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)


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)

Regarding Your Comments On my Page[edit]

More update - "They may roughly 2.5% commission on sales they make personally, but are encouraged to recruit more sellers in subsequent "Generations." - This 2.5% is not accurate at all either. It is not stated in the compensation plan anywhere. It needs to be taken out.

The income disclosure statement should be included in a pay-structure page to clarify what all this is. Its not promotion, its clarity about what it actually is!

--

I know you are trying to uphold the standard of wikipedia, but I am deeply troubled by the current article and the reverting of the revisions I made. As it stands the article is completely inaccurate, outdated, and clearly written by people who are against the company. The wikipedia page as it stands now was obviously written by people critical of Young Living and who actually have very little actual experience with the company.

I understand some of your comments, but the page as it stands is confusing people instead of clarifying it.

I made some of these edits with factually incorrect information and you reverted them. For example, there are 2 errors in the following statement:

"The products are sold by independent distributors, who purchase them from the Young Living Farms in Utah and Idaho." - This is NOT true. Independent distributors Do Not, as a general rule, sell products. They help people set up accounts and those people buy the products they want. They CAN sell products, but most of them don't. So this incorrect to have.

The other error is that all the products do not come from farms in Utah or Idaho. This is horrendously outdated. They now have 9 farms that they own and operate themselves, and partner with dozens of other farms. Why did you not leave this information in my edit?

Every single thing in the following passages have a problem with it:

"Various medical claims are made throughout Young Living's marketing materials, extolling the virtues of their product line for the alleviation of a variety of medical symptoms.[citation needed]"

They are a wellness company, I don't see why this statement should be here. There are medically backed scientific evidence for every single one of their claims. This statement makes it seem to come out of thin air.

"Users of Young Living's products claim they can be used to treat several health conditions.[3] Some customers have used the products as an unproven treatment for the symptoms of Parkinsons Disease.[4]"

I cited an article that showed evidence for the prevention and reversing of parkinson's disease, and you reversed it. Showing that the above statement was factually incorrect.

"Other sources have been more critical of Young Living's efficacy in medical treatment. A 2001 study published in the Journal of Essential Oil Research, which included the company's founder as an author, failed to find any antimicrobial effect for the majority of 73 tested essential oils.[5] A student at Harvard University noted Young Living for their unsubstantiated claims about the toxicity of sodium lauryl sulfate in a 2000 student paper.[6]"

I am floored that you kept this statement of an incredibly OLD study IN the article, while after I cited many articles to the contrary, you left them out.

I then cited a review article that cited over 100s of articles on the therapeutic potential of essential oils... This article refutes every ridiculous claim on the wikipedia page and has a high value for wikipedia sources being areview article... but you took it out.

The article is: - It is one of the best out there, and it absolutely deserves to be on that page. http://erbeofficinali.org/dati/nacci/studi/gli%20olii%20essenziali%20.pdf

Futhermore, The company has actively participated in conservation efforts, received awards worldwide, and has achieved public endorsement from celebrities and spiritual figures. These same article headlines are on other wikipedia articles - why is all the sudden not allowed on this one?

Why is it that negative and skeptical information is considered "encyclopedic" but these positive phenomena and evidence based defenses of what they are saying is considered "promotion?" That is ridiculous! It is about balance and correct portraying of a company.

I also don't understand why you took out the mission statement. That is also on many other wikipedia entries for companies.

Right now the article is an incredibly lopsided, out of date, and a thoroughly INACCURATE portrayal of the company. It needs massive revision.

I know you were attempting to hold integrity in your revisions, and I would like to hold that high standard, however, right now the article is a mess and doesn't at all portray the company as it actually is today. In my eyes, this is exactly the opposite of what wikipedia is supposed to be about. So please inform me as to how I can help update this, balance the information so it includes true positive things, and clean it up in a good way.

