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)

Sulekha

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindl1989 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Arvindl1989: Hello. My name is not "Gary". I'm glad you're discussing this on a talk page, but please try to read this more carefully. Calling someone by a wrong name, when you have that name written down in front of you, is kind of rude.

This is important: read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you are being paid or compensated in any way for editing this article, such as by your employer or as a freelancer, you must disclose this: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This is not optional, so please answer explaining that you understand. Disclose your conflict of interest, specifically paid editing, on your userpage (User:Arvindl1989).

The edits you have made are too promotional. Way, way too promotional. You are asking for specific points? The entire thing reads like an advertisement, not like an encyclopedic overview. As a starting point. try reading WP:BUZZWORD, but there are so many problems with this that's there's nothing salvageable to include in the article. The goal of Wikipedia isn't to sell people on Sulekha, it is to explain it neutrally from an outside perspective.

Again, please clarify your COI status before going any further, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Hello. I apologize for that. It was a geniune mistake

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Fascism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 September 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

continuing on Jason Innocent

Continuing Is settlepi considered a reliable source? Ip7 (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Ip7 (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Whitewashing etc.

Hi Grayfell,

You've accused me of whitewashing[5]. I'm sure it's a controversial article with people on one or both sides regularly trying to do... I don't know. But check my contributions: my global contribs

I don't edit articles about identitarianism or even about anything related.

Secondly, if you're going to revert, you need to give a reason. "Whitewashing" is not a reason. That would be like me reverting you and giving a summary of "Wrong!"

My edits came with an explanation in the edit summary *and* on the Talk page. I explained my edits because it was possible to justify them. If it's possible to justify your revert, then please explain it. Otherwise your revert should not stand.

And then you also reverted my edit about the Gurk article. Read the source. Gurk interviews the other guy. The other guy says (at the very end) that there's a risk that the nazis posing as identitarians online might make racism hip and modern. The text of the article is clearly wrong, but you reverted me because you somehow prefer the incorrect version. I'd be interested to hear your explanation (but you gave none, not in the edit summary, not on the Talk page). Great floors (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"Both sides" is a red flag. This strongly indicates false balance. We are not interested in "both sides", as though both sides are equal, we are interested in due weight. The weight of many "sides" is that this is a white nationalist movement, and that's being generous with the euphemisms.

You've made about 700-800 edits. Okay. Each project has its own community, and I'm not interested in trying to assess edits for Wikipedia projects with different guidelines and standards without a very good reason.

Assuming good faith doesn't mean carefully looking over someone's contributions to see if their edit was ideologically acceptable, or if they are familiar with a topic. That's the opposite of assuming good faith, if you think about it. I do, I admit, check contributions for edits like this to see if they are part of a larger pattern of non-neutral edits or outright vandalism. I didn't see that in your case, but for that particular edit I would've reverted either way, so it wouldn't have mattered much.

Since the substance of both your edit and your talk page comments was to downplaying a defining trait of the Identitarian movement, this edit needed to be reverted. Your explanation on the talk page was flawed and insufficient, and another editor already explained this and proposed a compromise which you only partially responded to. There was no reason for me to add to it for that reason, but I have now done so, anyway, at your insistence.

What Gurk "worries" is not for us to explain. If you would like to more clearly attribute his opinions to him, do so in a more neutral tone, please. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That was weird

Yea, I was undoing the IP user, its edit showed as the most recent when I did it, not yours. I may have started it, then stepped away for a minute . I dunno. The Gremlins. Thanks. :) TheValeyard (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No biggie, I have had the same thing happen a few times. Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Alfresco (software)

I am not sure how you get notified of changes so I am adding a comment here. I have added 2 sections to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alfresco_(software) to discuss what it will take to remove the tags. When you get a chance, please review them and respond. I am trying to improve that article after it was woefully out-of-date prior to my making edits and want to make sure that what is written is in compliance. Pie1120 (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have responded at the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted Birth Date - Tariq Nasheed

