User talk:Grayfell

Hello! Please leave new messages at the bottom of this page.

Don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.

Thanks. Grayfell (talk)

Welcome

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)

---

Your request for notation regarding Cat Communication

I'm not sure if this is the right place to leave a message, but here goes: I recently added info to the Cat Communication page. In the section that describes why a cat stretches & pats his front paws on something before he lays down, the actual word is not shown. The process (which mirrors the action a kitten takes to stimulate milk flow from the mother) is called "Smurgling". It does not have a specific point of origin. There is no info on where it came from or that it is the scientific word. However, I am a Feline Behaviorist & this is the word we use. Most people only describe the action as "making biscuits". If one were to google it, instances of usage are given, but the only dictionary listing is in the Urban Dictionary. TheVioletArcher (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)TheVioletArcher (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC) TheVioletArcher (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't call editors trolls

You cannot call editors trolls and delete their content *on a talk page* just because you disagree or find it embarrassing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_call_editors_trolls

You cannot threaten to block people just to get them to shut up without engaging with them on the substance of the discussion at all. See WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE and WP:NOPUNISH .

81.191.115.125 (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Gee, you sure seem to know a lot about Wikipedia. Strange that you don't know not to call other editors scumbags. So yeah, that behavior is trolling. You're venting or wasting time trying to rile us up. That's not trying to improve the article, it's using it as a talk page to bitch about people you don't like. That's trolling. Grayfell (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride at PNCA: Tuesday, June 27

You are invited to the upcoming Wiki Loves Pride edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway) on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, from 5–8pm. For more information, visit the meetup page or Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for filing a report.

Thank you for filling a report as it saves me some time. I look forward to the administrators reviewing both edits/reverts, yours and mine. As others have pointed out, those sources cited are used throughout wikipedia, and never really challenged. And regarding the information that I removed, all of it was speculative in nature. The information removed was citing quotes regarding speculative commentary, or just in itself speculative commentary. Thank you for starting this procedure for us both.Akw-de (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Tinker Brothers Page

Hi Grayfell, It's probably obvious I'm a newbie. I am still figuring things out, so my apologies for any inconvenience caused by removing and adding content. Thanks for your help! Cheers User 20 22 19 (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

re: Social justice warrior and Progressivism

I wanted a better understanding of progressive politics so I put some questions/suggestions at Talk:Social justice warrior and Talk:Progressivism.

If you could review my input/comments, it would be appreciated. The reason I ask is that you were active on the talk page of the Social justice warrior article. Knox490 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Patagonia

Hi Grayfell, I am obviously another newbee on Wikipedia - got started today. Could you explain what you mean by 'soapboxing' when commenting on my Patagonia (clothing) additions? I am a researcher and practitioner in the area of branding with 25 years experience and simply wanted to share some of that expertise on wikipedia, since I use it often. I do not and have never worked for Patagonia and the sources I cite are articles and books published by authoritative publishers or posts that draw on the latter and clearly indicating their sources. Or they simply store them online (vs paper version). Can you explain how that constitutes spam, advertising and the other labels you use? I saw that sites like MarketingProfs, StrategyInsider or Ueberbrands are used frequently in citations across Wikipedia. Thanks for your help.Markaestus (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Markaestus: Hello. I will post a response on your talk page in a moment. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell - it seems you deleted all my additions because I used masstoclass as a source and you consider that spam. Would the addition and citation be acceptable to you if I replace the reference to masstoclass on wordpress with the journal article, etc. that is stored/reviewed to on that wordpress site. For example: instead of linking to https://masstoclass.wordpress.com/2017/07/10/article-how-modern-prestige-brands-create-meaning-through-mission/ I cite "How modern Prestige Brands...", Journal of Brand Strategy, Henry Stewart Publishers, Spring 2017, Vol 5 Nr.4, pp. 395-409, etc.? Thanks for your help. Markaestus (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the same basic issue as above, and I already said I would post an explanation on your talk page. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand now "admired and outstanding" are the language issue and the masstoclass blog not being a primary source is the other. How can I take out that language and change the citation then? Or is it all 'wiped out' and I have to start from scratch? I can cite articles from FastCompany, The New York Times, The Guardian or books by Godin or Stengel and many many more that talk about Patagonia as an early mission led and activist company (examples: https://www.fastcompany.com/1749656/patagonia-power-brand-transparency ; https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/patagonia-values-led-business-benefit-corp). This aspect is not mentioned in the Wiki entry and is a fundamental outage when it comes to explaining the success of this company. Markaestus (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This discussion should not be split between two pages. I'm copy/pasting this to your talk page to consolidate. I will respond after that. Grayfell (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

