User talk:Grayfell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello! Please leave new messages at the bottom of the article. Don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Thanks. Grayfell (talk)

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Grayfell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

MonaVie[edit]

Hi there,

On MonaVie the Huffington post "source" at citation 13: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/19/monavie-juice-pyramid-sch_n_651845.html

isn't actually Huffington Post. It's a redirect to a blog that has no editorial oversight whatsoever. The huffpo snippet is just a title scraper to the huffpo food blog. Please remove this citation. The accompanying scheme text is supported by the Forbes blogpost.

You'll see a similar situation with newsweek at cite 10. That is a deadlink. How about leave the Forbes blog piece (cite 12) to support the scheme angle.

Cite 10 and 13 should go.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.7.162 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good points. See Talk:MonaVie. Thanks Grayfell (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

abilene paradox[edit]

Dear Grayfell, I have requested that a key external link be whitelisted. I posted the request on Jan. 11 and, as of date, nobody has commented on the request. Could you please assist in moving the request forward by offering your viewpoint? Thank you. IjonTichy (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... It looks like the ball is rolling now. I think that's the first time I've seen that page (Abilene paradox), although I vaguely recall having heard the term before. I don't have a strong opinion on the link yet, so I'll keep an eye on it and chime in if I have anything to contribute. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mata Amritanandamayi[edit]

I have provided references along with all the edits. Mata Amritanandamayi is not devi. Devi means goddess. A living person cannot be devi, unless it is a name given So, correct that part. Also, the wiki article says, Satnam Singh attacked security guards, which is not true. I have added the youtube link of the incident, but you removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bincyphil (talkcontribs) 04:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Although I did revert an edit of yours, I didn't remove a Youtube link, that was someone else. The edit you added was a violation of WP:BLP, which is a very serious problem. Please discuss future edits on the article's talk page: Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the multiple BLP violations going on on the Mata Amritanandamayi page. Is there anything that can be done to prevent this Wiki page from being a platform for defamation? 67.0.219.20 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I was out of town for a couple of days, sorry it has taken me so long to respond. Wikipedia works on a WP:CONSENSUS model, which can be tedious, but is a very powerful process. It looks like an ongoing discussion is happening at the talk page (Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi). As long as that is still going on, continued WP:CIVIL discussion is probably the best way to go forward. You might also take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive195#Mata Amritanandamayi, which was just posted. Keep an eye on that, and chime in if you think you have something to contribute there. If things become a serious crisis, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is one place to consider, but only as a last resort. Most administrators are sympathetic to how difficult it can be to navigate Wikipedia's maze of sites and policies, but there's very little patience for 'forum shopping'. I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Street Art[edit]

Hi, backjumps should be added to the article its verry important in the history of street art in Berlin. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/travel/02headsup.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.tip-berlin.de/Backjumps Thank youAgilemonkey (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, Street art is a big article that covers a lot of places and times. The NY Times article only mentions a Backjump festival once, from 2007, and doesn't mention it as being the most significant show in Europe or anything of the sort. The other source is just a local listing, right? It does look like it's somewhat significant, but you need to find better sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Grayfell. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Slab City links[edit]

Hi Grayfell, I recently added a link to a music video about Salvation Mountain and Slab City to their respective Wikipedia pages. The link was to a song that was written about the Salvation Mountain and Slab City with a loving dedication to Leonard Knight. Leonard and others at Slab City, Salvation Mountain and East Jesus all loved Kylie Campion, the artist who wrote the song. Leonard asked her to help spread the word. The song and the video are going to be used in an upcoming documentary about Leonard and Salvation Mountain by Picture Lock Studios. I was wondering why you removed it? Did I do something wrong? Can we get it back up there? Please let me know. Thanks Camptunes (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Camptunes. Sorry, but there are several reasons I don't think the video belongs.
It kinda sounds to me like you're trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote a music video. No matter how good your intentions, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or soapboxing. It's also not a repository of external links, although it unfortunately tends to get used that way sometimes. You might want to read Wikipedia's policies on external links, but the gist of it is that external links sections should be kept small and tightly focused on the topic.
Without reliable sources it's hard to know how significant the video is to an understanding of Slab City or Salvation Mountain. Campion may be beloved by Salvation Mountain, but that info needs to be WP:VERIFIABLE, and it needs to be given due WP:WEIGHT. Think of it this way: Slab City and Leonard Knight have influenced many people. We can't begin to list all of them. We need a little bit of context explaining why it's important, and we need that to be backed up by sources, otherwise it just looks like advertising.
Hopefully I've explained where I'm coming from, if you have any additional questions, I'll be happy to try and answer. Talk:Slab City and Talk:Salvation Mountain are also good places to start a discussion. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reed Cowan[edit]