You rolled back the date of birth. It is noted in the copyright entry of one of his songs, as well as his real name (corrected - I stated Sanders, it's acually Thomas). You can hear it's him by actually listen to the song Bolt24 (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That smells a lot like original research. If a reliable source doesn't spell it out, it doesn't belong. I don't accept that a routine entry in copyrightencyclopedia.com is reliable, nor is it useful for this point. The proper place to discuss this further is the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Travis McHenry

Hello! Should we not reference Mary Bird Land as a way to prove the area he is claiming? I did not place the reference to reference McHenry. Please advise. Thanks! Geejayen (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Geejayen: Hello. I'm confused, what's the Britannica source for? It doesn't mention him, or his micronation, so I'm not clear on what its purpose it. If this is the only way we can support that Marie Byrd Land is in the Antarctic, then we have a serious problem that a brief Britannica article on geography isn't going to solve. Actually, after looking at the few sources, the article needs a lot of work, so I'm going to post something on its talk page.

As a general rule of thumb, sources for WP:BLPs should specifically mention the person by name. This is just a rule of thumb, but using sources to support a point not actually made by those sources is synthesis. I hope that answers your question. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Hello, Yes the Britannica article was an attempt to reference Mary Bird Land since it is the real name of the location he is claiming (Westarctica). I totally understand what you mean now. Thank you for clarifying and your insights. Yes the article needs a lot of work. I removed a lot of erroneous unsupported content as a start to making it better when I first discovered it. Geejayen (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Cloud power

about Cloud Power (AirHES) - is Indiegogo link a reliable source like this? https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/cloud-power-clean-water-and-energy-from-clouds#/ Andrew Kazantsev (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I've responded at User talk:Andrew Kazantsev. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Kazantsev (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC) OK, thanks. But then, how can I message about this global solution for energy and water supply? Maybe my patent could be enough as reliable sources?[6]

Please do not post the same messages to multiple talk pages. I will respond on your talk page, which is the same place I responded last time. Additionally, please sign your posts at the end, not at the beginning. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

User Leysure

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding user:Leysure.  The thread is User Leysure, WP:SPA for spamming. Jeh (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

p.s.: Wasn't there an earlier spate of these spam attempts from micsig, from a different username? I swear there was... but I can't find them now.

How was my edit about the 2017 Berkeley protests not neutral?

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.

---

All I added was that there were riots. You can't deny that rioting took place. Nicholas S8 (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No you didn't:

• Side one: Conservative activists

This is euphemistic as hell.

• Side two: Antifa

This is painfully obviously emphasizing the most controversial side while ignoring all the rest.

If you don't even admit or realize what you're doing, this conversation is over. If you want to make the case that riots -separate and distinct from "clashes"- were a defining trait of all of these protests taken together, you've got to find sources and get consensus for it. If you want to talk about this further, do it on the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

by "conservative activists" I meant the conservative speakers whose presence at UC Berkeley has caused the riots

it put antifa as side two because they are the ones who started the violent protests against the speakers

here is just one of many source to prove that riots have taken place http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html If you are really ignorant enough to not see any rioting during any of the Berkeley protests, then I'm truly sorry for you. Nicholas S8 (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you're extremely sorry for me. My inability to tell the difference between "clashes" and "riots", and my unwillingness to chose the more incendiary of the two, it keeps you up at night. Your sorrow burns with a thousand suns, undoubtedly.

Your argument completely ignores my point, and is fatally flawed anyway. I told you to get consensus at the article's talk page, not here, and I meant it. Grayfell (talk) 08:49, 24 September 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.

