User talk:Grayfell

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

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)



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)

Why are you deleting the important information on the Messiah or madman page?[edit]

DeWolf sued Lyle Stuart. The documentation is provided and not disputed. Please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talkcontribs) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have started a discussion on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What Nevada Court?[edit]

Ronald DeWolf page read previously: "DeWolf retracted his negative comments about Hubbard and the Church of Scientology in affidavits submitted to the federal court in New Jersey and Nevada, ..."

Do you know of any Nevada court action ? I don't, but the wording was there somehow. The DeWolf case was filed in New Jersey federal court. There was no case in Nevada that I know. Also, the court documents are DeWolf's own words. They should be as valid as Corydon's own words in his book, shouldn't they? Do we need a "he said that she said that they said that (... etc.)" when the guy is saying it himself ? Slade Farney (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where Nevada came from. This is why reliable sources are so important. It may be counterintuitive, but WP:SECONDARY sources are almost always preferable for several reasons. For one thing, primary sourced court documents can create a lot of weight problems if leaned-on too hard. Trying to include every detail of a legal battle very quickly spirals out of control into WP:UNDUE territory. Obviously not every detail is important, so secondary sources are vital for figuring out what to include and what not to include. If we mention the lawsuit at all (which we should) we should make an effort to explain Corydon's take of it, especially since the book was published anyway and DeWolf's lawsuits were largely unsuccessful. Corydon's book is a grey area as a secondary source on DeWolf, but as long as we make it clear that it's Corydon's interpretation and not Wikipedia's, it seems okay to me. I agree that secondary sources would be better for that, as well, but it doesn't seem nearly as important as the court documents. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I agree with you on court documents. However, a "series of sworn statements" is not the same as a sworn statement filed with a federal court. Pleadings are under FRCP 11, which carries fines and sanctions for false statements. A sworn affidavit like the one DeWolf submitted end in the words "under pain and penalty of perjury" which can lead to criminal charges on violation. It's a little stronger than a pinkie swear, eh? And much stronger than the allegiance to truth that Corydon had while writing composing the book. I am not saying we have to put this in the article, but Corydon alleges he learned much of this stuff about LRH while running his Riverside center. But he did not split with the church until there was some kind of business problems with his franchise. What's wrong with this picture? Slade Farney (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with this picture, honestly. People often take a long time to leave NRMs. That's a pretty standard, to-be-expected thing. Many former Scientologists have talked about how they did not want to admit to themselves that what they were doing was no longer "true for them". Nobody wants to feel like the fool, and when their self-identity, livelihood and social network are all tied up in something, leaving can be very difficult, even setting aside issues like disconnection.
Regardless, it still seems to me like you're trying to lead this into a refutation of the book's legitimacy, and I keep telling you, this isn't the place for that. DeWolf filed affidavits. Saying in the article that affidavits are more important than what was written in the book is not going happen without sources saying exactly that. It's too much of a value judgement, and it's original research. Grayfell (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not saying we have to put this in the article ... It's not about me, nor is it about you, ok? Nor am I am trying to weigh the one against the other. I am saying the affidavit should be mentioned with all the key facts. It was not a conversation in a bar. DeWolf filed suit in a federal court of law over the book, and he repudiated all the facts in the book under penalty of perjury. He also said he regretted the Penthouse interview. And I will look for secondary sources. Slade Farney (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Right. It's not about either of us, and for that reason, it's not up to us to decide which facts are the "key facts". This is why we need to be extra cautious around court documents and other unedited primary sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This took a turn for the redundant. There are already multiple discussions about this issue repeating the same points over and over, I'm not interested in hosting another.

Noticed you wrote on a talk:

BuzzFeed is, like it or not, still considered a reliable source

Wondering if you have tips on how to keep track of this stuff. Does you tend to encounter enough arguments about whether a site is or is not reliable and then just remember their names? Or could Wikipedia have an official list of what is considered reliable for easy consultation for those with bad memories? Ranze (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't a list be nice? If there's such a list, I've never seen it. Sometimes wikiprojects will keep track of sources. WP:Video Games has a list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, for example. I vaguely remember reading about attempts at a master list in the past, but the closest thing to that is probably the search box at WP:RSN, which is often cryptic. That particular BuzzFeed article was already discussed there,[1] and Buzzfeed has been discussed other places at RSN. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist. I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the Buzzfeed article was discussed there. However I don't see any consensus one way or the other about it. Abecedare says there isn't a general concern about BLP due to editorial oversight, however Rhoark describes the Buzzfeed article as character assassination. While the content added may be innocuous we are relying on an article that belongs in a tabloid to source it. And such things can run afoul of BLP from WP:ELBLP. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know all of that, because I also read the discussion. That's not the point, and this isn't another platform for you to make your case about that source. There is also a discussion on BLPN which you obviously already know about, and the previous discussions on the article's talk page, both of which deal with this exact issue. Ranze asked a general question and I tried to explain where I was coming from with some examples. You've already made your case on multiple other pages, trying to twist this discussion into yet another place to debate this one source being used for one article is counterproductive. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Bodypainting Images[edit]