/r/The_Donald

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh huh. Good luck with that. Grayfell (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Vidme

Have a look here. What is the first date, aside from "Private beta" being 2009-2010, do you see that has anything archived that remotely relates to the site, as is? 2014. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh, okay. I have no strong opinion on this, the PR-ish sources said it was launched in 2010, and that's... sort of accurate. Looks like this should be explained, or at least discussed on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Antifa removal

Okay sure, let me add more reliable sources then. Thanks ThePlane11 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahh another Trump hater, no surprise you do not want the Antifa page to look bad. This is extremely petty. They were involved in acts of crime among others. I or anyone else could go onto Youtube right now and watch an Antifa member committing a crime at the inauguration. Pathetic. Where is this "democracy" you preach. You are silencing me. ThePlane11 (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh huh. You want to discuss how to improve the article, do it on the article's talk page. You want to whine about censorship, do it on reddit. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Article

hi:w:मनन_शाह and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manan Shah (Ethical Hacker) are same person. What should be done? The person had contacted me on social media to have his page which I had declined citing guidelines, policies and past deletions. I discovered his page in Hindi language Wikipedia.-Nizil (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: Hello. Oh this guy again. Thanks for letting me know. I don't know what to do about this. I wish I did, though. Each language has its own notability guidelines. Having an article in once language doesn't mean anything for another. I don't read Hindi, unfortunately, so I cannot comment on that one. Are you familiar with Hindi Wikipedia's guidelines? I've nominated Simple:Manan Shah for deletion as spam. The arguments were very strong here that its spam by a self-promoter. That should carry weight everywhere, so I would suggest nominating it at hi.wikipedia also if you think that's appropriate. I am not surprised you have been contacted by this person. If I can help, let me know. Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits Reverted

I am contacting you in regards to the reverts made, Omnichannel and Online_marketplace. Please note the links added were from SellerPrime Blog, Amazon Web site, Harvard Business Review. All are relevant links, if you feel otherwise, please point out the specific, happy to re-write and update. Thanks! Dilpu123 (talk) 5:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. SellerPrime is not a reliable source. It's a commercial blog which exists to sell services of unestablished value. Citing it in multiple articles is indistinguishable from spamming. Additionally, much of the content you added was not neutrally written, such as calling services "solutions". Buzzwords like that are a very poor choice for an encyclopedia. Finally, your edit to Omnichannel directly stole the wording of the source you used. copying/pasting directly from sources is not acceptable. Please see WP:COPYVIO for more on this. Paraphrase reliable sources in your own words according to due weight. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, i will make the same edits neutrally in a distinguishable way. Will provide the changes summary once done. Please review. Good Day! (Dilpu123 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)).

Corrected for one of the pages - Private_label , removed 3 links (Dilpu123 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)).

Again, do not copy/paste from sources. Your addition was the exact same sentence as the Forbes source. You need to paraphrase.

The source you lifted from is not reliable, either. This is a common problem, but Forbes' "Contributors" are essentially bloggers. Most (but not all) of the articles on the site are only minimally edited and not consistently fact-checked. This content fails WP:RS, specifically as WP:UGC. For this reason it's best to avoid this site if you are not certain that it's from their journalist side.

Thanks for removing the Junglescout sources. I appreciate that. Grayfell (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Noted will avoid Forbes contributor articles in the future (Dilpu123 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)), will update after making the change