International House of Prayer

Mr. Greyfell, I work for the International House of Prayer and my department head has encouraged me to update our page. I see that I will need to study up as if I were creating a new page, since the site has not been updated since 2010, apparently. Just one question and then I'll study up: I emailed our registrar's office and got the latest figures on enrollment at our school. What better source could that be? Do I need to wait for someone in the independent press to write a news story on our enrollment in order to get it updated? I am not intending to be contrary, I simply do not understand the ropes here. ElizabethJohnson1949 (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@ElizabethJohnson1949: Hello. Before I answer your question, I must insist you carefully review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This is not optional. There are ways for editors with a conflict of interest to contribute, but this requires caution and transparency. Please do not edit International House of Prayer again until you have reviewed this, although you can still propose changes to the article's talk page. You should also review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Since this is a lot of homework, you might also find Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide helpful. Thank you.

As for your question, for both practical and philosophical reasons, Wikipedia requires that content be supported by reliable sources, but additionally, those sources must meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. This means that other people who are not involved have some way to double-check this information. The source wouldn't necessarily have to be on the internet, but it must be published, so that a moderately determined person could reasonably track down a copy to confirm that it says what is claimed.

Think of it this way: Wikipedia is not a substitute for IHOPKC's own website. If your organization publishes this info on its actual website, this could be considered for inclusion on Wikipedia, but we do not publish original research. Emailing the registrar is a form of original research, and is not verifiable, since private correspondence is not published.

After you have reviewed the above information about paid/COI editing, I suggest you propose such changes on the article's talk page: Talk:International House of Prayer. Simply start a new section, as you did here. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Rye high school

Please don't delete a near essay for the rye highschool page, I am a school admin and this info is all factual. And no the football team does not make playoffs every year and baseball hasn't won state in 4 years. Thank you please revert my editing. Equinoble (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Equinoble: You're a school admin who doesn't know how to spell "propoganda"? An admin who adds juvenile vandalism about how police brutality "doesn't exist" while lying about it being a "typo"? Not setting a very good example for the kids, are you? What about this? Is this vandalism, or pushing a religious agenda, or just plain ol' antisemitism? Don't bother explaining it to me, just don't pretend other editors are stupid. If you want to change the school article, find reliable sources and post suggestion to the article's talk page. Not here. Grayfell (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You are just a huge liberal, pushing your beliefs by changing info on numerous subjects, ( ive read your previous "talk" articles) also, you are talking out your ass right now because I changed some pages info cause it was full of error. Also, you won't let me comment on the high school wiki page because I don't have "references". Where tf is the refrence that the football team goes to state "every year", or that the schools attendance is 280?? Not even close. This just shows to prove that Wikipedia is just a bunch of editors steering the beliefs of people to fit thier agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinoble (talk • contribs) 04:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say huge, but I am pretty tall. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Anyway... I've removed the silly claim about going to playoffs every year, and have updated the information on enrollment as supported by National Center for Education Statistics listing. As part of the school's administration, I'm sure you're aware that US schools report enrollment information to the government every year, and this is the kind of source I was talking about. Your personal expertise, as part of the school's administration, is not usable, because Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. According to the NCES, the school had 222 students for the last reported year. That seems relatively close to the 280 number reported in 2008, but I'm not one of the school's admins, so what do I know? Grayfell (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

opinion piece in Breitbart by former editor name-checks you

In case you weren't already aware of this, thought you'd find this article informative. Or at least amusing. Rockypedia (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I would not have seen this if you hadn't posted it. Amusing indeed, but also amusingly bad. It's so... strained. And boring, and cherry-picked. I don't get why anyone would find that kind of second-hand minutia of interest, but that's Breitbart, innit? Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

yep. I just like that a Breitbart "contributor" needed a safe space to bitch about Wikipedia after being blocked on Wikipedia. Rockypedia (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Assistance with review of my edits

Hi Greyfell. Thank you for your review of my edits of the page Jeff McWaters. Would you please review my changes to make sure it is written in a neutral manner so we can have the top banner removed? I am a new contributor and appreciate the help! Thanks. Kamillabirgitte (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kamillabirgitte: Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. You still have not clarified if you have a conflict of interest or not. Please do so before editing any further. The content you added appears to promote McWater's business activities, and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.