Hey, just giving you a head's up about what I'm doing with the article. I'm looking to see if there are any new sources out there for him. I've found a review for one of his documentaries and if I can find more, then that could help establish notability. I have a feeling that I might run this through a second AfD rather than replace the speedy tag, but in any case I wanted to let you know what's going on. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Hmm... looks like his documentaries have received enough coverage to where I'd say that he could pass notability guidelines. If you want you can still take it to AfD, but I think that he'd pass this time around. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no strong opinion one way or the other, I just noticed that there was some fishy editing going on after looking into an IP vandal. The article looks much, much better now. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Chuck's Challenge 3D[edit]

Factually Chuck's Challenge 3D is list on Desura however it has now been changed to 'Invite Only' which mean you can no longer download it from Desura unless you get special permission from the Developer. It is now available on Steam instead. Hence why I have updated where you can get it from Allack (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm very confused about your latest change for two reasons. 1) You say that Wikipedia isn't a directory of sales sites but now you want to list all the places where the game has been sold and is currently on sale. 2) Greenlight is not a store it is a place where the Steam Community votes on which games they want on the Steam store. Therefore removing the date it was voted on and calling it a store is incorrect. Allack (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess I wasn't very clear. We shouldn't pick-and-choose which sites we include. If a site was worth mentioning in the past, why is it no-longer worth mentioning now? While I don't think we should bother with listing all of these sites, I'm not willing to remove them just yet. As I said (on your talk), if secondary sources can be found we can re-assess this. Greenlight isn't a store, but it is a process by which a game reaches a store. The date it was voted on for Greenlight seems very trivial, and a tad promotional, and I'm not sure why it matters. Chip's Challenge already gives too much WP:WEIGHT to a different game that happens to be by the same author. I was attempting to trim it down a bit. I intend to trim it down further, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond, and hopefully find some secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

How about these http://gamerattitude.com/reviews-upated/chucks-challenge-3d-on-steam-review/ "Despite having the same core design philosophy as Chip’s Challenge the game does feel like a breath of fresh air." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allack (talkcontribs) 00:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Allack (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Steam Greenlight date might not be as important but that people voted for it and it got though is important as only a limited number get though. Allack (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It currently mentions that the game got to Steam via Greenlight. I'll expand that to make it clearer, but I think there are more pressing problems. I think you posted the wrong link, since it doesn't include the quote about Chip's Challenge. The gamerattitude review is by a guy who has only reviewed one game. The site is still very small, has no contact information to speak of, and the only reference to Chip's Challenge is in a search-tag. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library is a page specifically designed for this type of situation. Sorry, if I'd remembered it, I would've mentioned it sooner. Be wary of press-releases hosted by news sites, which are a common stumbling block. They aren't reliable as secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry here the right link for the first post http://enemyslime.com/2014/02/review-chucks-challenge-3d/
OK how about Rock, Paper, Shotgun here which is a much bigger site http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/08/chip-off-the-old-block-chucks-challenge-released/ When I was at school, before I discovered Doom deathmatch, I used to spend my evenings trying to beat every fiendish level of Chip’s Challenge. Wikipedia informs me that there were 149 levels in the version that I owned and I’m not convinced I saw more than a hundred. Tile-based, ice-sliding, crate-pushing, switch-hitting puzzlers aren’t my favourite forms of entertainment, but it’s more than nostalgia that has kept spiritual sequel Chuck’s Challenge on my radar. Developed by Chip’s creator Chuck Sommerville, it’s a puzzle game and creation tool all in one and it’s out now.
Or the actual Steam Product page http://store.steampowered.com/app/262590 From the design veteran behind the classic game Chip's Challenge, comes Chuck’s Challenge 3D, a fiendishly addictive puzzler that’s packed with features that will tease the brain and challenge the fingers.
Or US Gamer http://www.usgamer.net/articles/chucks-challenge-3d-pc-review-just-like-chuck-used-to-make Chip's Challenge originated on the Lynx but proved popular enough to spawn ports to numerous platforms, ranging from the Commodore 64 to DOS- and Windows-based PCs. Chuck's Challenge 3D is actually the third follow-up to the original game -- Chip's Challenge 2 never saw public release due to a legal dispute between Sommerville and the original copyright holder, and the original Chuck's Challenge was an iOS exclusive that came out back in 2012 from Sommerville's new company Niffler. Chuck's Challenge 3D is a reimagining of the latter, this time for Windows, OSX and Linux plus Android mobile devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allack (talkcontribs) 09:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Those are all pretty good (except the Steam Store one, which is WP:PRIMARY, not secondary). I have reigned in a lot of material that seemed pretty superfluous to me. The Desura thing is one of them, but I also removed a lot of info about being Kickstarted and Greenlit, as well. Upon consideration, it just seemed too trivial. As you may have noticed, none of the secondary sources actually talk about that stuff. If the Chuck's Challenge games get their own page someday, then maybe. My intention was to keep the article at an appropriate WP:WEIGHT, which is pretty light, since the games are fairly new, fairly small, and are being discussed in an article about a different game. At this point it's become clear that the place to discuss any further edits is at Talk:Chip's Challenge -not here. Grayfell (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mail from bsalyers re: SFUAD page[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Grayfell. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Bsalyers (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Beta Theta Pi chapters, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bethany College and Westminster College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Amen[edit]

