User talk:Grayfell

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

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

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

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:

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)[reply]

AAFMAA

Hi Grayfell, I made some edits to AAFMAA and I think I reached a point where its possible to remove the Advert tag you placed there. Please let me know your thoughts and if you agree with my edits and actions. Best, Pratat (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for letting me know. I have restored the template with an explanation on the article's talk page. This is probably the best place to discuss things further. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In refrence to your recent edit on mobikwik page.

Hey Thanks for making the correction. I am very new to wikipedia and still learning. I added a recent partnership they had with a company called buyucoin. The new of the partnership is on many news and third party blogs sites. I first added the news from bitcoin.com, which is a pioneer in crypto space. But it was edited by some one who said crypto sites are not wprs. Then i saw some refrences in the current mobikwik page which has medianama , money control etc. These are same as like inc42 which you deleted. Can i know what kind of news sites are eligible to be a refrence on wikipedia. Furthermore the new of their partnership was on money control too. The same site which has been used as a refremce on current mobikwik page. So can it be used. Thank a lot in advance. Tinder007 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple issues here but the simplest way to explain it is that the source appears to be churnalism. A "partnership" is not significant merely because a bad source can be found. Using vague language to promote a service is not neutral or encyclopedic. How many users have the option to do something with some service is trivia. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Discuss this on the article's talk page, if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your idea of a reliable source?

Genuine question, and yes this is about the dissident right page. I want to know because that movement is a legitimate movement at this point. And I'm new to Wikipedia btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dissidentrightindian (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained that, but will comment further on your talk page, to keep this in one place. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Groypers

Please stop using biased and loaded language on the Groyper page. Page was edited to reflect terminology which is professed by Groypers as opposed to inaccurate language which is designed to assign labels which do not reflect the Groyper movement The Swamp Creature (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses reliable sources, which also means independent sources. This means that it's up to sources to decide how the "Groypers" are described. Since your comments suggests that you are a member of the groypers, you have a conflict of interest and should propose edits on the article's talk page. Your first-hand knowledge is not relevant to Wikipedia, we need sources, and your personal dislike of those sources is also not particularly relevant. Any further comments here will be reverted. Further discussion should be held on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal Of External Links

Hello. I received your note re: removal of external links "...because they seem to be inappropriate for an encylopedia." Not fully understanding your reasoning ("seemed"?), I read the guidelines. Thanks for providing the link as this is my first edit and I have much to learn. In reviewing the guidelines, the only issue that stood out was that links "...should not normally be placed in the body of an article." Is it just a matter of formatting and these should be footnoted instead?

Or...in reading "Links normally to be avoided" I see a few references to avoid links that are "intended to promote" and "...primarily exist to sell products or services." Might this be your reason for removing the links?

I have no affiliation with Joel Hunter in any way and my updates are intended to be just that...bring the information up to date.

Can you help me understand how better to do that? Thanks so much!

Seattle98121-3881 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle98121-3881: Hello.

Sorry, but there were several problems with your edit.

The language you added was not neutral, and read like it was intended to promote specific groups. It is important to write from a neutral point of view, not one of advocacy. Advocacy can also take the form of excessive levels of detail, or of details which lack context.

Another problem was that your edits were not properly sourced. You linked to many non-profits, but these links were neither reliable sources, nor did they support that Hunter's role was encyclopedically significant. As just one example (from past experience I need to emphasize that this is just an example, not the only problem here) this link to CFCH.org doesn't mention Hunter at all. In fact, CFCH.org's "leadership" page also doesn't mention Hunter. I don't know how you, personally, knew that Hunter is involved with this group, but you need to cite reliable sources for content like this.

One additional problem is that this was not encyclopedic, because it failed to provide important information according to due weight. The main goal of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is to summarize secondary sources. One important way Wikipedia maintains neutrality is by relying on independent sources (meaning independent of the topic being covered). If independent sources do not mention Hunter's role in these various non-profits, it is unlikely to be significant to readers. Do readers have a path to understanding what the Central Florida Commission on Homelessness is, based on reliable and independent source ? If not, we cannot just take their own word for it and use an unreliable primary source, because this becomes a form of (hopefully inadvertent) promotion. If reliable, independent sources mention this information, we use those sources to provide context for why this is important. We do not use sources about a group to promote that group, even with the best intentions.

I hope that explains some of the problems. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Most all of the updates were sourced from a single source, "A Community Resource Network," (https://www.communityresourcenetwork.com/team) which appears to be where he is currently employed, albeit as a volunteer according to the site. I simply cut and pasted much from this single page. Your example concerning CFCH.org and his past leadership was not known to me. It came from the single source mentioned above (https://www.communityresourcenetwork.com/team). I get this a secondary source...clearly makes sense to not use secondary sources. Is this a logical conclusion I am drawing?

Second question: how would I go about updating the article to reflect his current position at "A Community Resource Network?" Seems like all the other "stuff" I first wrote is not appropriate...thanks for pointing it out and to the various links within Wiki to help me understand it better.

Final question: The Orlando Sentinel reports Hunter resigned, referring to a letter posted on the church's website, which has since been removed. It is archived here: https://www.pressreader.com/usa/orlando-sentinel/20170803/281865823555699. I do not have a subscription to the Orlando Sentinel and thus cannot confirm the original article. How might, if at all, I handle this?

I appreciate your time. Thanks.

Seattle98121-3881 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle98121-3881: Hello.

First, do not copy-paste from sources without clear attribution. This is a copyright violation. See WP:COPYVIO.