I noticed you changed the image at the bodypainting page. Please note that the 'Phoenix' image that I had put there was only temporarily gone to be repleced with a new version. This new version has the approval of the moderators and is of a much greater significance than the usual garbage images used on the page (only cheap shots of people smeared in some paint, which demeans the art of bodypaintin)). Please keep the quality standard. Elfrieb (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elfrieb: The image has a large, distracting watermark, and has many totally unrelated features, such as photoshopped flames and a costuming. This makes the image a very poor illustration of the concept. This is not about promoting the artform, beautiful though it may sometimes be, this is about clearly explaining what bodypainting is in a neutral way. I strongly advise you to revert your addition to avoid edit warring. The watermarks also make the image appear to be promoting the artist, rather than explaining the artform. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Again, please revert the edit and discuss this on the article's talk page: Talk:Body painting. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. If anything is a "poor illustration of the concept" it is the utter garbage of other images in that article. You consider the image that I used as a promotion of the 'artform', but what else than an artform can you qualify bodypainting. The image tells in a neutral way what this artform can achieve. Concerning the watermark, the admins had no problem withit, but you suddenly have. Elfrieb (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Elfrieb: You're confused about something. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are different projects. Commons is a place to host images for a variety of reasons, such as use in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia follows different rules, has a different purpose, and has different administrators than commons. Just because the image is in commons doesn't mean it is the best choice for the article. Grayfell (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your discourse[edit]

I can see you are part of a good sourcing-based discussion on AVFM, as it pertains to the SPLC or other documents covering it I hope you have things well in hand, I may be unable to participate in this (or Wikipedia at all) depending on how some sanctions-based disputes end up going. Ranze (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. I hope things work out for the best. Grayfell (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon: Tuesday, May 12 at OHSU[edit]

You are invited!

  • Tuesday, May 12, 2015: Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon – 1 to 4pm
  • Wikipedia Edit-a-thon hosted by OHSU's Center for Women's Health in honor of National Women's Health Week
  • Location: Biomedical Information Communications Center (3280 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239)
  • This edit-a-thon is intended to address some of these important differences and to generally improve women’s health information in key articles and topics. Areas for improvement have been identified in cooperation with WikiProject Medicine. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please post to the event page.


Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list.

Brad Mattson article edits[edit]

Hi Grayfell,

You did a lot of editing to my article on Brad Mattson recently. You cleaned it up in many places so thank you for that. However, many of the edits you made were a bit hasty and seemed like you went through with the "slash and burn" method of editing, which lost important content. It is understandable since there were many edits made and there is a time factor, but I wanted to let you know I'll be reverting some edits (and improving them where appropriate as you have indicated).

I have already undone one of these edits that highlights my point: The award of top 50 most influential people in the semiconductor magazine. The award is uncommon (e.g., it's not a Time list of the people of the year) and the European Semiconductor Magazine is not around anymore, but it is certainly not "obscure" as at the time it was one of the most popular trade magazines with global readership. Additionally, removing the award lessens the notability impact. By referencing the title of the magazine and the year that it came out, I thought that would meet citation requirements; I have seen this done on other articles that have a lot of traffic. That said, a proper citation is best and fortunately I was able to find one archived from the Internet Archive and it is now linked. Another example I just remembered that I need to go back and undo is you changing the heading of "Applied Materials" to "Applied materials" - it is a proper noun and refers to the name of a company (and a very prominent one at that) and therefore should remain capitalized.

Again, I emphasize the fact that you did a lot of editing that did improve this article and for that you have my thanks. One of the biggest contributions you made was making the article more neutral in tone and you made it more concise. Unfortunately in condensing down the wording, you did cut out many important facts that are evidence to why Brad Mattson meets notability and is deserving of an article. I removed the "advertisement" tag since you removed all the non-neutral language. Speaking of non-neutral language, please don't swear when editing articles - this was my first article and there is no need to be so aggressive. You are an accomplished editor to Wikiepdia and when you are ornery it just puts new people like me off from the whole project. Then again, I guess aggressive editing is not uncommon for angry mastodons.