I reverted your edit to Daniel Amen. I think the article make it pretty clear and there is additional support on the talk page. Also treatments, diagnostic techniques etc are biomedical information if not supported by MEDRS (and Amen's work isn't) they must be qualified on WP. Bring suggestions to talk. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

After looking over it some more, you were right to revert me. The wording is so unusual, I reflexively assumed it was something fishy, but he's really that odd and legitimately controversial.
Thanks for your openmindedness and perusal of the article. To be frank, I put much of that wording in hastily to bring the article in compliance with MEDRS. If you have suggestions for better wording or phrasing, by all means edit. The article may have tipped... - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Nah, it looks fine to me. I might tinker with some of the wording after a good night's sleep. Grayfell (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work on Narconon[edit]

Brownie transparent.png Greetings, Grayfell! That was an excellent update to Narconon, it reads one whole hell of a lot better now. Damotclese (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Gosh, thanks! Grayfell (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Beta Theta Pi[edit]

Can you please explain how my changes to Beta Theta Pi are making the page into an advertisement? I work for Beta Theta Pi's headquarters, and the changes I have tried to make are to clarify the points and facts that are already there. Is it because I am not citing them correctly? If so, I will do so going forward. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Sorry for the trouble, still pretty new to this. kg252500(talk)

Replied here. Future discussion should be held at user's talk page, or at Talk:Beta Theta Pi. Grayfell (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ambit[edit]

Where are you getting your information on Ambit? Hard for me to believe that if Ambit's customers weren't happy in New York, they would have never received the award from JD Power and Associates in 2013 for customer satisfaction.67.246.134.173 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Dan Byers

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Yank Barry. Thank you. -- Atama 16:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

New Age[edit]

Hello, I know very well the philosophical metaphysics, but I know nothing about the New Age, so I want you to explain to me this “metaphysics is a significant historical part of the New Age movement”.--Alexis1102 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, my revert was based on Wikipedia policy more than philosophy. I think the article already explains the connection, and, superficially, the sources seem to agree. I'm not trying to draw a specific connection between the two, and I agree the relationship is debatable to say the least. However, since the term 'metaphysics' (and variations) is prominently used several times in the article, removing the categorization without changing the article seems premature. The term is also used in many of the article's sources, as well. Sometimes it's used to mean 'non-physical', but others seem like they are referring to the philosophical meaning. Since this is a specific content issue, it might be a good idea to continue this discussion at the article's talk page Talk:New Age. I'll just add that reviewing Wikipedia:Categorization might be useful, if you haven't already. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

95.86.92.87[edit]

Hi Grayfell,

Thank you for your kind welcome to Wikipedia.

I don't see why changing the order of some paragraphs indicates that I'm biased. I think it's fair when describing a company to present their research studies before other people's opinions. Mannatech has a few studies that show that their supplements are helpful. That to me is more significant than the opinion of a 10 independent glycobiologists. The article quotes about 10 glycobiologists that felt they were ineffective, but there were no specific studies mentioned.