Golden Dawn/Neo-Nazism

Hello would like to ask why you reverted my edit on golden dawn?96.29.161.12 (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I reverted your edit because it was editorializing which didn't belong in the infobox. Infoboxes are designed to be a simple, brief overview of a topic. The body and lede of the article already explain the party's denial. Many very reliable sources link the party to neo-Nazism, and Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, also. The place to discuss this further is Talk:Golden Dawn (political party), not here. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits reverted for Vector Marketing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several independent sites support the claim that Vector Marketing is a single-level marketing or direct sales company. In addition, the sources you say support the claim that Vector Marketing is a pure multi-level marketing company do not, in fact, say that. The only mention of Vector Marketing in citation #2 is "Since the mid-20th century, a multitude of companies employing variations of this business model have established themselves, with some of the better known being Amway, Avon Products, Herbalife, Mary Kay, Tupperware, and Vector Marketing." The industry on the Herbalife page says "direct selling," the industry on the Avon Products Wikipedia page says "Personal" and lists them as a "direct selling company." The Tupperware Wikipedia page makes no mention of multi-level marketing at all. The Mary Kay Wikipedia page says the industry is "cosmetics and personal care products," and says it's a direct sales company. Citation #3 is equally problematic. It contains the claim that Vector Marketing is a single tiered direct sales company, but then presents the following: "Loyola’s Jackson explained that Vector is a multi-level-marketing company (MLM). An MLM pays its salespeople commission from the sales of people it recruited, according to Investopedia, an online resource for finance." Nowhere in this article does it actually show that Vector pays salespeople from the sales of people that they've recruited. The citations you're saying support the claim that Vector is best described as a multi-level marketing company do not support that claim! I also think it's absurd to ignore that in the Vector Marketing Wikipedia page, under Business model, it says "Vector Marketing is a direct sales company." If you're going to immediately disregard every article and page which support my assertion that they are a single-level marketing company by saying that it's either provided by the company or unreliable/non-neutral, then you should explain to me how the citations you're choosing are any more reliable or neutral.NoYellAtMonkeys (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Having this discussion in two places serves no purpose. The correct place to discuss this is Talk:Vector Marketing, where I have responded in greater detail. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert for Brian Dunning

Yes, this is Stitcher (the podcast aggregator). Brian really did win that award, and I would say that it is significant. MichiHenning (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Me bad, he was nominated for the award, but did not win it in 2014; he won it in 2012: https://skeptoid.com/about.php MichiHenning (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@MichiHenning: Hello. I'm not doubting that he won the award, but I'm not clear on why it would belong in the article. Looking into it, it appears this award was only given for two years (skipping 2013?) before Stitcher merged with other companies and the award was abandoned. The Stitcher Radio article doesn't mention the award, and neither does Stitcher's website, at least not that I found. Since Dunning's Wikipedia article provided no way for readers to assess the important of this short-lived award, nor are there any reliable, independent sources for Dunning having won this award, this award doesn't provide any significant information about Skeptoid or Dunning's career. Skeptoid's site is not independent (obviously), and it doesn't provide any useful context for what the award signifies. The archived Stitcher site previously used in the article was not neutral, nor did it explain anything about the award itself, either. If it is significant, we should be able to explain why it is significant. If not at Brian Dunning (author), then somewhere else on Wikipedia. It doesn't look like good sources exist for this. Grayfell (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Side note on that anon IP at Jared Taylor

I'm seeking a block against that IP for edit-warring at an entirely different page; when I checked out his other edits I read the Terrell Owens page, which had an inordinate amount of unsourced original research on it (most of it not even his doing). I started working on it, and he just started mass-reverting my edits, whether I had edited something he had added or not. So I finally filed the report here. I mention this because those mass reverts appear to point to the fact that he's not looking to be a productive editor, and likely never will be, on the Jared Taylor page or anywhere else. Rockypedia (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Yeah, makes sense. I noticed the report, but didn't look too closely. Perhaps I'm just wasting time by treating this nonsense semi-seriously, but, at very least, there's a block of past discussion to point to for the next time 'reasonable' points are raised. ("I don't mind most marine mammals, but sea lions? I could do without sea lions.") Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I said my last two cents in that thread. I'm done with it. Rockypedia (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Saul Alinsky again

Please stop your disingenuous labeling of my edit. If you continue to baselessly attack contributors, as you did at Saul Alinsky, you may stifle and kill the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.209.150 (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding unsourced editorializing to the lede and lashing out at anyone who challenges your edits (such as calling another editor a fascist) is not productive. If you cannot make your case using civil language on the article's talk page, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Nationalist Front

See Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Google Memo article

Hello, you recently removed content that you characterized as "...editorializing..." and that needed to be "...re-written w/ clear attribution to reliable sources." While I strive to "assume good faith", I need to ask if you took the time to read the actual sources. The content you removed has 2 source references from Vox and the UK Business Insider - both what most would say are reliable pubs. Furthermore, the content that I authored is supported directly from the references. Please comment further justifying your removal - if none is received, then I will presume you removed the content in error and re-add the content. Thanks. airuditious (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aleding: The content was not removed in error. I don't personally disagree with the statements you added, exactly, but it included disputable, broad comments as fact. What Americans do and do not incorrectly believe, for example, should be presented as an expert opinion, or in some other way contextualized as a subjective claim. If "this recent event shows" something, we should indicate who is making that connection instead of using Wikipedia's voice to present it an indisputable example. This is a form of editorializing language along the lines of WP:NOTABLY. The Civil Rights act connection would also have to be much more clearly laid out by reliable sources before being mentioned to avoid original research. Both of those sources are clearly opinions. Nothing wrong with that, but they should be contextualized as such. I think the place to discuss this further is on the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you been advised...

Of the discretionary sanctions place on all BLPs? If not, consider this your notice for Jared Taylor. You really don't want to get into an edit war or appear as though you are tag-teaming - I reverted poorly sourced material in that BLP. It won't be pretty at AN/I when the policies support the argument to not add contentious labels and derogatory poorly sourced material knowing it is a highly volatile article about a living person. Do you want more restrictions placed on that BLP or are you more inclined to seek consensus and act like a collaborative editor instead of somebody who just happened to show up and decided to be controversial? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Veiled threats cloaked in pseudocivil language. I didn't "just show up" and you know it. You have not raised any new issues in your defense of Taylor, and repeating the same points will quickly become disruptive. CRYBLP and bureaucratic tedium are not valid ways to improve any article, especially not one about a white supremacist. Grayfell (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Kinda watching this debate for learning purposes and need to ask, is the fact that the BLP subject is a white supremacist relevant? Doesn't Grayfell's statement at the very least indicate some possible bias? airuditious (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aleding: Am I "biased" because I have opinions? Having views and being willing to recognize those views doesn't disqualifies me from editing Wikipedia. We don't demand all editors pretend to be robots. Likewise Atsme's very different approach to BLP doesn't disqualify her. Maybe she is an admirer of Taylor, although I don't really think so. It doesn't matter that much. She's free to hold whatever views she wants. It becomes a problem when an editor's views interfere with consensus. Although I think it's definitely a possibility, that hasn't happened yet.

If you've been looking at the Google memo thing, you may have noticed that the author of that document has repeatedly emphasizes how logical and rational he is. In addition to being kinda sad in its own right, this reveals something about discussions on Wikipedia. People who have experience with debate and consensus generally don't do that. The problem is that everybody thinks our arguments are rational. By extension, we all think that rational policies must therefor agree with us, and policies which disagree with us must be irrational or 'biased'. This is human nature, but it's a garbage way to approach consensus. ESPECIALLY on Wikipedia, where policies and guideline are often vague, and often don't even agree with each other. This is a feature, not a bug, because this isn't a procedurally generated encyclopedia. The project is better because it challenges us to use our minds.

I believe, obviously, that I'm on the side of the angels, and I'm sure on some level so does everyone involved. We have to work it out, but at some point, re-litigating the same tired points strictly through subjective interpretation of policies becomes disruptive, because there has to be room for discussion. If the only recourse is to say 'this is against consensus', then that is saying 'stop talking about it'. I've done that, and I'm sure most experienced editors have as well. So if Atsme gets to do that for the changes she doesn't like, why don't we get to do that for the changes she wants to make that paint Taylor more favorably? I certainly feel that we've already discussed this to death multiple times.

Threatening to take this to a noticeboard for a single revert demonstrates a very poor understanding of consensus, and leaving this notice seems more about priming the pump for future litigious action than a good faith effort to discuss the issues. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a million Grayfell - really good discussion. And of course I don't think being robots is realistic nor anything that would be productive. Also, while I initially interpreted the phrase "...especially not one about a white supremacist..." to possibly imply bias, in thinking about it a bit more, I now take it that you are emphasizing that extra care must be taken to ensure our policies are followed...not that anything different would apply but rather to just double\triple check to ensure diligence in following our existing polices. Thanks again. airuditious (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, my pleasure. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am offended by your comment about me to a new editor, and consider it an aspersion. Your behavior is beginning to represent a pattern of disrespect toward living people who don't share your views. You have wrongfully criticized me, made unwarranted threats and accusations while you are the one being noncompliant with WP:PAG at Jared Taylor, a BLP that requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States. You keep saying "consensus" but I'm not seeing even one RfC in the archives that has been called. Where is the consensus you keep referring to? Local consensus among a few editors on the TP? You can't be serious. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to offend you. What threats and accusations have I made? Your comments insinuated that I was 'tag teaming' by restoring edits made in good faith, and very strongly suggested that I would be brought to ANI or similar if I continued, all based on a single revert. Those, to me, seem like disproportionate threats and accusations.