Thanks again and be well - Slainte12 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You reverted the advertisement note - would you please specify the areas of concern? Slainte12 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hold your horses, I was on a tablet. I'll start a discussion on the article's talk page in a moment. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I've explained some of the problems on the article's talk page Talk:Brad Mattson. You have every right to be offended by my use of "hell" and "droppings" in edit summaries, just as I have every right to be offended by your creation of a blatantly promotional article in a collaborative, non-profit project which values neutrality as a core principle. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Vineet's blog[edit]

Hey Grayfell,

If i remove my name from the post, will it be considered a valid post ?

Thanks, Vineet Vineetshukla (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ambit Energy Edits[edit]

First thank you for the invitation to talk. It is a nice change from your first unreasoned edit of mine[2]. It also nice of you to welcome me to Wikipedia as you "noticed [I]'ve just joined". However you ought to refrain doing this in the future since 1. I have been a member for six years, just one shy of your seven and 2. it comes across as you fancy yourself as an ambassador of Wikipedia but your activity around Ambit Energy and other companies that use the same business model indicate you may not wholly embrace the Wikipedia mission to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content.[3]

You see, when you summarily dismiss a user's sourced and explained edits with not so much as a single character to describe your reasoning it leave to question why you would not reciprocate the other user's academic etiquette. Your second dismissal of my contribution I argue was no better with only a two word explanation from you, "false balance". Yet when an article contains only negative criticisms of its subject it is clearly unbalanced. Your dismissal of all merits of the matter would reveal an intent to present a narrowed and questionable view to the community. This is reinforced by a cursory (I invite you to point me to your activities that would indicate otherwise) review of your edits in other articles of this nature. In total your actions tend to portray you as not a person with pedagogical interests; but rather a person engaged in guerrilla blogging.

That said I take it on good faith that you DO embrace the Wikipedia mission, your motivations are inline with the mission, you have no hidden agenda, and your edits thus far are impartial. So, I respectively ask you to explain the removal of my edits in detail so I may better understand how WE can create a complete presentation of the subject that include a concise transparent review of its merits and criticisms.

Best of luck!

Shawnmyers (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)shawnmyers

@Shawnmyers: Okay, first of all, I'm not the one who welcomed you. That was someone else. You have a total of 13 edits to your account, including this one to my talk page, so when some other editor (again, not me) comes along and leaves you a personalized welcome message, maybe you should view it as a nice courtesy, rather then get defensive about it. There's nothing wrong with being inexperienced with something, but please consider that other editors might know what the're doing.
The Wikimedia foundation's mission statement is only tangentially relevant, because Wikipedia is not the same thing as Wikimedia. If you want to know more about Wikipedia the encyclopedia's fundamental principles, take a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars. One of those core principles is neutrality. In practice, one of the ways that is enforced is by requiring reliable, secondary sources for contested content, which brings me to Ambit.
Wikipedia is absolutely not about providing a forum for companies to promote themselves. See WP:GEVAL if you don't understand what I mean by false balance. As I have already explained on the article's talk page the JD Power stuff is not appropriate because it totally lacks a WP:SECONDARY source. JD Power gives out these pseudo-awards like candy at a parade, so include them needs a reliable source that explains why the recognition is significant enough to be WP:DUE weight. Press releases are not secondary, and are rarely reliable. That is why I said take it to talk. I didn't mean discuss it with me personally, I meant discuss it here: Talk:Ambit Energy where I've already made this point. I've also had to explain it multiple times on user talk pages, which is kind of tedious. This is why I insist that any further discussion of this issue should be somewhere other than my talk page.
You also say that I reverted you without any additional comment, but I'm not seeing that in the article's history. Was this a while ago? Is it possible you're again confusing me with another editor? If you are editing while logged out, be very cautious of WP:SOCK. Editing while logged out doesn't exempt you from WP:3RR or other guidelines, and can lead to blocks if it appears to be done deliberately.
As for "guerrilla blogging", my motivations for editing are none of your business, but I will restate that I have no personal experience with Ambit or any other MLM company, good or bad. If I did, that would be a conflict of interest. Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor, and keep your vague accusations to yourself.
Lastly, please do not add refs to talk pages without also adding a reflist template of some sort. It's usually better to just leave them as links. I have edited your comments to that effect without changing the meaning. There is also no need to add your username after your signature. It is included automatically with the timestamp produced by typing four tildes. Use of the Help:preview button is useful for this kind of thing. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pachinko edits[edit]

