me a while to realize how I was going to write the movie". Which, y'know, so what? I've restored the line about it being a road film, and expanded a bit. I dunno, something about the long-term pattern of SPA editing gets under my skin a bit, but you're right, it's not a big deal. Again, if you want to revert, please do. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your frustration with the refspam. It's annoying to find it – doubly so when the website is prominently advertised in every edit ("in an interview with MY BLOG, the writer-director said..."). It's tempting to simply revert this stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even clearly realize it until you said it, but that's what's so irritating about this: the web-site name dropping. Much of this content is actually very good, but the way it's added has been kind of lazy and self-serving, so it's very tempting to revert. Oh well. Grayfell (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent reversals

You've been reversing vandalism here [3] and here [4]. Notice that the offender is posting from open proxies, which in itself is not permitted. Now that this disruption of wikipedia has gotten the attention of a veteran editor like yourself, maybe it will stop, although not likely. Other examples of this users' vandalism are here [5], which resulted in the page being locked, here [6], in which the editor questions a fact no serious editor denies, and here [7], where cited text is altered. I encourage you to verify the last one independently, as I have the book used as a source and know which version if more faithful to the source. 63.143.225.66 (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There is definitely something weird going on here. I'll dig deeper when I get a chance, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Fyi, this editor has returned. [8] [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.228.170 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Professional Fraternities

I was looking to see what I needed to recreated Delta Epsilon Iota, now it drops in priority to be even with every other redlink in Professional_Fraternity_Association#Former_members. Oh well. :)Naraht (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

There were enough redlinks at the PFA article that I figured it would be better to stick to existing articles for the navbox. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Epsilon Iota made it seems like it might be sketchy or a scam or something? Briefly searching, all I found was the usual grumbling that could be about any less common honor society but maybe there's something to it. The website doesn't really fill me with confidence, but even big fraternities often have bad sites. Anyway, it's easy enough to put back if it happens. Grayfell (talk)

Not really a scam I think, but I'm going to have to look again. The fact that they actually became part of PFA means that *someone* there evaluated them as "Not a Scam". And I'm not sure that the "previously part of PFA" (or PPA/PIC) list at the PFA article is complete. Maybe separating out PIC and PFA articles would help, but I don't think so. I think I'm just going to have to write them all. (And given that the youngest of the groups with redlinks other than DEI was founded in 1944, it really is out of place).Naraht (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point. That it was even a concern does, at least, support that it's premature to include in the navbox until there is a sourced article we can point to. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Mark Flood

I should like you to kindly remove your unfounded Speedy Deletion tag from the page I created. There is not enough evidence on your part to suggest that it has no place on Wikipedia, and plenty of support to suggest it does. Delete your tag and move on to something else. Thank you kindly. WalkOn75 (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

No, we can let an admin decide the fate of the article. There are solid reasons to believe this is an act of WP:SOCK puppetry to avoid scrutiny, which has happened many times before with this article. The usable sources have already been discussed at the past AFDs, while several of the new sources used do not mention Flood at all. This fits the past pattern of WP:BOMBARDMENT. In addition, the article is very similar to past versions, suggesting copy/paste. This is pretty quacking. If Mark Flood is really noteworthy enough for an article, someone else will have to write it. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WalkOn75 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There are no reasons to believe this sock puppetry. Kindly provide examples of which sources have been used before. If it is similar to past versions, it is most likely as there is only so many ways you can word a biography. Provide solid proof that Mark Flood is not noteworthy of an article, as he quite clearly is already. WalkOn75 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Peckerwood article

Hey, my edits to the Peckerwood article simply reorganized the content within the article - into two distinct sections: the street gang and the terminology. I will let someone else do the terminology section of the page. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "unsourced" because the everything inside the template can be found in the sources throughout the article. I will go back and source whats in the template Everything in my contribution to that page is justified in relation to the content of the article. The rest of the article is about terminology that seems to lack better sources so I will proceed with writing the street gang section and when I have found sources on the term itself i will make that its own section. My old account is retired and my edits were technically not edit warring and were completely justified. You reverted the page back to the way it looked when it sourced articles from neo-nazi blogs which was actually counter-productive. QubixQdotta (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Fundamental Attribution Error Example Discussion

Grayfell, I hope this message finds you in good health and spirits.