I think whoever wrote the article on Mannatech was biased against their supplements. The only question with their supplements is whether they are effective or not. There are no known negative side effects. When you compare them to drugs, such as antidepressants, they are extremely safe.

By the way, are you on Wikipedia's staff?

Sincerely, Sam 95.86.92.87 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. In the first paragraph of this page, I think you meant "four tildes" not "for tildes."

Thanks for catching the typo, I appreciate that!
Wikipedia tries to rely on reliable sources. Content discussing the safety of Mannatech's products must be supported by reliable source. Specifically, Wikipedia has higher standards for medical content, and you can read about that here: WP:MEDRS. In general, Wikipedia favors WP:SECONDARY sources, that is, sources that are not affiliated with what they are discussing. Since Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising, it's important to treat Mannatech's studies with due weight. The glycobiologists mentioned in the 'independent' section are recognized experts in their fields, while the studies funded by Mannatech are a different animal. If you would like to discuss this further, I recommend Talk:Mannatech so that other editors can more easily participate. If you would like, you can copy this discussion to that page. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "Content discussing the safety of Mannatech's products must be supported by reliable source." None of the glycobiologists against glyconutrients claimed it was unsafe. They only questioned its efficacy. By the way, I do not work for Mannatech. A friend of mine mentioned glyconutrients and I thought I would look it up.
You mentioned that they are safe, and that they had no known side effects, that's why I mentioned content about the safety. Stating that Mannatech's products are safe, or even implying that they are safe, absolutely needs to have WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Actually, though, you're right, efficacy must also be supported by solid sources. Also, the independent commentary section does specifically include three references. Two from Glycobiology (journal) and one from Science (journal). Again, the best place to discuss these issues is Talk:Mannatech, so that others can chime in. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Union High School (Utah)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Union High School (Utah) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to not be noteable enough

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dudel250 (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh... No. Community consensus has been that high schools are usually notable to their communities, and are therefore notable enough for articles Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). The school is verified with four reliable sources, three of which are independent, covering both routine academic matters, and for a newsworthy event with the football program. Grayfell (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Patent Troll Page[edit]

Greetings: I hope you can explain to me why the references to The Patents Video have been deleted from the Patent Troll page. As pointed out in my last version, in the early 1990s (I began practising IP law in the Silicon Valley in 1990), lawyers in the patent profession used the term Patent Troll to describe Jerry Lemelson (do you know who he was?). At any rate, in my video made in 1994, which I do not sell anymore, I just have the clip on YouTube, we depicted a patent troll. I certainly have ample evidence of that (before there was internet of course, and we barely had email at that time). It was sold to hundreds of universities, law firms and companies as stated on YouTube. I left the US in 2004, and it was not until 2007 or 2008 that I became aware that Mr. Detkin held himself out as "coining" a phrase in 2000 that had been around for yonks. I took exception. So, after negotiation, the page was changed. I did not think about it until today, and I now find another person has taken credit, Anne Gundlefinger. So I changed it again. And then it change back. So I changed it again. And then it changed back. How is it that it changes so fast and no one has discussed this with me? At any rate, it should tell the truth. Neither Anne Gundlefinger or Peter Denkin coined the phrase. It was around when I made the video. ~~Paula N. Chavez~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paula Natasha Chavez (talkcontribs) 07:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Paula Natasha Chavez (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Paula N ChavezPaula Natasha Chavez (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Paula Natasha Chavez (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

May 25 2014[edit]

Dear Grayfell, I just wanted to let you know that the page Albuquerque,New Mexico that you edited and erased the nickname I left which was "the metro" that Is a real nickname of Albuquerque you could hear it on all the news channels they say it all the time and i just wanted to let you know that, I hope I don't sound rude and if i do please let me know because Im not trying to be or sound rude.