Tpmeli (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Thomas

I didn't remove the mission statement. Perhaps you should take a closer look at the edits I made. If you would like to incrementally change the article, that's a good idea, but your edits mixed too much promotional 'puff' in with the good. To put it bluntly, the overall problems with your edit were severe enough that I felt I needed to revert, rather than try and disentangle the good from the bad.
We agree that there is a lot of improvement that needs to be done to the article. The way to do that is by taking it slow and with a firm understanding how Wikipedia works. I reverted many of your edits because I did not believe they were neutral or consistently sourced. These are core principles Wikipedia.
As for awards, many, many companies donate to charity and receive awards, because of this, we need reliable, secondary sources about those activities to establish WP:DUE weight. As an example, I've seen awards listed on pages that turned out to be self-given. The way we keep that kind of silliness off of a page is by making sure the sources are reliable, and the awards are noteworthy. It's not a matter of if the company has actually received those awards, it's a matter of weight and perspective. I remind you again, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.
The claims you were making about Young Living were way, way too broad. If such revolutionary discoveries have been made about essential oils, they should be mentioned on the article about essential oils first, and they need very, very good sources, which you have not provided. If you do not understand why those sources don't meet WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, I would be happy to break it down for you, but please read-over those pages first.
As for the statement about who actually sells the products, that ties in with the fairly messy definition of multi-level marketing. To someone who is an impartial observer, how, exactly, is "helping someone set up an account" different from acting as a salesperson? The lead is not a good place to go over inventory management or who runs the credit cards. If you would like to rephrase it, by all means do so, but please keep it neutral and concise. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell. Thanks for your time, This clarifies things a bit for me and I can understand what you wrote. In light of keeping things slow, I'd like to address one thing at a time:

The main thing I feel uneasy around is saying that the science is somehow controversial or the review article I cited didn't meet the standards. Did you look at this? http://erbeofficinali.org/dati/nacci/studi/gli%20olii%20essenziali%20.pdf

The article above, which is a wide ranging review citing over 100+ articles itself should show that it is not in any way controversial in the scientific community that terpenoids in essential oils have wide ranging and consistent therapeutic effects. Whether people know about this or not is a distinct matter. Monoterpenoids in essential oils have been researched for their anti-carcinogenic properties since the 1970's.

The article above meets all the standards I can see in the WP:RS and WP:MEDRS pages and I remain confused about why it wouldn't be accepted on this page.

I don't understand why it is ok to put that they are making unsubstantiated claims (which actualy have rigorous evidence based support) is allowed, but this article seems off? How is that neutral?

To be seen and understood. I have people coming to me everyday asking about this wikipedia article and it is a complete waste of time for me to spend hours each week dispelling misunderstandings that issue from it. While I would like to take things slow, the article is simply completely misleading and inaccurate and it is sending the wrong message to people consistently enough to warrant either taking it down or cleaning it up more swiftly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpmeli (talkcontribs) 01:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well, first of all, if people are coming to you about this article, it's presumably because you're involved in Young Living. If that's the case, please read about having a conflict of interest. This is a serious concern. Past experience and Wikipedia's emphasis on neutrality both lead to a fairly poor view of editors who are involved in commercial activities editing articles about those activities. Have patience, otherwise you may very well be banned from editing. Hopefully it won't come to that, but that's up to you.
Regarding the review article, as I said, the radical claims you added to the article need to be backed up by solid, secondary sources. The review article merely outlines past research, and suggests that more research should be done. At no point does it actually claim that essential oils are proven, valid treatments for Parkinson's Disease! Yes, they may have certain useful properties, but essential oils are not a widely accepted treatment, and their effectiveness is still very much up for debate. This is why directly citing a study is problematic. It's just too easy to find a study, or even a metastudy, that supports a specific POV. If you notice at the top of Essential oil#Pharmacology, there is a banner because this is an ongoing problem. We need more secondary sources to augment the primary sources.
Just as significantly, the review article makes absolutely no mention of Young Living. If this is so significant, why is this not clearly spelled out at essential oil instead of Young Living? This isn't an article about the therapeutic possibilities of essential oils, this is an article about a company that is primarily known for making and selling essential oils. Do you see what I'm getting at? Inserting a bunch of info about essential oils in general (even if it were properly sourced) is promoting the subject without actually providing info about the subject. This is why we use wikilinks, so we don't have to explain how to make a hamburger in every article about a fast-food restaurant. If you cannot find a reliable, secondary source specifically about Young Living, then the content probably should not be in the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am a distributor for Young Living. I have two points to make about this.