I'd like to discuss my changes to the "Fundamental attribution error" article. More specifically, my addition of an example that I believe parsimoniously illustrates the principles of the fundamental attribution error. The revision numbers that pertain to this discussion are 692480676 & 669274882 and the revisions that removed these additions.

I appreciate your invitation to discuss this example. I believe a discussion will improve the article's validity and likely improve my understanding of the fundamental attribution error. In the spirit of cooperation and learning, I'd like to ask a few questions about my example and the fundamental attribution error that I hope will begin our discussion. In the interest of precision, my questions only apply to my example and not the examples which were removed along with it.

Concerning feedback: "All of these examples are overly complex and unsourced..." What constitutes a valid source for examples of the fundamental attribution error? What value would such a source add to the article? What degree of complexity is acceptable for these examples? How is example complexity measured?

Please remember, I'm only interested in adding my example to the article. I believe more than one example is helpful. I have no interest in removing or changing any other examples or other information in the article at this time.

Have a great day. Kd7jhd (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Soapboxing

What have I added that is wrong? All I have done is added references to existing materials on the GI page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The Soapboxing comments were about USANA Health Sciences, which someone at your IP has been aggressively attempting to whitewash for several days now.

The edits to Glycemic index were sourced to the main gisymbol.com page (which doesn't discuss the symbol and is a primary source) and totalwellbeingdiet.com, which appears to be pure spam. That IP was already reverted once before by you, so continuing to add the material without discussion is WP:EDITWARRING. The existing description did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for neutral coverage of medical information, per WP:MEDRS, so I've removed it. If you want to re-add it, please include reliable source and consider rephrasing it so that it doesn't subtly endorse the use of the symbol through WP:PEACOCK words or similar. Grayfell (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I have added the following to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

(TL;DR)