Yeah, I was just having a bit of fun. It definitely wasn't constructive, but I thought it was funny - unfortunately, you wiki editors are so on point I doubt anyone had time to see it. Oh well. Touche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Them's the breaks. The novelty of even the most clever vandalism wears off pretty quickly after you've seen a few dozen examples. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Automotive Dealership Institute[edit]

The page Automotive Dealership Institute was marked as an orphan by Yobot in December 2014. I tried to remedy this by talking about education requirements of the auto industry mentioning Automotive Dealership Institute and another school. It was cited with two news sources Arizona Daily Sun and us Auto News. I stated in the talk space of car dealership my goal. You reverted my edits without explanation. Can you please explain your reasoning for the reverting? More so can you please explain how you I can make Automotive Dealership Institute not an orphan. I know what an orphan article is, so i do not need an explanation. ADI is currently linked to other pages my problem is linking another page to ADI. Which is what i was attempting to do. Thank you

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nerdypunkkid: I have responded to your comments on those talk pages. Restated, the article itself, and your attempt to link it from another article, are excessively promotional, undue weight, and relied on very weak sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits - draft page[edit]

Think you made some mistakes on Draft edits :

"previous Clients & Investments:" all look valid to me. The reason company wasn't mentioned as you state appears to be that the citation (Telecompaper source) was confirming that the investment was since sold to another entity. Previous citations showed the relationship ( Individual and company are synonymous given nature of the company Interim & outsourced resources)

Intelius is used as a source in many places e.g Matt_Shaheen (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Please take a look at WP:UGC. Intelius should absolutely not be used as a source, especially in articles about living people (WP:BLP). I will remove it from Shaheen's article right after I this. The fact that it is used or misused in other places is irrelevant.
If a source indicated a need to explain that the company was later purchased, then the Telecompaper blurb might barely suffice as a source, but merely having invested in a company is not worth mentioning without much, much better sources.
The major problem with the current draft is that it lacks any reliable WP:SECONDARY sources indicating significance. If the future article is going to be about McKendry as a person, then it needs to be rewritten (again, in a way that is compliant with BLP). If it's about his company, it needs to have independent sources that actually talk about the company. The draft has a Wikipedia:Bombardment problem with many, many extremely flimsy sources, I would prefer to hold it to proper standards now to prevent it from being a waste of time later through WP:AFD or similar.
Rather than entirely routine listings and mostly empty profiles, if you're interested in getting the article in the mainspace, you should look for news articles (NOT press releases) or academic commentary. Again, please take a careful look at WP:RS to learn more about that. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK understand but then there a lot of articles that need deleted or citations removed / replaced (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It did explain that - it was in brackets in the text (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't think thats correct - seemed fine as is given the context (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense - I do have not enough knowledge on the topic or processes to comment or edit further. Just felt that by removing and not adding better content that you made it worse (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not break up someone else's comments like that. Wikipedia isn't built for that kind of threaded discussion, and it destroys readability (especially if there are more than two people involved). Your edit essentially removed my signature from some of my comments, which is a violation of WP:TPG. If you must reply to a specific item, you can use Template:tq, but consider writing a response as a single item, instead.
Yes, there are many sources on Wikipedia which need to be removed or replaced. Adding more bad sources because it's convenient is the wrong solution to this problem.
You say it "seems fine" but I'm pointing to specific policies that tell you that is mistaken. If you need more, please see the reason comments by the editors who rejected the draft, as this directly supports what I'm saying. It's not Wikipedia's function to promote this consulting company, which was the only purpose the draft served. Letting Wikipedia devolve further into free advertising would make it much, much worse than allowing the draft to go by with such pathetic sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi Grayfell, Thanks for your comments for the Boxful page, please review the content again, see if you are happy with it.