First - I do not see this inherently as a problem, but rather as a resource to clarify the absurd misunderstandings that come from people who are not involved in network marketing, young living, or involved in essential oil research regularly and have very little idea of what they are actually talking about.

Both the MLM wikipedia page, the essential oil page, and the Young Living page were littered with misunderstandings that I can only assume came from people that had no experience in those fields and were looking on with an overly inflated skeptical eye.

Commission structures are not easy to understand, and someone simply reading the commission plan without being involved in the business is likely to have no idea what they are looking at, or how to explain it, or what it actually is.

So when I read (and henceforth corrected) in the "multi-level" marketing section that the "maximum" commission that was given was 8%, this was absolutely incorrect and could only have been written by someone who had no idea what they were looking at. I have edited those sections to reflect how the commission structure actually works. This is NOT promotion, it is simply stating facts about how it actually works.

I do not claim complete neutrality. I love the product, the company, and network marketing. if I need to work on my language being more neutral, I am happy to work on that... but it is important to have people on the inside clarify misunderstandings that are promoted by people who are not involved in these fields writing about the,

Secondly, it is clear to me that the current wikipedia was written by people who clearly are biased against the company. The field of essential oils is very competitive, and Young Living is extremely popular and successful. It would be easy for a competitor to put these things in, and that is exactly what I believe has happened.

So if we are going to talk about conflict of interest against correct information, we have to include this negative smearing that is in every single word in the current article.

I personally don't believe in neutrality. We are all biased. However, what we can do is notice this, own it, and move towards objectivity and clarity. To that I am committed, more than my enjoyment and participation in Young Living. I simply want the correct information on this page and I want a balanced account of who and what Young Living, a better appreciation of the thousands of scientifically studies research papers on the therapeutic efficacy of essential oils, and what network marketing really is (no it isn't a pyramid scheme... but I'll clarify that article later). Thanks for taking the time again to journey with me in clarifying all this.

You wrote: "The review article merely outlines past research, and suggests that more research should be done."

Wikipedia recommends using secondary review articles - Every single review article you will ever read will always review past research and suggest more should be done in areas where further development is exciting. I don't see why your bringing this up is relevant since it is exactly what wikipedia recommends doing.

Re: Parkinson's - I am not claiming it is a treatment for it! I am saying that it isn't true that there is "no substantiation" for the use of essential oils in providing therapeutic action on Parkinson's patients... I was responding to how people tend to interpret this extreme language that "X is unsubstantiated" that it is worthless and not scientifically backed, when this is not the case.

This is really exaggerated legalese and not factually true or scientifically accurate. There are TONS of substantiation and evidence for these these effects, and shouldn't we be able to put "evidence" on a wikipedia page without referring to "proof" - Proof of this stuff won't come for decades. But the evidence is

What I am saying isn't that we can treat anything, that is a medical claim that requires years of clinical trials, etc. What I am saying, and what is uncontroversial is that there is strong evidence-based-research that shows that essential oils have irrefutable, clear, and uncontroversial therapeutic properties which we can take advantage of.

The article even says this in the antioxidant section:

"oils of basil, cinnamon, clove, nutmeg, oregano and thyme have proven radical-scavenging and antioxidant have proven radical-scavenging and antioxidant properties in the DPHH radical assay at room temperature" and then later in that page: "It is clear that essential oils may be considered as potential natural antioxidants."

I am aware the effects in vivo are different than a free radical assay but the in vivo activity of an antioxidant is often correlated with its in vitro activity and so we should intellectually take what we currently know seriously and honor instead of spinning it off as nothing because we haven't completely incontrovertibly proven its efficacy in expensive double blind clinical trials.

The review article suggests that further research is indeed due within several areas, but these mostly involve finding mechanisms, not determining efficacy. We know that essential oils are in general antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal because they all tend to include similar effective constituents (monoterpenoids) that have a broad range similarity of action. That is absolutely not debated in the clinical aromatherapy world.

What is still needed to research are which oils are most effective at what bacteria, viruses, and fungi. So we need to be clear about what is pretty substantiated, and what isn't.