These changes you have made are insufficient for removing the banner, as the article still includes trivia supported by weak sources and presented in an inappropriately informal way. There are two closely related issues: The amount of detail and the way it is presented. I will give examples of the problem, but rather than fuss-over the exact wording, the simplest fix is going to be to remove a large amount of unnecessary details from the article. A Wikipedia article isn't a substitute for his own corporate bio page.

Examples of inappropriate wording include, but are not limited to: saying he landed a job, ...was exposed to entrepreneurship at an early age..., ...was proven ineffective..., ...focused on meeting the healthcare needs... etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch might be helpful, especially WP:BUZZWORD. This still of writing is common in corporate press releases and similar, but it is not neutral, nor is it compliant with Wikipedia's expectations for a formal tone.

Keep in mind that this is a general encyclopedia, and he shares this project with everyone else who is notable. His article should, on some larger level, be an academic overview of who he is and why he's notable from a larger view, not a trophy-case of his accomplishments.

The best place to discuss this further is the article's talk page: Talk:Jeff McWaters. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment : Probable Sock

You might be interested in this edit [7] after seeing this edit [8] by 2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F. This seems to be some how associated with IP 141.131.2.3, as it seems they signed them both as "MC", immediately suggesting a sock. Further evidence in article with this revert [9] in history here. [10] Considering 2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F has made just four editsSpecial:Contributions/2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F on the one day, suggest this is highly likely. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I've kind of lost track of the details on this one, but I don't think editing from shifting IP addresses is considered sock puppetry, especially when the editor is clearly indicating that they are the same person through a signature. If this person has been blocked, or also has an account, that would be different, of course. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

PewDiePie talk page/suggestion

Hi, I would definitely like you to take a look at my post/suggestion on the PewDiePie talk page. I directly reference you and your reversions here. I would also like to clarify that I have no ill-intent with what I wrote in that section; it's really just more of a general frustration with reversions of sourced/referenced material. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I get it. I am new to this article, and it might seem like I'm just disrupting things without a good reason. Obviously, I think I do have a good reason. I should've posted on the talk page, and that was my mistake. Your mistake has been not assuming good faith. If you don't have ill-intent, and I don't have any reason to think you do, don't imply that I have some ulterior motive through speculation. It's not cool, and it's allowing your frustration to interfere with improving the article. Saying "I don't want to speculate" and then speculating... well, who's going to take that kind of thing seriously? Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color - Thursday, Oct. 26 at PNCA

Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Artists of Color

On Thursday, October 26, a Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color will be held from 4–8pm at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway). Learn more at Facebook. Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

Can you restore the material you just took out. Yes it might be petty or whatever but we are trying to get consensus about what yo do. Your unilateral intervention is not helpful. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I have explained why I'm not going to do that on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

ThinkProgress

Hi. I notice that you fairly recently edited the ThinkProgress article. Since then, however, over the past few months, a lot of editing has been going on at the article, and now there is a disagreement on the Talk page about whether the current version of the article is balanced or not, as well as whether the content throughout the article is appropriate/optimal for the article. If you can spare some time to analyze the article and the current discussions on the talk page, I'm sure everyone would be interested in your input, either way. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

IoT

Thank you for the feedback on my recent edits to the IoT page. Just wanted to drop in and let you know that I'll be working on the article bit by bit for the next few weeks(months? however long it takes.) If things seem unfinished, it's because they are and I just haven't gotten around to them yet. I appreciate your help in making the article better and wanted you to know how my editing style works so that it doesn't alarm you when there are gaps. --Baumergrl (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Wikipedia's open and cooperative nature means that all articles, even good articles, are still considered unfinished to some degree (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress is an essay on this), and any editor can come along and work on them. This is just something to keep in mind. Grayfell (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine, you're a regular