And wish you a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallowkwok (talkcontribs) 04:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Hallowkwok.
I've cleaned up the article, but it's still very thinly sourced. You should find more reliable sources soon. Blogs and press releases are not suitable for establishing notability (WP:GNG). If you are associated with Boxful, please read about having a conflict of interest: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If that applies to you, you should disclose your connection to avoid covert advertising, which unethical, and is against Wikipedia's policies and goals, (and is also illegal in many countries, as explained here: WP:COVERT). Thank you.
F.Y.I., Grayfell, 360 Total Security reports as a Phishing Website, warning that, "Exchanging sensitive or confidential information with this site could put you at risk of identity theft and/or financial fraud. We strongly discourage visiting this page." - (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I'll take a look at it when I get a chance. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

want to know about link deletion[edit]

Hi Grayfell, I added 2 links 1st was wrong url so I added new one .plz let me know why it was not approved and what can I do next Starjain (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Starjain: Hello. Several of your edits broke other links. Please use the preview button (Help:Show preview), and make sure that your edits serve a positive purpose in the article.
The link you added was not a reliable source (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), it was just a website that was selling stuff. That's why it looked like spam. Wikipedia article's should not include spam links. Take a look at the welcome message on your talk page to learn more. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

Regarding the Liz Prince page, in my opinion you do not need to disclose a potential conflict of interest merely for being "an old acquaintance", unless she asked you to edit the page on her behalf. There was probably no need to rely on the talk page either. It's routine for editors to edit in topics they have some kind of connection to, though they tend to have some bias, as does everyone.

I think it would be better as an article on the book, which appears to be the subject of the sources, as oppose to the author. However the AFD is looking like it will result in a keep anyway if you prefer to keep it on her. CorporateM (Talk) 20:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to give it proper consideration, and certainly don't take it personally.
I understand what your saying, and I have edited similarly COI-ish articles in the past with little hesitation. My edits to a number of multi-level marketing companies and colleges fraternities have repeatedly lead to a slew of very angry SPAs accusing me of being a shill for a rival, or of having an ax to grind, even though I truly have no connection to either of those topics. Between this and recent familiarity with "Fiverr" editors and similar, I wanted to tackle this from a different perspective, but I agree that I have been overcautious in this instance and may have ended up being inadvertently pointy.
It's been very informative, however. Having followed her career for years, I had taken her notability for granted, so this has given me some much needed perspective on how hard it must be for new editors to write an article. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's the thing; I have a good 50 or so disclosed COIs and editors often use my COI disclosure as a means to attack my contributions, even on pages where I do not have a COI. They will claim I am trying to give my fellow PR buddies a boost, that I'm trying to attack the competition, or whatever nonsense they come up with. However, in almost all cases, they would find some means to attack me, because they are just mean people (bullies) that will resort to any tactic to achieve the desired content outcome. You can disclose or not disclose, or do whatever you want, and there will still be bullies on the internet. Anyways, next time feel free to ping me and I will provide some outside perspective from a completely un-involved editor, though I may disagree with you, being that I don't know the particulars. It's unfortunate that it's needed, but thick skin is the mantra around here. The best of us learn that those that attack other editors merely discredit themselves anyway and often lose the argument as a result. CorporateM (Talk) 21:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I admit I don't have the thickest skin out there, but at this point shilling is far, far down on the list of terrible things I've been accused of, and by now most of it has turned into a source of amusement more than anything else. (I've got some great stories...) COI is still a complicated subject though. I assume that when I'm called a shill or similar, they are really saying "I can't imagine why anyone would edit without an agenda". I'm not worried about trying to convince them they are wrong. Being less than open about my position would make them right, though, and it would also make me a hypocrite. As I said, I misjudged what was useful or needed for that particular article, but it's better that I erred on the cautious side for something like that, and I can now feel comfortable being a little less uptight in the future. Grayfell (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Tipper Gore[edit]

Hi Grayfell! I'm checking to see if you've had time to take another look at Tipper Gore. I understand if not. I'm also happy to reach out to another editor if you're busy, just let me know! Thanks, Heatherer (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Heatherer: Hello. Yes, sorry about that. I will take a look at it soon. Later today or tomorrow. Grayfell (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for your input. Could I just clarify that you did base your decision off the other sources including the web archives of the website for the film and the web archive of the news article about the film and the director? They were in the middle of the page and if you did miss them I'll go back and organize the sources for reviewers. Thanks.FauXnetiX (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I considered the sources about the film. The film's site is WP:PRIMARY, promotional, and predates the TV series. The Buffalo News one also predates the series, and is an archive of an archive of a local news story, which is a red flag that this is undue and bordering on WP:OR. Both are of limited value, and using those sources in this case would be WP:SYNTH, as well as having other problems. Any further discussion of those sources should be held at the article's talk page, not here.
Listing an archived movie promotion site along with Daily Stormer and Reaxxion articles as examples of reliable coverage will pretty quickly demonstrate to experienced editors what's going on here. This might save some time, but I don't think it will have the outcome you're looking for. Grayfell (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