This is true. I myself would like to see more peer reviewed studies of Young Living oils in particular. I agree with your argument that this should be in the essential oil section unless the study is a study involving Young Living.

I am happy to edit ALL of the articles that are massively in need of revision (MLM, essential oils, and this one)! I only have so many hours in the day and its going to take a while!

I appreciate this journey with you and holding my inspiration to clarify in check. I think together, we can clean this up. You can help me notice my bias coming through and simplify what I write to get to the important points, and my insider expertise can help clarify the misunderstandings that are obviously coming from people who don't know the company or the model well enough to write about it.

I understand that it might make it slightly easier to reply, but please do not reformat my comments in the future. Talk pages should be preserved in chronological order to make them readable by uninvolved editors.
It doesn't matter if you, personally, see your COI as an inherent problem, every experienced editor sees it as a red flag. This issue has been debated to death here, and if you stick around and edit outside of this one subject, you'll understand why. Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia is a good article on why this has been a serious problem in the past, but there are many, many dozens and dozens of pages where this issue has been debated. Suffice it to say, WP:NEUTRALity is what we strive for. It's a policy, and an important one, so if you really feel that you cannot be neutral, you're going to have a very hard time here.
This is an important point: Wikipedia does not require personal familiarity with a subject to edit an article about that subject. In fact, it can sometimes be a stumbling block. That is why we rely on WP:SECONDARY sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a blog-hosting platform, if you want a place to discuss your own personal experiences, and to share your personal expertise, there there are better places to do it. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and rejects original research, likewise, your experiences as a distributor for Young Living does not, in any way, over-ride the need for you to be neutral and rely on solid sources. If reliable sources are negative, so be it, the articles should reflect that. If that's going to be a problem, it's your problem, not Wikipedia's.
There is no meaningful difference between saying that something is a treatment, and suggesting that it has therapeutic effect. If you don't understand this, you should avoid editing articles about medicine at all. We're not a clinical journal, we are a general audience encyclopedia. Wikipedia cannot provide medical advice. WP:MEDICAL. Leave recommendations to professionals. If something has antioxidant properties, we say that and nothing else. We do not, ever synthesis that to imply that a substance has medical applications beyond what sources explicitly state.
That's all beyond the problems that arise from the advice itself. The science is not settled on the benefits of ingesting antioxidants, and in fact, it may be counterproductive.[1] I'm not saying this should be in the article either way, but it highlights why making any sort of health claim needs very clear, direct, secondary sources. Saying "a study says x, which is also shown to affect y, therefore it prevents z" is not just bad for the article, it's abysmally bad science.
Clinical aromatherapy is a small niche that is not yet accepted practice. Aromatherapy makes this clear. These studies are far from resounding endorsements, and should not be treated as such. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

We've given alot time to this today. I thank you for that. Let's look at one thing before I go to bed.

You keep undoing my edit about the study. I am really astounded that you don't see how ridiculous the original statement is. So let's look at it in detail.

Original: "Other sources have been more critical of Young Living's efficacy in medical treatment. A 2001 study published in the Journal of Essential Oil Research, which included the company's founder as an author, failed to find any antimicrobial effect for the majority of 73 tested essential oils"

Astounding Problem 1. "Other Sources" - This is not an other source! It is a study published BY GARY YOUNG - the founder of young living HIMSELF et al. Why would this article be portrayed as an outside critical source! Are you kidding me!

Ridiculous Problem 2: "Critical" - Why would an article written by the founder of a company be critical of itself. More nonsense.

Misleading Problem 3: "Failed to find any antimicrobial effect..." - This is incredibly misleading. It portrays the study as signifying that the majority of essential oils don't have antimicrobial effects in general, when in fact the point of the study was to find out WHICH ones have antimicrobial effect against A SPECIFIC strain of bacteria. If you were looking for gold and found it you wouldn't say you "failed to find gold" everywhere else. You'd say what you found and where you found it.

Misleading Problem 4: No actual numbers are written. Just a misleading interpretation.

Misleading Problem 5: The study is not about the antimicrobial potential of essential oils in general. It is about which ones kill a specific bacteria: streptococcus pneumoniae. This is not indicated in any way by the original description.