Regarding this: Fine, you're a regular. Cut the shit at Order of the Arrow. You should know better. That's not a template. --Jayron32 02:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

And yet, your contribution to the talk page about this blatantly promotional garbage being edit-warred into the article is where, exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayfell (talk • contribs) 02:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in the article at all. You are behaving badly, for which I am telling you to stop it. I'm telling you that you should know better, because you're edit warring on an article. Quit it. --Jayron32 03:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk is cheap, and abrasive talk is even cheaper. If you don't see how this content is unacceptably promotional, your behavior isn't a whole lot better. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the content at all. Don't really care. I saw the back-and-forth in the article history. You may be right, but edit warring gets right editors blocked as often as it gets wrong editors. --Jayron32 03:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If your first two choices are Cut the shit and boilerplate template, both for content you haven't even looked at, you need to try harder. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Look, if you're so concerned about being treated as a regular, you should have already known that edit warring does not take into account content, only behavior. I've never said you were wrong. Just that you were edit warring. I will concede that you were right (without any statement that you actually were) but it wouldn't exempt you from being blocked for edit warring if you insisted on continuing to do so. --Jayron32 03:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If you would block me for making three edits over two days, the first of which (at least) was blatant spamming, than you still need to try harder. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I've never said I intended to block you. You are currently discussing the problems on the talk page, which as far as I am concerned, has justified everything I have done here. --Jayron32 03:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. You posted a template that explicitly threatens to block me, and then say you never intended to block me, and then try to take credit for other people's discussion. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I said that I was not intending to block you. --Jayron32 03:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Be honest: Did you remember that the template included a block warning? You know full well that you were implying that you would block me, either directly, or through a noticeboard. The threat was made by you and template or not, you alone are responsible for your edits. Grayfell (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I though. Grayfell (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Look, you can keep pretending you can read my mind. It hasn't happened yet. But maybe someday you'll be able to do it. --Jayron32 04:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Your actions demonstrate that you weren't really paying attention when threatening other people, and then, with your own words, you acted smug about something that would've happened anyway. Grayfell (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I threatened nothing. I reminded you of the rules. You acted all huffy when I gave you a template, so I rephrased it by your request. You'll notice I've not blocked you at all. So this is all where you get to pretend like you were actually threatened because it makes you feel like you were justified in edit warring. As long as we both feel good about this, there's no loser, is there? --Jayron32 04:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You've raised a point that makes this... not fun, so I'm going to give a more serious response. If you're not interested in reading this that way, don't bother responding at all.

We're not on the same level, so you will always be the "winner", here. Your actions have weight, and when you treat this as a joke, it has an edge that you cannot ever control. Sorry, that's just how it works. Even if this were a completely empty threat, getting blocked is scary to some people. When you threaten a stranger, justifiably, toothlessly, it doesn't matter, you don't get to decide how other people take it. You don't have to agree with this, you can laugh at me if you want, but you do have to accept that other people treat this seriously. I let you know I was annoyed by your behavior. So fucking what? What do you gain by dragging this on? You fully made your point, so don't play shitty, dehumanizing troll games over it. No, you didn't block me, but you could've. No, I don't think you would've blocked me for this without a better reason, but I don't know you, and you don't know me. You have the power here, not me, so my assumptions about your behavior are pretty much irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Order of the Arrow Article