Thank You — Preceding Thedude505 comment added by Thedude505 (talkcontribs) 02:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dude. Thanks for starting a discussion about it. The problem with Albuquerque being called The Metro is that metro just means 'city', so most big cities are called that. When the news says "The Metro area" they just mean the area around a city. Not just Albuquerque, but any city. I grew up in New Mexico, and I never heard it used as a special nickname just for Albuquerque, but I could be wrong. If you think I'm wrong, we should discuss it more at the page's talk page: Talk:Albuquerque, New Mexico, and find a reliable source explaining the name. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


June 1[edit]

There are no promotional pieces in the YTB Internatonal section.The information you add and place as "current" on the YTB page are not reflecting the current status of the company and it appears as you have an axe to grind somehow by taking off everything that might be positive about a company and only adding negative views. This is biased. I made sure to show all the aspects of both the bad and the good about this company to allow the reader to learn about the company without weight or emotion. I have followed some of your edits and noticed you have something with mlm companies. Not sure if you are a person who buys into these companies or if you had been a part of YTB itself? If you cannot keep your opinions and edits unbiased and current - with fact and no emotion, perhaps you should consider it. No more rumors. KillTheRumor (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Sources[edit]

Hello there Grayfell. Sorry to disturb you, but in this edit diff here: [1], you mentioned that I needed to insert some secondary sources to make the article crunch and not puff. Could you please tell me what did you mean by that? -- Vacationlandman (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)?

Sure, sorry, that was kind of an obscure way to describe it. The entire article is only supported by WP:PRIMARY sources, meaning sources that are affiliated with the fraternity in some way. This is a common problem with fraternity articles, not sure why. The lack of secondary sources makes it very hard to determine WP:DUEWEIGHT. Not every detail of the fraternity's history should be included, and the best way to get a sense of what's significant to the topic (crunch) and what's only added to make the frat seem more important (puff) is with reliable, secondary sources. I hope that clears things up. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that does clear things up. And just to clear things up, I didn't write an NPOV section on the Pi Lambda Phi article; It was someone else who wrote this and I felt like restructuring it to a more appropriate section. Thank you for the feedback and happy editing! Vacationlandman (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool, glad I could help. I get snarky in edit summaries, but I didn't mean to accuse you of anything. Pi Lambda Phi is hugely improved, thanks so much for that. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


A Hello from Dr. G[edit]