Misleading Problem 6: the conclusion of the study actually conflicts with the emphasis of the wikipedia comment. The abstract ends: " Essential oils that induce lysis in S. pneumoniae may have potential as an alternative treatment for infections caused by drug resistant pneumococci."

This is the exact OPPOSITE of what the comment seems to portray.

Here is my edit "A 2001 study published in the Journal of Essential Oil Research, which included the company's founder as an author, found potent antimicrobial effect for 3 essential oils, and moderate antimicrobial effect for 15 oils on Streptococcus pneumoniae."

So the original statement is factually incorrect, doesn't have any numbers, is overgeneralizing a claim, and is misleading enough to warrant us actually questioning if the person who wrote it has any understanding of what they were doing... and... somehow, my edit was revoked?

I hope to goodness that NOW you can see how much MORE neutral and factually correct my edit is than the original.

What I have been trying to say is that that whole article has been filled with BS as bad as this.

I'm sure everyone has had bad experiences with C.O.I and that it is important to monitor, but can you really tell me that my edits today have not contributed to clarifying real absolute nonsense that doesn't deserve to be written anywhere, let alone in the world's most famous encyclopedia.

I still hold a vision of us enhancing each others strengths to improve the article. You know the "wiki deal" and seem to make my verbose writing much simpler and clearer. I'm new at wiki editing and just felt frustrated and appalled at this insanity on this page and wanted to do something about it. I'm assuming I know a ton more about Young Living and network marketing than you believe that with your wikipedia experience and my experience with the company and network marketing that we are vastly improving this article.

I thank you for that and hope to continue making this better and better.

If you somehow don't agree with this then let's take it up with a third party besides you and me. I am very confident that this edit is superior and that leaving the original is propagating absolute nonsense that should be stopped immediately. So please let me know where you stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpmeli (talkcontribs) 05:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I take Wikipedia seriously, and for that reason, I am not interested in helping you promote your business here. Your caviler dismissal of my concerns about your COI doesn't fill me with confidence. As I said, you should not be relying on your expertise alone, and your assumptions about my knowledge about MLM are a distraction, at best. This is not the first time that someone has assumed that, because I'm opposed to advertising on Wikipedia, I must be ignorant about how MLMs work. That is not the case, but let's pretend that it is: Is this company so esoteric and complicated that I need to be enrolled as a distributor in order to understand the business model well enough to write a three paragraph description for Wikipedia? If so, we shouldn't write about it at all, because personal experience is not a reliable source.
The study was simply not a big deal. Between giving the misleading impression that its findings were significant, (which would certainly require much, much better sources) or giving the arguably misleading impression that they didn't find anything worthy of note, I would prefer the latter, and I think Wikipedia's policies agree with me on that. The third option, removing the study entirely, has risen to the top of the heap as my new favorite. Let's just do that. Once again, lacking secondary sources, it should be removed. Grayfell (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic! I have no desire for you or anyone to promote any business here or advertise. I have no idea why you keep thinking that is what I want. I stated throughout my conversations that my sole intention is to clean up the absurd mess that the article was, not to promote anything.

I am not dismissing COI as unimportant. I am inviting you to reconsider the claim that because someone works with a company that they can't contribute objective information. Obviously COI has contributed to huge problems to wikipedia and you seem sensitive to that. Good, you should be, it protects the integrity of what is here.

But it would be nice to have some acknowledgement of how my contributions have led to correcting misinformation and adding to the vast overall improvement of the article. In its current form, the only thing that I see that needs an update is the doTerra / YL settlement, which I am struggling to find good sources for.

I also do not mean to make personal statements about your knowledge. However, people with knowledge, expertise, or training in a particular field are typically the ones who write entries on it.

It is common sense to me to assume that someone working in an industry would probably know more about it than someone who doesn't. When I read the MLM section and saw that everything from the percentages to the kinds of bonuses were factually incorrect, I concluded that it must have been written by someone who didn't understand it. Can't you tell a wikipedia newbie like me by the errors we make? Well the same is true for MLM compensation plans.

There are common newbie errors that seasoned people simply don't make. And unless people were involved in it, it isn't likely they understand it. The same could be said of a chemist. I would trust an article written on chemistry more by a chemist than someone reading a book about it but with no chemistry experience themselves.