Hello Grayfell. The Order of the Arrow article now presents, accurately, that some Native Americans approve of the use of Native American elements as part of the organization, while some Native Americans criticize this as inauspicious cultural appropriation. Previously, the article presented the situation as if all Native Americans criticized the OA for cultural appropriation. As Native Americans are not a monolithic group and there is diversity of opinion, the article now properly reflects the reality of the situation. As for labeling the last section of the article with a banner saying "This section contains content written like an advertisement," this criticism is inapplicable, as if the section were advertising the OA, the section would not include robust perspective of criticism that is many times longer than the previous version of the criticism that was present on the page. An advertisement for an organization would not present such criticism; instead, the section provides multiple perspectives. Merely showing the OA's perspective is not an advertisement, just as showing the perspective of detractors is not an advertisement for that position. I humbly request that you therefore remove the "Written like an advertisement tag". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceandHonor (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@PeaceandHonor: Hello. I appreciate that you expanded some of the critical content to the article as well, but I have some serious problems with your changes, and I do strongly feel that the end result is promotional. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page: Talk:Order of the Arrow#Association with Native American Culture. This will make it much easier for other editors to join the discussion so we can reach consensus on how to resolve this. Grayfell (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Firstly, I appreciate the cordiality of your response, and understand your concern about the changes being of promotional nature. I can assure you wholeheartedly that is not the singular goal; instead, balance is the goal. This is why, in addition to adding details about supporters of the OA's practices regarding Native American elements, I added MANY details (including a rather lengthy quote) that were with regard to criticism of these practices. Someone looking only to promote an organization would not purposely multiply the length of the criticism section many times over! Balance is the goal here, not promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceandHonor (talk • contribs) 03:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying, and I don't question your motives, but adding critical content is compatible with promotional intent. Not that it applies to you, but even spammers do this, sometimes. I could go into why this is, or show some past examples if you would like, but if you want to discuss the article, the article's talk page is a better place. Grayfell (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute Resolution Filing

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you. Equilibrium103 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

re your reversion of my minor edits to Arthur Jensen

Hello Greyfell:

I presume that you saw my comment on the Talk page of the article on Arthur Jensen, in which I said that I might edit the article when I had reviewed sources. I would not make a meaningful edit without consulting a source other than my memory. The very minor edit I made with regard to the verb "has had" was done because that verb implied that Jensen had, and still has, an interest in music. This was true when Jensen was alive, but now, after he has died, a past tense verb is appropriate. I fail to see why you would revert that. The edit of inserting some identification for Melvin Connor was made because, as I was reading the article, I did not know who Melvin Connor was, so I interrupted my reading, to find out, by going to the article on Connor. It puzzled me that he would be treated as a knowledgeable critic, and even quoted at length, without some indication of his qualifications to offer criticisms of Jensen's work. So, I put those qualifications in, so that other readers would know that Connor was an informed professional, who could reasonably discuss Jensen's work. I don't understand why that would be reverted either. My reasons for these minor edits were to improve the quality of the article. They were not relevant to its content or to any controversy about Jensen's viewpoints. Please restore these edits.

I have read and done mostly minor edits on Wikipedia since about 1993. I hope it is appropriate in this space to explain my recent activities on Wikipedia. I might assume that you have noticed that I have been reading the articles relevant to racial differences, and adding comments to some of the Talk pages. My doctoral dissertation in psychology was on racial prejudice, and I am interested in how such topics are discussed, and how they can be discussed scientifically. I am reading these articles because I have recently been rather forcibly exposed to the fact that racial differences are being treated, in almost all of the current professional literature, as if they have no empirical reality. The phrase that seems to have become part of the standard definition of race is "social construct" and, as a social construct, the concept of race is being imbued, or has been defined, as a concept which includes intrinsic implications relevant to social hierarchy, social class, and unjust but socially ascribed inferiority. This word is being used as a normative concept, like caste. To me, this is objectionable, because if the word race is not usable, there seems to be other word that could be used to discuss the actual empirical differences among various populations of humanity. It is my intention, after I have read the relevant articles, to try to improve them by inserting discussion that acknowledges and points out the differences between empirical claims, which are scientifically verifiable or falsifiable, and normatively loaded language, which does have intrinsic meanings relevant to ascribed social rank.