Reverting something because there is no consensus is meaningless without any other context. You are saying that something should not be changed because you are opposed to it being changed. That's not, by itself, productive, and I'm glad this has moved to the article's talk page. I doubt I had anything to do with that, but my revert did establish that consensus for reverting wasn't met, either.

Expecting a prior RfC for consensus is excessive. Discussions have been held, and are still being held, and formalizing every discussion as an RfC should be held-off until necessary. The talk page of this and neighboring articles is full to bursting with discussions of how to apply BLP. It has never been a simple issue, and repeating that this is how it's applied over and over doesn't make it an objective truth. That's what I was trying to explain above.

Similar RfCs have been held at related articles, however. Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive_2#RfC: White Supremacist vs White Nationalist is one good example, and still there is a steady trickle of editors who ignore that and revert anyway. RfCs don't solve all problems, nor should they be required for every controversial topic. Is that precedent? No, every article needs to be evaluated on its own, as we both know very well. Having already repeatedly debated very similar issues for multiple articles makes this seem pretty tedious, so when you say I "just happened to show up" it ignores both past contributions to the article's talk page, and the bigger picture of how this is has been handled on Wikipedia in the recent past. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Conflict box

Why does he keep adding that to every section I open? I've raised it at NORN. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Link for my own convenience. Weird. Like I said on the talk page, maybe some people just like to collect trading cards? Grayfell (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Antifa

I guess you know I took Clown to 3rr. Do you want to start a discussion at npovn? I'm off to sleep. Doug Weller talk 21:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I really should be doing other things also. I'll keep an eye on it, though. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

My Apologies - Rocketfueled/ Gamification

Hey Grayfell, I was not intending to be overtly promotional when I created my initial account - to be honest, I was trying to pick a name that would be accepted/ that I could remember. My goal was to add to articles where I have experience (I have an MA in Humanities Computing and over 14+ years in eLearning and gamification). I am not intending for my edits to be promotional, and I wrote a book specifically to help educate on the subject, and I provide copies of the book for free. I would legitimately like to contribute to the community and would appreciate my edits to Learning Pathway and the inclusion of my book Office Arcade included in the Gamification article reinstated as references. I completely understand why the inclusion of Trajectory IQ was removed based on my username. Would you suggest that I update or change my username?

Thank you.

Rocketfueled (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rocketfueled: Hello. I appreciate your transparency, and I accept that your edits were made in good faith. I do not think they matched the project's goals and guidelines, however, so I will not be restoring them.

I did not remove the Trajectory IQ thing because of your username. I removed it partly because it was unsupported by the source you used, and also because that source was trivial and clearly derived from a routine press release. Sources must actually support the content they are attached to. Press releases and similar do nothing to explain a lone company's encyclopedic significance to the larger topic, which makes this strongly appear to be back-door spam.

Simply adding your book as a reference to Gamification was not appropriate, either. The information being sourced was already included in the article, so this is functionally spamming as well.

Regarding Learning pathway, the content you added was entirely about yourself, and was written in an inappropriate tone. Putting common terms in quotation marks isn't a valid replacement for an explanation. If there are reliable secondary sources about this perspective they could be included to explain why it's important

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not personal expertise. Expert editors are always welcome, but not necessarily for the reasons you might think. Your expertise is demonstrated by your familiarity with reliable sources and ability to explain those sources. this edit does not really explain very much. Who are Jim Williams and Steve Rosenbaum? "Pinpoint accuracy"? That's a bold, broad phrase which is completely lacking the necessary context to be informative. Etc.