You say that personal experience is not a reliable source. It isn't experience we are talking about here, it is understanding that comes from experience. Unless wikipedia has an explicit policy about this - I fail to see how the amount of time it takes to understand something correctly has any relevance as to whether it should be posted or not.

You claim I am dismissing the relevance of COI, which is not true, I am trying to reverse the negative smearing-infused COI that was everywhere in the article. That has been my main intention from the start, to clean up and provide more neutral language around what was written here. I made the common newbie errors and I appreciate your patience with me as I learn.

Lastly, around the study above - I am concerned that the absurd self-contradicting nature of the statement above was not acknowledged by you. I agree that the study was not a big deal, and don't mind it being removed... But that statement was an absolute mess, and it would be nice to be acknowledged in pointing out all of these errors and contributing to improving the standards of the article.

For me wikipedia is exciting because of the collaboration it makes possible between many different parties and people with different areas of expertise. I remain proud of our contributions...especially since I don't imagine our dialog has been easy or pleasurable for you but I am happy we stuck it through and cleaned up this article.

Sincerely, Tpmeli (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)tpmeli

One of the core ideas behind Wikipedia is verifiability (WP:V). If you cannot point to other, outside sources in order to explain something, it cannot be verified, and only very rarely belongs in an article. Accuracy is important, but the way we get there is with sources, not original research, not personal opinions, and not synthesizing multiple sources to form a new conclusion.
Drawing from that, your personal experience selling these products is only really valuable to Wikipedia because it means you may be familiar with less common sources. This is a good thing, but it runs right up against your conflict of interest, and the sources are mainly going to be primary, anyway, and only of limited value. Just because something can be verified, doesn't mean it belongs in the article. Besides, Wikipedia has neither the resources, nor the inclination to establish that you are who you say you are.
I don't see the statement about the study as being all that absurd. As I said on the article's talk page, it was a trivial study that made some trivial findings. Overstating the significance of the wording is counterproductive.
The article still needs a large amount of work. There are a lot of gaps. There is nothing about the history of the company, or Gary Young's past, such as his paralysis from a logging accident and recovery, past arrests for unlawful practice of medicine, the clinic in Mexico,[2] etc. The corporate history issues I raised on the talk page are also unanswered. How many distributors are there? How many active distributors are there? What percent make a profit? The article was almost deleted for lack of sources. If you feel that the only thing the article needs is filling in some details about an unflattering lawsuit, then your perspective may be skewed. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Greyfell,

Your first 2 paragraphs I am completely on the same page with you. They were written neutrally and were informative.

However, your last paragraph lost me - why would you assume I thought the only edits the page needed was what I changed? Why do you continue to assert my perception may be skewed because of an assumption you are making and not what I actually think?

I feel truly exhausted with these accusations simply because of my position as a YL distributor. My sole intention is to improve something and contribute to clarity, balance, and neutrality, and what I am getting back from people is all this alarmism around COI. I was recently called a "sock puppet" by Christopher Lolito... Is this really what this community is about?

If I knew that it was going to be this much work and effort to clarify a few misunderstandings and facts, I would have suggested the page simply be deleted and never got involved. I'm close to giving up contributing further and just letting the misinformation on these pages continue further.

To be seen - My first priority was correcting the misinformation on the page. That being mostly done, YES the article does need massive updating and revision, but it is much less urgent to me. It would be fine to have the history in, but let's keep it balanced for god's sake - not 40 things about the company & Gary's mistakes and nothing about their accomplishments and achievements.

I don't understand why we assume that something negative a company does is considered more "newsworthy" than something positive. And anything positive is considered "advertising" or marketing... Without both, how can anyone have a balanced perception of what is? Aren't we redupicating the errors of mass media with its emphasis on negative news everywhere?

You ask for futher information - Two things.

1. I know if I made these edits I would be accused of promoting the company, so I don't see it as my place to make them. I can point you to where you might find that information but I'm exhausted with being accused when I am purely trying to help.

2. I don't know how anyone can find the information you are asking about in secondary sources. They are only available on the company page (the YL income disclosure statement says how much money they make - google it). I saw a recent post that YL is close to 2 million distributors but I have yet to confirm this with a source and wouldn't take the number seriously until I do.