I am very careful to write professionally when I edit articles, although I thought the occasional silly remark on a Talk page might be allowed. (I have read a lot of silly remarks on Talk pages.) However, what I said about Neanderthal ancestry of Europeans, and its contribution to European skin and hair coloring, is not speculation or original research -- there have been extensive publications about it. I learned about it from reading the webpage Science Daily, and some other sources. And if I give as an example, the usage of races of horses as equivalent to breeds of horses, and refer to the varieties called breeds and landraces among virtually all species, as an example of how the word race might be treated as an empirical concept, that is not a silly remark. If the word race is lost to empirical science, then some other word, such as ethnic type is going to have to be substituted for it. I would rather rehabilitate a word from ordinary English, than require ordinary people to adopt a piece of jargon in order to discuss the fascinating varieties within our species.

You can check my qualifications to discuss these things on (Redacted). When my grandfather was asked about his ancestry, he used to say he was a mongrel, and so am I, so I don't really feel like I'm racially superior to anybody. Before I was a psychologist, I was an English teacher and a student of philosophy.

I hope to consult you in future, when I undertake a serious edit, as I certainly recognize that these topics are very fraught with controversies. Thank you for reading my stuff. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. While I appreciate your cordiality, I think you have some serious misconceptions about Wikipedia. As you perhaps already know, content on Wikipedia is not based on personal familiarity or professional qualifications. Instead, such qualifications are useful for how they allow us to find and summarize reliable sources. I'm not sure why you are sharing your personal history in this way. I'm sorry to be blunt, but I'm not interested in verifying your personal history in order to discuss this with you on Wikipedia. Your personal ancestry shouldn't come into this, because even if you weren't a self-described mongrel, your ability to edit the article would remain exactly the same. Likewise, Wikipedia has only been around since 2001, so I don't know what you mean when you say you've been editing since 1993. It doesn't really matter, though.

As a courtesy to you, I have redacted some information from you comments. I'm not going to use it, and there are enough trolls and harassers coming to my page that sharing this information here is unlikely to have a positive outcome.

Regarding the revert I made, this was about MOS:CREDENTIAL. I have retained the explanation of his qualifications while removing the "Dr." in front of it, as this is against Wikipedia's manual of style. If you check the article, you will see that the grammatical change is also preserved. I don't know why you linked to the word "Konner" in isolation, since that is a disambiguation page which provides no useful information in that context, and I assume this was an error.

As for the scientific basis for race in humans, your comments blur the lines of several separate issues in a way that, as I said on Talk:Scientific racism, is somewhat disturbing to me. Distinctions which may be pragmatically useful for animal husbandry should not be cavalierly applied to humans as a biological fact. I trust that you can see how this appears profoundly dehumanizing, but you're doing it anyway, so please reevaluate your approach. Even if this weren't offensive for that reason, it's very sloppy science. To quote Wikipedia's own article Race (human categorization): Although such groupings lack a firm basis in modern biology, they continue to have a strong influence over contemporary social relations. At most, "race" has a non-firm basis in biology. If you disagree with this newer academic consensus, well, okay, but Wikipedia isn't the place to fight this battle. If you disagree that this is the current academic consensus, you'll need to find actual, recent sources discussing this.

"Rehabilitating" a word is not within Wikipedia's goals. The word has changed meaning because the scientific understanding of the topic has advanced. We don't need a replacement, because the concept itself hasn't changed, it's just become less useful. "Race" isn't, biologically speaking, a discrete set of groups, it's a multi-axis continuum, with a very heavy dose of social and environmental factors thrown in to complicate things. This isn't new, but we now have more incentive to treat it in a nuanced way, and we have better tools to back this up, also. If you're academically studying the genetics of horses you might use these breeds as a convenient shorthand, but you better be very clear exactly how you define these breeds if you want to get published, right? Maybe you're looking as a specific set of markers. At the very least, such a paper would explain that the breeds are certified by a relevant breeding association, but that raises new problems. Especially for humans, the biology of race amounts to piling statistical trends on statistical trends as determined by whatever genetic marker is convenient to geography in some statistically convenient past time-span. There is no simple test for blackness or whiteness or south-Asianness or Aborigineness or such, because of course there isn't. Even neanderthal genetics is ambivalent. Race is used in biology only within specific contexts (the statistical trends of sickle-cell disease are an obvious example) not based on discrete preexisting biological categories. Any attempt to make these categories into empirical claims is incredibly contentious, not just socially, but biologically. Grayfell (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the thank you

Just wanted to express my gratitude for your recognition of the cleanup I did on Catalonia. Thank you. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for the public thanks you gave for the advice I gave to User:Nickboy000.