I see you have discovered Jordan Burroughs! How did you learn of the Olympic Gold Medalist? Sometimes, on Wikipedia, I feel like someone is checking everything I do, you know? Have you ever had that feeling? Like someone is always watching! Anyway, you didn't really think I only contributed to the Yank Barry discussion did you? The talk page, sure. There is no Burroughs talk page, just one guy who doesn't understand wrestling. I can tell from your edits and reverts you don't know much about college or Olympic wrestling either do you? As far as edits to the actual article, though, I've only made one edit to the Yank Barry article and believe me that was a nightmare. Even though you are not a fan of how I try to contribute to articles, I do appreciate you not just outright reverting all my work and rendering my time wasted. That is a horrible feeling. I have made at least 4 times the edits to the Jordan Burroughs article as I have the Yank Barry article, yet I've still been called awful names at that Yank Barry page. Tough place to try and be a Wikipedian. Anyway, I guess I'll see you at Jordan Burroughs page or the Yank Barry page. Hey, can you be an SPA by definition if you are contributing to two articles? Also, if you'd like me to fill you in on anything as far as wrestling is concerned I'd be more than happy. You seem to be more of an academic than athletic. I meant that as a compliment. Good night, sir.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did check up on your edit history. You repeatedly commented on how you hadn't seen behavior similar to the Yank Barry article on any of your other edits, and I wanted to know where you were coming from. For Jordan Burroughs, I would strongly advise going over WP:TONE and WP:NPOV. The article has significant problems with both, and your additions added to those problems. In addition, there is a lack of sources for the specific details you included.
As for your claim that you've only edited the Yank Barry article once, that's flat-out false. It takes an experienced editor about ten seconds to check your claim: According to the Toolserve analysis, you've made 9 edits to the Yank Barry article which is more than any other article. A glance at the article's history shows 5 'sets' of edits. Furthermore, talk page edits also count, and you've made 99 edits to the Barry article's talk page, and none to any other article talk pages. Easily over 90% of your edits are regarding the Yank Barry article. Many people edit under their IP address before starting an account, which complicates things, but regardless, you have clearly edited the article more than once. I'm not sure why you would claim otherwise, but if you made a genuine mistake, I suggest striking it out and adding a correction in the places you have made that statement. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay slow down. I didn't write everything in the Jordan Burroughs article. I wrote a section, and added to others. I understand what you are saying. I did't think describing a match as thrilling would be a problem. It WAS thrilling and that goes for Taylor and Burroughs, not just Burroughs, but even if that is a no go, most of that was already there and I wrote in the spirit of the article so it wouldn't seem out of place. I wasn't just going to show up and revert a bunch of work and waste an editor's time, I don't like it when that is done to me. My question is why can't you help me without suggesting I read something I've read 50 times? I'm a teacher, I'm not totally dense. I can comprehend simple subjects at least. However, I am new to Wikipedia, so no, I don't know all the ins and outs and rights and wrongs. I wish I could find an editor on here who would help me without calling me names and assuming things that are blatantly false. Please lets go over the Yank Barry edits. I had an edit reverted, which I changed, then it was reverted, and I left it. Then another editor said it was okay, so I added it again, then it was reverted. All of this was under the same topic, please check, I'm not an out and out liar, and I'm certainly not on here for a single purpose! I thought I explained the Yank Barry article has an active talk page where I see problem after problem. The Jordan Burroughs page does NOT have an active talk page. How am I going to have a bunch of talk page edits on the Jordan Burroughs page to myself? Go ahead and count talk page edits if you want, but if you need me to explain this further I'm happy to. Please, continue to vet me, there is nothing worse than being misunderstood. Also, I thought I added citation to the Burroughs article, I meant to, please show me where I didn't and I'll correct it. My overall point is I'd appreciate help without being treated like an idiot or a puppet. I just want to be treated how every other editor on Wikipedia would like to be treated. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I didn't edit under an IP address. I signed up at the end of May, can you guess why then? I just wanted to contribute to articles in a positive manner. It's been a bumpy ride and fellow editors have NOT been overly friendly. Some of that was my fault and where it was I have apologized and correct the matter. However, a lot of it was a total lack of good faith (I was called a sock on my second day, when the YB article was the third one I came across, right? not trying to make a false claim) from the beginning. I have other questions but I'll let you respond to what I've posted here so far. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to keep bothering you. I have a question. Is there anyway for me to see when people respond to me (for example when you respond to my posts above) if they don't use the reply feature? Also, just to be clear, no matter how many articles I edit, if I spend 90% of my time at the Yank Barry talk page (where I have come across the most problems), are you saying it's fair game for editors to call me names and assume I have ulterior motives? I just don't understand how I can be called an SPA when, you know for a fact, I have other articles I am trying to contribute to. That is the last one, I will await your response, please try to be nice. I'm a grown man, I don't expect you to take me under your wing, like some kid, but any cordial help would be appreciated. Nobody likes to be harshly criticized and made to feel stupid, you know? Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr Gonzo5269:, I think Atama's response to your comments on his talk page summed it up pretty well. It's not a simple situation, and choosing to edit that page as one of your first articles is like driving an 18-wheeler with a learner's permit: people are going to be skeptical that you know what you're doing. I can see why you might feel you haven't been treated fairly. I'm not trying to pick on you, but by getting involved, your edits are going to be scrutinized. If you would like a more welcoming experience, and I know I would in your shoes, there a ton of other resources. WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:ADVENTURE, and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user are some of them. Needless to say, I will join the chorus and advise you to spend some of your time working on other articles.
Regarding Jordan Burrough, as I said, the article already had problems, and your edits, in some ways, added on to those problems. You didn't do anything wrong there, and I don't think I called you any names, but I don't think your edits were %100 positive, either. Part of being an editor is knowing that your work can be undone, or deleted outright. No, it's not always a good feeling, but it's happened to all of us. I know you didn't start the problem, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. Someone else removed the word 'thrilling' after your first batch of edits, and you put it back again. By linking to a policy, like WP:NPOV, I'm not trying to be condescending to you, I'm trying to briefly explain my edits. Additionally, if you're being pointed to a page over and over, it's because we have no way of knowing if you've read it a bunch of times, or merely perused it once, or not at all.
As for keeping track of if someone has responded, I usually just add the talk page to my WP:WATCHLIST until the conversation is finished. It depends, I have mixed feelings about pinging other users. Some find it very helpful, some find it irritating, so I usually save it for very new editors, for people who have not contributed to a talk page in a while, or for people who specifically request it. There is also Template:Talkback, which you might be familiar with. Again, it's handy in some situations, but it's even more heavy-handed than pinging. Some people explain how they want to be contacted on their profile or their talk page. In my experience, those messages are not always read, but it's better than nothing. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Grayfell: Thanks for your help! Yes, I read and appreciated Atama's thoughts and help. I responded accordingly. I appreciate your help here as well. Believe it or not, I did not mean to reinsert the word "thrilling" into the Burroughs article. As I stated, it was already written in that fashion and I did not want my contributions to stand out or look out of place. I, 100%, understand what you are saying about using words like that. I have read some of your other sections and taken some lessons from those as well. Having taken a few days to reflect on it, I agree with you about being careful when choosing words to describe something as to not violate WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. What I am still having trouble with is when an editor adds something to an article that is FACT and is properly sourced and cited, and another editor argues WP:UNDUE. To me that is a total OPINION. One editor may think it is undue but another may not. I don't believe the content should be removed because one editor, personally, believes a fact is undue. What you have been talking about in the Burroughs article is cut and dry and easily understood. Wording it the way you did as opposed to "thrilling" doesn't convey as much to the reader what actually happened, but I only know that because some of the events I, personally, witnessed. However, it still makes clear sense as to why some details have to be sacrificed. When it comes to keeping actual facts from the reader, because an editor believes they are undue, that is where I'm still not comfortable. Just thinking about it as I'm describing, it is easy to just say every situation is unique. Too often that broad response (same with "comparing articles can be very tricky") is used to discount a valid point, I believe. All I'm saying is if the situation is fact, cited, and sourced and one editor's opinion is undue and one editor's opinion is that it's not undue I don't understand what makes one opinion more valid than another. Man, I hope all that made sense. My problem with some editors has been them acting as if their opinion is the way it is, without any patience for a differing opinion, and they operate as if they run the show. That rubs me the wrong way. I do not believe I am the boss of the Yank Barry page or the Jordan Burroughs page and I don't appreciate editors who act as if they are. Whereas what you are saying does sacrifice some elements of the story, it is not really an opinion that those terms violate a policy. Keeping a factual event out is more of an opinion that it violates a policy. I'm going to stop and hope that made sense. Thanks for your help. Your words have been helpful and I appreciate you being cordial. I look forward to any further thoughts you may have. I'm going to work on a few topics in the next few days and I don't mind at all if you check up on my work. Just please be nice in your constructive criticism. Good day.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, your edits[edit]