Seeing how my position as a YL distributor seems to delegitimate me in advance - If I continue to edit wikipedia pages, I'm going to suggest edits in the talk pages rather than making them myself so there is more inclusion about the edits.

As for feedback for wikipedia - If the community was going to be this up in arms about COI, then wikipedia should REQUIRE people who are involved in a company to post on the talk page and suggesting edits instead of being able to make edits themselves without knowing the barrage of accusations that are likely to follow.

It seems my position as a YL distributor is making it difficult for me to contribute in the way I'd hoped and I'm exhausted with trying to explain myself to correct blatant lies and errors.

You have been mostly kind and patient Greyfell, but this community seems burdened by paranoia that I really don't have time to deal with. I'm going to let this air out a bit and revisit it when I have more emotional energy. Right now, after Christopher's comment and your last paragraph, I am sincerely drained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpmeli (talkcontribs) 17:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You specifically said that in it's current form, the only thing that needs updating is the info about the doTerra lawsuit. I was attempting to point out why statements like that indicate that your COI may be clouding your judgement.
YL's accomplishments are newsworthy to the degree they are covered by independent news sources. If you can find positive coverage in reliable sources, great.
Confining your edits to the talk page is a good idea. It's clear you are frustrated by the process, but you can't say I didn't warn you this would happen. You can call us 'paranoid', but consider instead that perhaps our experiences have given us a perspective that you lack. Grayfell (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah I understand your statement then. By "needs" I meant - "needs to be updated right now because it is old or inaccurate." I did not mean to imply the article didn't need further updating.

News sources, got it.

You did warn me, and I absolutely believe you do have a perspective I lack... I also think there is room for all of us to grow in how we respond to each other.

Lastly, I think wikipedia needs to require training in editing before they let people edit. I think it would solve alot of these issues.

Thanks again for your generous time. Tpmeli (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)tpmeli

changing username[edit]

is it possible than one can change their username? it sure seems that in the preferences no such option exists, but i'd love to edit mine. thanks! wxl (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bikefridaywalter: Yup, you can change your username. Info on how to do that is here: Wikipedia:Changing username. It's not as simple as a menu item, but it's pretty straightforward. Good luck. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Grayfell: thanks, that's super useful. two things, though:
  1. if i want my SUL to ultimately be changed, should i go to the appropriate meta-wiki or do i need to do that in addition to the wikipedia one?
  2. i can't tell if the username i want (wxl) is taken. it appears on the user list but there is no creation date. what am i missing?
wxl (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Bikefridaywalter: Hmm... Those are good questions that are a little over my head.
There are currently 22,535,280 named accounts, so I'm going to guess that all the three-letter combos are taken. I'm not sure why the name doesn't have a creation date. There are three unattached accounts with that name (en, zh, and meta) [3] but none have made any contributions, nor have they been blocked or such, so you should be able to WP:USURP them, if you want. My advice is to put in a request at the metawiki link you posted. If they can't point you in the right direction, the WP:HELPDESK or the WP:TEAHOUSE should know. Sorry I can't be of more help. Grayfell (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Magnifier (Windows)#Requested move 23 August 2014[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Magnifier (Windows)#Requested move 23 August 2014. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Six Sigma certification organizations[edit]

Reported to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Could also be reported to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring due to WP:3RR at this point. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That was my intention, but I was on a tablet, and wanted to wait until I was at a proper keyboard to finish the process. Looks like it's all taken care of, at least for now. Grayfell (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your edits[edit]

- As I stated when I made the edit, "Swami" is not just an honorific but is actually part of his legal name (his legal name is Swami Chidanand Saraswati, not Chidanand Saraswati). I of course however am not going to share his passport or his other offical documents from the Government of India to prove this... - I had actually tried to change the page's name back to Swami Chidanand Saraswati, as it had originally been, but could not figure out how to do. - If "Swami" is going to keep being deleted, than that is fine too, it's just slightly incorrect. - I will work on getting secondary references up which confirm his positions in his various organizations. Thank you for letting me know instead of just deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantiparmarth (talkcontribs) 04:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)