I'm of the opinion that some of the new "problem editors" here can actually become productive contributors... But they need to slow down, pay attention to the editing process of others, and more than anything else, reflect on what's being said to them in response to their edits. Rather than taking an adversarial stance. It rarely works out that way, but I have seen it happen on occasion, so it's always worth a try. Hopefully it didn't fall on deaf ears, and the editor can come back someday, after they've matured a bit. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be confused, since I don't remember anything about Catalonia. You're welcome anyway, though. :)

I do remember your comments to Nickboy000. Your advice was good and thoughtful, and I also thought it was better that it came from a fresh name rather than one of the editors they'd been 'battling' with. I admit I'm not great at figuring out how to deal with problem editors. Lately I'm trying to be a bit more accommodating, for the reasons you mention, but a lot of the time I feel like it's more for my own emotional benefit than theirs. I dunno. I've also seen it happen on occasion, but my fear is that humoring some of these nastier viewpoints is fostering an atmosphere that drives away good editors. I can't really fault a new editor who sees the mess on some of these talk pages and decides to go elsewhere. We shouldn't drive away potential good editors in the hopes that some of the problem ones might get better, but we shouldn't assume they are incapable of contributing, either. It's a difficult line to walk.

Oh well. You're welcome, is what I'm saying. Grayfell (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Patterson edits

Hello Grayfell. It would be useful to me if you could point to what exactly the problem with the new edit was, rather than a blanket approach, I presume in here somewhere? . . In 2017 Patterson was awarded New Zealand Institute of Architects Gold Medal, presented to a single architect each year. The citation notes his practice’s distinctive projects. [5] [6] Andrew Barrie, Professor of Design at the School of Architecture and Planning University of Auckland says that Patterson's not needing to fit on or conform gives him a freedom expressed in his eye for materiality, space and light which drives his ability to produce buildings which connect internationally. [7] Patterson is the youngest architect to receive this award. [8] The Gold medal is quite an achievement and I wanted to add. There is no conflict of interest other than being a fan of NZ architecture I am trying to be as objective as possible e.g the inclusion of quotes from academia should I remove this? Andrew Barrie, Professor of Design at the School of Architecture and Planning University of Auckland says that Patterson's not needing to fit on or conform gives him a freedom expressed in his eye for materiality, space and light which drives his ability to produce buildings which connect internationally. The rest was new awards info and interesting commentary on Maori references in his work. EditorforGS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@EditorforGS: Hello. Before I answer your specific questions, please disclose any conflict of interest you have. This is strongly advised in all cases, but if this COI is paid or compensated, it is not optional, as it is required by Wikipedia's terms of service (and in some places laws regarding covert advertising). Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure explains more.

To be blunt, it is very obvious that you are editing the article with the intent of promoting Patterson or Patterson Associates. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Once you have disclosed your conflict of interest, I would be happy to answer in more detail. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if previously working at The School of Architecture and Planning is a conflict or not? I have also worked on developing Patterson's website design which is where I came into contact with this body of work (this was 2 years ago and I was paid for that specific project, note I am not a copy person my background is design). I am basing the page on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Athfield which has quite detailed information as do other notable NZ architects e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Bossley and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_BeavenGrayfell (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Regarding the Len Lye building I am not sure if you can split the person from the building when the person in question is an architect and that is why they are of note? EditorforGS (talk).