I have added the following to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Alleged Soapboxing VS Gatekeeping on the Usana Health Sciences page over the past 18 months I would like Administrator intervention because I don't understand what have I done to justify a revert let alone threats of blocking? Furthermore, I reiterate my request of 5 May 2016 that Grayfell be blocked from editing the Usana Health Sciences page and if he is found to have engaged in anything more serious I ask that he be blocked entirely. I am not the first user to have difficulty with Grayfell while editing the Usana Health Sciences page. Over the last 18 months, Grayfell has reverted every significant revision and I note that many of those users no longer appear active, so perhaps you could look into whether they have been erroneously blocked. ON THIS OCCASION: Grayfell asked for more context about the TGA. He deleted the context I originally provided, so I provided an alternative from multiple sources both primary and secondary. (The government agency itself and a journal article about the government agency. Surely a government regulator is a viable source but I provided the other source as well.) I provided more material, up to date material from sources that were already listed on the page. (I went to the ConsumerLab website and found a 2016 survey the results of which I added with the 2011 materials.) I deleted a report by a non-scientifically trained journalist (yes, I have looked up his bio on the Time website) who is the author, experimenter & only test subject of his own non-clinical non-peer reviewed trial because that report has the encyclopedic veracity of a unicorn. I added a reference to the GI symbol program and outlined its veracity. In particular that it is a not-for-profit foundation run by the University of Sydney and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. (In my original edit, I also included data from their testing.) I also added similar details to the Glycemic Index page and elevated the GI Symbol Program to it's own section (given that it is a widely accepted Australian and now international standardised testing procedure). Rather than just revert the page, on this occasion, the entire section on the GI symbol has been removed by Grayfell. Previously he has cited comments that cast individuals in an unreasonably positive light and reverted any changes that provide an opposing point of view. Grayfell has cited an article titled "Barry Minkow: All-American con man" to say that Minkow is a fruad-buster and pastor, even though the theme of the article makes the point that he is in fact a serial-swindler. The article establishes a long standing pattern of deception and distortion against companies over the decade in question. Grayfell only deleted this reference when this hypocrisy was pointed out on a post 5 May 2016. MY VIEW: Granted, I may not have adhered to policy all of the time. (My interactions with Grayfell have made me aware of many policy areas I had never even considered might be relevant to my edits.) However, I have not acted vindictively or with malice. I have simply tried to expand the available knowledge base. I have always tried to delete elements that have limited veracity. Where unsubstantiated opinion has been offered, I have tried to provide an alternate point of view. I have listed things, because lists simplify understanding and seem to abound on Wikipedia. I expect that this has become something personal for Grayfell. Stalking me around on other pages and deleting my work is not exactly impartial, particularly when my last edit was a simple edit to the Glycemic Index page. I feel that Grayfell has educated himself in the rules and procedures and placed himself in a position where he can erroneously revert any change made to the Usana page. It makes wonder if other users have experienced this problem in the past. It also makes me wonder what personal connection he has with Usana, supplements and the state of Utah. Perhaps a review of his edit history might shed some light on that. CONCLUSION: I would like a sockpuppet check of the following user IP addresses: 172.58.41.35 and 113.172.26.48 in association with Grayfell. I would like Grayfell blocked from the USANA Health Sciences page if not Wikipedia as a whole. I will be notifying Grayfell of this post via his talk page. Given that Wikipedia is the world's top online encyclopedia, I expect that USANA will be keen to see a fair and neutral point of view adopted for their entry. Kind regards 122.148.118.18 PREVIOUSLY ON 5 MAY I WROTE: As both an informational and financial contributor I understand how important it is that this source be open and free. I understand that it is not possible to employ vast numbers of editors to fix problems and that it is necessary to have well meaning, community minded individuals to volunteer their time to make Wikipedia great. I acknowledge that I have made errors at times and am grateful that we have a wonderful community who have quickly picked them up. Sadly, from time to time it becomes apparent that one of these users has their own cause to pursue: in particular, highly regarded User:Grayfell and his interest in the USANA Health Sciences page. Since December 2014 User:Grayfell has consistently reverted changes made by various users. User:Grayfell has cited things such as "Previous version was more in line with WP:NPOV. Removing bit about sports certification, which would need WP:SECONDARY sources." "WP:NPOV" "Trivial. Needs more than just PR to be worth mentioning." and "What exactly does that have to do with USANA?" to justify these changes. These have resulted in responses such as "Opinions are not facts. If you are going to post opinion, post opposing opinion also." Of particular note, User:Grayfell has cited an article by Fortune [Forbes] titled "Barry Minkow: All-American con man" (at 01:55, 5 December 2014). User:Grayfell has cited this article to reference that Minkow was a senior pastor at the Community Bible Church and executive of the Fraud Discovery Institute (FDI). (Without reading the title of the cite, one would assume from this that Minkow is a respectable individual.) Yet attempts to cite the same article to give an opposing point of view about Minkow are reverted. For example: The opening line of the article describes him as "entrepreneur, fraud fighter, pastor, movie actor – and serial swindler." The story goes on to say that Minkow has been convicted of embezzling $3 million from the above mentioned church and of using his position at the FDI to make false statements. I suspect User:Grayfell has also incorrectly cited a story by "La Fracture" (http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/la_facture/2008-2009/Reportage.asp?idDoc=75158). However my French is not good enough to be sure of this. And then there was the "possible vandalism" by 113.172.26.48, a Mobile edit / Mobile web edit. This simply added "Which don't work" to the end of the product description. Perhaps just a coincidence that it should occur so soon after my revision. I respectfully request that a review of the USANA Health Sciences page and its edit history be undertaken. I further suggest that User:Grayfell be blocked from making further edits to the page. I will also be forwarding a copy of this to USANA for their information. Given that Wikipedia is the world's top online encyclopedia, I expect that USANA will be keen to see a fair and neutral point of view adopted for their entry. Kind regards 122.148.118.18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read all that very closely at all, sorry, but I get the impression you are very confused about how Wikipedia works. Again you repeat your intentions to forward this info to Usana, as if Usana should even be involved. This suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, which is not for advertising, and has strict guidelines around conflict of interest editing for just his reason. Wikipedia's policies forbid undisclosed paid editing, and it's unethical as well. If you are an affiliate of Usana, you should carefully consider how you're spending your time here. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)