After looking into it, I do not think your book meets Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Lioncrest appears to be Tucker Max's business. Setting aside his infamous promotional style, this appears to be a self-publishing label through Book in a Box.... right? If I'm wrong, please find reliable sources explaining Lioncrest's editorial stance/guidelines/anything. The few sources I can find on this publisher do not fill me with confidence.

Since this is the name of a company you are closely affiliated with, you absolutely should change your name. To put it simply, if your edits had been even slightly more promotional, you likely would've been blocked as a username policy violation. The template I posted on your talk page was a courtesy which explains how to change your username, but that is not the only problem here.

As a next step, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I say please, but this isn't optional. You may also find Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide helpful. Grayfell (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Jason Innocent spam

there is not promotion on this page. there is no false advertisement. Tice89 (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tice89: I didn't say the article is false advertising, I said it is advertising. That's bad enough. You recreated an article which had already been deleted. You used the exact same sources, and even tried to use the exact same navbox. That article is about an obscure book by an artist who has a Wikipedia account (Jasoninnocent) and tried to write an article about himself and one of his own projects. Then another account (Max556) comes along and also only ever tries to write articles about Jason Innocent. And a couple of IPs, at least one of which was blocked for spam. Now you, doing the exact same thing. This really, really appears to be spamming and sock puppetry. Do you think we're stupid? Grayfell (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

i dont know nothing about that??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tice89 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

So in other words, yes, you do think we're stupid. Got it. Grayfell (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tice89:! Hello. I'm a friendly talk page stalker. Wikipedia records all of your edits including this one, which Grayfell had to revert. It's a bit annoying for people, especially since you or one of your friends have done it a few times now. I can see some potential here though. If you have time to dedicate to Wikipedia that's great. I happen to have studied art and can set you up with some sources on notable artists who don't have wikipedia pages yet. If you'd like to pop over to my talk page and leave me a note we can have the conversation there. That way Grayfell can get on with performing secret administrator rituals. Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Edaham: Your patience is commendable. For the record I am not an administrator. I don't think I could handle it; those nefarious robes they wear seem too itchy. Grayfell (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Easy assumption to make! It was the long beard and pet crow that led me astray. Not entirely sure why I'm talk page stalking you, I think it was something to do with when I started stalking Doug Weller. Edaham (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your notification. Although it's unlikely, converting someone with lots of time on their hands to make socks away from the dark side and into a productive area of the encyclopedia would be cool. Unless of course the socks all get taken out and destroyed. Edaham (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Pet raven, eh? Funny you should mention that, I'm debating writing an article for Canuck the crow (or should it be Canuck (crow)?). There seems like enough reliable sources out there, but maybe not.

As for the dark side, I sympathize, although I have mixed feelings about trying it myself. I feel like I have helped some editors like this, but not often. At least a couple of times in the past I've carefully tried to walk editors through complicated areas only to find out they were socks I had previously explained the exact same issue to. That shows contempt for editors and Wikipedia, and it's hard not to take that personally. If nothing else, I tend not to explain something like this twice for that reason. Since this editor has the exact same minimal communication style as the suspected socks, I think that's likely what's happening here. On the other hand, there are a surprising number of good editors who are recovered sock puppeteers, so... maybe? I dunno. I sincerely wish you luck. It's far, far to easy to lose perspective and get caught up in 'gotcha' mentality, or trying to punish editors. That's no good. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Reading through the whole edit history SPI etc I have to say that a few of the sources are RS for that industry in NY and do transfer notability to the subject. There's huge quality issues on that page as well as the fact that the page creator is probably the artist himself, not to mention the sock puppet issue on which I have commented.... however the speedy has been declined and I kind of see the reason after having performed some perfunctory searches for the name of the artist. will continue to investigate. Edaham (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Chatbots Link Reversion

Hi Grayfell! I noticed that you didn't think my link was appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I read through the page you linked about external links but noticed that it specifically said that the guidelines contained within it didn't apply to inline citations. Following that I read through the pages about detecting reliable sources and inline citations.

Within the identifying reliable sources page it discusses news organizations as potentially reliable sources based on several criteria such as author identity, linking to scholarly articles, and credibility of publication. With respect to author identity, the author of the article I linked is an industry expert in artificial intelligence and machine learning with the proper knowledge and credentials to disseminate information about research in the field. He has written numerous articles in the past about other advances in the field such as [spam redacted], and breakthroughs in [spam redacted]. Additionally, in the article itself there is a link to the primary source, Emotional Chatting Machine: Emotional Conversation Generation with Internal and External Memory. Finally, with regards to the publication credibility, IoT for All is one of the largest and most respected IoT publications that I know of, and was ranked in the top 10 IoT publications by feedspot, a popular news reader application.