I am trying to understand your comment "Way too promotional in tone" for Baba Hari Dass; I'm person who recently did updates and included new info. As far as your comment goes, I compare Baba Hari Dass to Vivekananda's article. That article is more acclamatory than my in tone. The difference is that Vivekananda is no longer alive and so after some leader’s death his statue tends to be viewed even more positively than before, gets promoted by default. So, to make it short, if you can give an example of more balanced approach than "way too promotional in tone", I’ll consider changes. Thanks.Pradeepwb (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Pradeepwb. Thank you for editing. I'll try my best to explain it.
It's not always useful to compare two different articles on Wikipedia, for a variety of reasons (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay that explains some of them).
That said, Vivekananda's article has hundreds of sources --most of which are WP:SECONDARY, meaning they were not written by him or his immediate associates. Most of the info you have added is primary, meaning it is from Baba Hari Dass's own writing. This makes it very hard to tell what is WP:DUE weight, and what it not.
In addition, you made a number of statements about Baba Hari Dass that talked about his beliefs and practices in a way that is not from a neutral point of view. For example, you described mauna as being helpful for developing concentration. Yes, it may be helpful, but not everybody agrees on that. Wikipedia article's are not just for people who agree with the content, they are for everybody. Since not everybody believes that mauna (for example) is helpful, Wikipedia should not say so. Instead, we explain say who describes it as being helpful, and we should give a reliable source while we're at it.
One more thing, you have used some WP:PEACOCK words. Saying things like "mastered" "acumen" "rich in ancient lore" "enthralled" etc. These are words that imply something very positive about him, but don't really explain in enough detail.
In summary:
  1. WP:SECONDARY Please try to use more sources from people who are not closely associated with Baba Hari Dass
  2. WP:NPOV Write for everybody, not just people who share your beliefs
  3. WP:PEACOCK Try to use neutral, formal words that clearly explain what you mean
I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

regarding WP:SECONDARY[edit]

I'll pay more attention to secondary sources; those could be citations from books, articles, etc; more specifically is it ok to shorten URL for JSTOR citations, or Google Books? Those URLs are cumbersome and long, so might be good idea to use short URL format; but if Google's URL short/URL is blacklisted that wouldn't work. Pradeepwb (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)