Second, you are correct that WP:SECONDARY sources are almost always preferable, but communityresourcenetwork is neither secondary, not inherently reliable. Setting that aside, most or all sources should also be WP:INDY of the topic, meaning that promotional blurbs which can be presumed to be provided by Hunter himself, are not generally useful. Very basic details can be supported by primary sources, but nothing beyond that. Since there is no obvious way for readers to understand what Community Resource Network is, the significance of this position will need reliable, independent sources. Start with sources and go from there, do not presume significance because a title sounds impressive.

Again, do not copy/paste from sources until you understand Wikipedia's stance on copyright. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...for clarification, where did you find evidence of "copy-paste without clear attribution?" I am confused. Everything I originally wrote was attributed. Again, I'm picking up on the need for reliable, and independent and should lack "promotion."

As to communityresourcenetwork...so first establish the entity (using reliable, independent sources)...from there, go to Hunter and his role again using reliable independent sources. Am I close?

Seattle98121-3881 (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle98121-3881:I did not see where it was attributed, and because it was a copyright violation, it has been removed from the page history. Again, review Wikipedia:Copyright violations but to keep things simple for everybody, don't copy/paste from any sources. Summarize reliable, independent sources in your own words, and cite those sources as references (Help:Referencing for beginners might help). This is almost always a better approach anyway, for multiple reasons.

If you have a reliable, independent source which mentions that Hunter is on the board of Community Resource Network, neutrally summarize what that source says. If you don't have such a source, it's probably not worth mentioning, since Wikipedia doesn't really care about details that aren't included in reliable sources.

If you think this organization is encyclopedically significant enough to have its own article, see Help:Your first article. I hope it's clear that everything I said about sources will also apply to that new article, as well. I'm just now noticing that Community Resource Network used to have an article, but it was deleted back in 2008 for lack of notability. One helpful guideline is WP:NORG, as this explains what the community expects regarding notability. Grayfell (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I indeed cut and paste most of what I edited and I should have put it quotes and then footnoted it, correct? (I think I footnoted one item in my original edit.) Last question: the opening statement "Joel Carl Hunter is the retired senior pastor of..." is not accurate as he resigned. How do I locate the source of this statement and/or have it updated? Seattle98121-3881 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle98121-3881: No, I think you're missing a key part of how Wikipedia works. You should summarize and paraphrase sources, neutrally, for almost everything you add to articles. Unfortunately there are a lot of articles which lack sources, but this is a problem which needs to be solved, not a precedent to follow.

Since that content was not neutral and the source was not necessarily reliable, you should not have copy/pasted it at all. If there is some specific reason to include direct quotes, there are ways to do this, but your copy/paste addition was not appropriate for multiple reasons. Discussing how to hypothetically add content like that is a distraction.

As for your second question, the difference between "resigning" and "retiring" seems trivial to me unless there is some specific importance provided by reliable sources. The church's website merely says he "stepped down"[1] but I don't think that's reliable for anything more than extremely basic information. I've changed the lead to say "former senior pastor" until a better source can be found. The long-term solution is to use reliable, independent sources to explain his career in the body of the article, and then summarize those sources in the lead.

Any information which is not supported by a reliable source can be removed at any time. This is standard for all articles, but especially for content about living people. Grayfell (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones

Thanks for catching the Forbes thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skyisdeep

I see in the Zalgo SPI archive, you filed against one of his socks Iikigaii in the past. I strongly suspect Skyisdeep is the same sock-puppet. See what I recently filed [2] for details. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dang, yeah, that's very likely. Good catch. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reversal of my additions

Discuss on article's talk page.

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.

Hello,

Where is exactly the difference that requires you to revert my changes? We are both saying the same thing - there are far-right individuals on the platform. The thing is that I am pointing out that the website allows also far-left individuals to express themselves, whereas presently the article focuses on how it is all "far-right" people and seems to ignore the diversity of people on Bitchute.org. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources go into great detail around how far-right individuals use BitChute. The same is not true with far-left individuals. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself mentions 2010s some anti-fascist groups, which are far-left, being banned from youtube. The Bitchute.org page is a reliable source, which states that it is politically neutral and open to extremist groups on all sides. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitchute is not a reliable source. Further discussion should be based on reliable sources, and should be held on the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

David Cole/Stein

If we're going to call him a Holocaust denier, we should at least present his specific views. Remember that we have to be strongly biased in his favor because it's a BLP.

Moreover his views are relevant since a reliable source (The Guardian) talked about them. I'm not making this up, it's in the body of the article. CozyandDozy (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are deeply confused about Wikipedia's policies. We are not strongly biased in his favor, we are "biased" towards reliable sources. If you are advocating for being biased in favor of a holocaust denier, I have no desire to discuss anything with you on my talk page. Discuss on the article's talk page, and do not post on my talk page again unless required by policy. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latest policing

Your policing of all things wikipedia has been an administrative issue in the past, and at the current trend I'd expect will continue to become an issue in the future.

As I think you know, the R&I talk page has been the site of numerous "tendentious and disruptive" comments qualitatively in excess of what you (rather debatably) choose to label as such now, but you never saw fit to revert any of it, since it is generally posted by some of your tag team partners and acclaimed by the others.

The questions of whether the RfC was deceptive, is being interpreted overbroadly, and similar, are going to recur on the talk page whether you support that or not. You can of course participate in the discussion like anyone else. But posting an edited form of a comment is a lighter and more benign way of getting that discussion to happen than posting a number of new page sections and more directly combating the offenders. I'd say it minimizes disruption. YMMV of course. But I don't think the usual edit wars that you seem to like are a good idea here. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]