I'm hoping this clarifies why I believe the source I used is appropriate, but I am happy to answer any additional questions, or talk more if you think I haven't fully covered my bases.

Thanks! James122693 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @James122693:, @Isa0303:, and @Hannah0whit:

One of the things Leverege lists on their site under "We Believe In" is "transparency". Did you notice the cute little icon of a transparent cube underneath it? Clever. Iotforall isn't clearly a news outlet, but it's definitely part of Leverege's marketing division. The "Editor-in-Chief" is Leverege's "VP Business Development and Marketing". The "Managing Editor" is also "Director of Business Development", etc. I suspect you all know this already.

It looks like you are part of a concerted effort to add iotforall.com to Wikipedia, and the only reason I can see is spam. Within the last couple of days, three brand new accounts (at least) have been adding references linking to this site, while making no other substantial edits at all. The use of promotional language doesn't help, either. Calling a blog with a readership in the mid 10,000s (per Medium) "one of the largest and most respected IoT publications that I know of" and calling Feedspot "a popular news reader application" are not appropriate communication outside of a sales pitch. Who talks like this who isn't getting paid to? Wikipedia is, as part of its core philosophy, not a platform for promotion or advertising, and biz-speak like this is not compatible with this mission. Nor is it particularly civil, for that matter.

Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia damages the project, and James122693's edit was no different. This was just strange enough to cause confusion, while also not providing any neutral means to resolve that confusion. It's not remotely clear or intuitive what emotional detection means in that context or any other. The only recourse a reader would have would be to read the attached blog, which is pretty obviously the point. The edit didn't explain anything, it just added bloat. This damages the article for entirely promotional purposes.

Reliability is determined by multiple things, one of which is editorial oversight, which is not well-explained on iotforall.com. According to Feedspot, the blog publishes about one post a day, which isn't often enough to establish much of a reputation for anything. The are unlikely to develop this reputation also. The articles are largely anecdotal ("I went axe-throwing this weekend, how can I monetize that?" which was reposted from LinkedIn), mostly bland ("What Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos Wish You Knew About Tech Startups" could be summed-up as "you need to explain to customers why your product is good"), and entirely routine (no signs of journalism, such as having broken stories picked up by other outlets). It also looks like several posts are from Leverege's own people, such as Hwang, which seriously undermines editorial credibility, especially since it's not well explained in these article. This really, really looks like a blog, not a reputable news source. If it's claiming to be a journalistic outlet, there's an ethical problem with this lack of clear disclosure. Again, Leverege claims to believe in "transparency".

Another requirement, and this is a big one, is that sources must have an established reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Notice that "popularity" isn't part of that, so rankings among RSS readers are meaningless. If Yitaek Hwang is an established expert, then his opinion could be included with attribution, but there would have to be a very good, independently sourced reason for doing that, and no such reason has been presented.

Please let me emphasize that Wikipedia has very strict guidelines for how it handles paid editing: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Any editor with a conflict of interest should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This is not optional. Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide may also be helpful. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Lauren Southern

Just ran across this article. And that led me to Les Identitaires. I'm wondering why the lead starts "The Bloc Identitaire" - which is it? We need to figure out which term is used in English. Here[1] is the edit that created it. Thus[2] calls it "Generation Identity" - which is or isn't a separate group, the article claims it is but this Telegraph article, a year old I admit, says it's the youth wing.[3] I can't keep up with all of these articles. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche as a reliable source! How could anyone keep up with all this? Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

We've got a rush of new editors coming in, not bothering to read any of our policies or guidelines and who probably wouldn't care about them if we did. It's a problem. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting but not published. [4]. I'm sure I saw something similar about a study of racism yesterday but didn't keep it. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You have

never insulted me. We have an honest difference of opinions over at that Confederate Monuments list. Carptrash (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate that. Your hard work has greatly improved the article, while my interest is largely due to recentism. It's too easy for me to lose that perspective. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2017 (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. The thread is "Mansplaining". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard

There is a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard that might pique your interest. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, okay, thanks. This is the exact same notice as the one directly above. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Here, a happy goat for you!

Arvindl1989 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Holtzclaw Page

I would like to update the Holtzclaw, but respectfully I will not be biased and always have 3rd-party references. I will only state information that is in the reference and not make any judgements of character or guilt or innocence in the text. There is much going on right now with the case. There are secret evidence and hearings and I would like to flesh out the information so it is accurate and not biased. Please show me where I said anything or insinuated anything about a witchhunt. Holtzclaw was arrested under those conditions. He was also found guilty by a panel of jurors.

Dlruthenberg (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is regarding this edit. Even if sources specifically mention Holtzclaw, which those did not, the connection would need to be neutrally explained as background, not as a direct cause, which was painfully obviously your intention. "...amidst racially charged civil unrest..." is extremely leading and extremely euphemistic. You provided no neutral rationale for introducing this lengthy section on a tangentially related event. A rape in Oklahoma is not comparable to a murder in Missouri unless reliable say they are, and we would have to be able to explain why that comparison is being made in a neutral way. The place to discuss this further is the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism "Ableism and Antiziganism"

Ok. I took rid of these two hateful beliefs because like I said, Neo-Nazis usually doesn't talk negative about these certain group of people like they do with ethnic minorities like Blacks or Asians, Jews, Homosexuals, and Leftists. Yeah I actually did heard a White Power punk song about some fictional character who I think her name was "Mary" and the singer mentioned she have Down Syndrome, but despite this, Ableism is for the most part a rare topic for them to even bring up in both their Protesting and Music, along-side Antiziganism, which honestly why would they bring-up that like 24/7, like this was the targets of the original Nazis, but not these so-called "Modern" Nazis, plus when does these Gypsies even started getting attention during our current generation, like not the 70s, 80s, or 90s, but since like 2001, since 9/11. I just heard in Canada, there were Neo-Nazis protesting against Romani people but back in 1991. So really they might bring-up these groups for the sake of those from WWII, but really it more necessary to just have "Ultranationalism, Racism, Xenophobia, Homophobia, and Antisemitism", because those are what they mainly speaks up against people with. Ks159081 (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ks159081:Neo-Nazis hate disabled people. This is according to many reliable sources. Your opinion that they don't is original research. Your experience listening to some songs doesn't accurately represent larger larger movement. We need reliable sources. If you know of a reliable source which says neo-Nazi punks rarely sing about disabled people or Romani, let's see it. Sampling this music isn't good enough.

Neo-Nazis are, for the most part, angry and irrational. This includes neo-Nazi punks. If you're looking for ideological consistency from a small, non-random sample of neo-Nazi punks, you're going to be disappointed. They target whoever is convenient at the time, which includes Romani and disabled people. Anti-Romani sentiment and violence are still a very big deal among some neo-Nazi groups, such as in the Czech Republic. Just because you are not personally familiar with this, doesn't make it irrelevant. Isn't the point of Wikipedia to learn about things you are not personally familiar with?

The place to discuss this further is the article's talk page. Not here. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Gary,

I have been editing the Sulekha page on Wiki and the content I posted twice for the about section has been rejected stating that it was promotional. However, I've removed the points which I felt was promotional and made the necessary changes You can find the edit below and could you please let me know if this is okay. If not, it would be great if you could let me know which of these points felt promotional.

"Sulekha, led by Param Parameswaran (Chairman) and Satya Prabhakar (CEO), is one of India’s largest and fastest growing digital platforms in the local services and listings ecosystem. Sulekha uses data and technology to match the needs of 30+ M users with 3+ M verified local service businesses across 40 cities and 500+ categories. Sulekha helps users find relevant local businesses across categories like coaching, home and office service, entertainment, health and wellness, moving and packing, and training. Sulekha understands the needs of users in detail and matches them to relevant, verified local businesses, thus reducing the time and hassle of finding a local service provider.

On the other hand, Sulekha helps SMEs grow their business by marketing their services in their city/locality and category to find targeted prospects.

Sulekha serves Indians in India and the US, and has operations across major cities in India. Sulekha’s four global investors are GIC (Singapore), Norwest Venture Partners (Palo Alto), Mitsui (Tokyo), and IMG (New York)."

Sorry in advance if this isn't the right way to do this.