The change from multi-level marketing to "direct-selling" was vandalism, or at least contrary to years of consensus. The change to pyramid scheme was inadequately sourced, but not vandalism. Please keep don't accuse people of vandalism without cause. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

However, I would have returned it to the status quo if I had properly noticed it. If I reverted the vandalism to "pyramid scheme", I apologize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I overlooked that another editor restored "pyramid scheme". I should have looked a little closer, and I would have phrased my summary differently if I had. I think that the original edit, by a single-edit IP,[4] was borderline vandalism. I think that whoever made that edit likely realized it was going to be controversial. "Pyramid scheme" has criminal connotations. It's often applied to Amway, so it's hardly surprising, but it is a contentious label that has big NPOV problems when misused. I don't think the two IPs that changed it from pyramid scheme to direct selling were vandals, exactly. I think those were probably good faith editors who chose an unfortunately euphemistic and misleading term which is common among MLM companies. Regardless, we both agree the previous wording was better. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hardcore Gamer and it source[edit]

Hi, I been working on the term of "Hardcore Gamer." There not a lot of sources on it and journalism for the gaming community is getting worse everyday, so it hard trying to get a definition for "Hardcore Gamer" without going toward youtube, blog, and forum since a majority of gamers who would be consider as hardcore will be there. Game Journalist are terrible source and are basically the enemy for a majority of the gamer community since they misrepresent them, so I want to used the youtube, blog, and forum as my source for what is consider as hardcore gamer. I am also still new to all the editing, but I am currently asking for opinion to see if anyone else would know what a Hardcore Gamer is while figuring out how to reference and citing. Gamer504 (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gamer504: Ah, this is about ethics in video games journalism is it? Well, I don't know what to tell you. Wikipedia has guidelines for reliable sources, and does not use blogs, youtube videos, or forum posts for things like this. Sources don't have to be journalists, but they does have to published by be people who are recognized experts. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games has a lot of good advice and resources, so that's one place to check. Sociologists and other social scientists study groups of people and what they call themselves, so checking scientific journals might also be useful. My suggestion would be to find sources first and then add content based on those sources second. Don't write what you personally know to be true and then try to find sources to back it up. Sometimes that's okay, but for this it's going to be much, much harder, and it means that you are not writing from a neutral point of view. Please be careful when asking for advice or help that you're not WP:CANVASSING or WP:MEAT-puppeteering. Asking for advice is a good thing, but asking others who already agree with you to edit the article is a problem. That can lead to being banned and the article getting protected so that nobody can edit it. Just something to keep in mind. I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Grayfell:I completely understand. I will try to be careful. I'm still trying to work this out in a objective point of view. The term hardcore gamer was made by the gamer community. I don't believe there is anyone out there who is an expert on this field since it conflict with a majority of the gaming community, and even they don't share the same definition. People made fun of the term and others wear the label proudly. So it difficult to pin point what a Hardcore gamer is. Gamer504 (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I Need an Editor to Read my Draft Article in my Sandbox[edit]

Hi, This is my first article and it is not ready for publishing yet as I need an editor to look at it first and if it is ready to publish give me tips on improving the Content's format as they do not have the section and subsections titles (I don't know how to format them in.)

Panama is a small country of only 3.5 million people and has only one English language newspaper (The Visitor since 1994) which is a great source for articles. Also, few Panama law firms publish articles explaining the laws in English, so I have few options for citing sources. Also, only one news service translates Spanish newspapers into English (Central America Data), but it contains all the major news stories from he Panama newspapers.

I am probably the most proficient author publishing articles about Panama laws and real estate in English and I only included the most relevant and kept them down to 9% of the total citations. If that is too much, I need guidance on quantities.

One last thing, one Panama law firm (Panama Offshore Legal Services) publishes more articles than all the other Panama lawyers combined and I used to work for them, but left them over 6 years ago and haven't done any more work for them since. But, I have cited some of their informative articles.

I will appreciate anyone who takes the time to read and critique this draft which is in my sandbox.

Steven Rich in Panama (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Okay, well, there's a lot going on, and it's clear you have been working hard on the draft, so forgive me if I overlook a few things. To be blunt, it looks like you've been doing this the hard way, and you're going to have to scrap a lot of the work you've done. You should probably take a look at Wikipedia:Tutorial. Because there's a lot here, I'm going to give you a list:
  • Have you used Wikipedia as a reader very much? Take a look at a good article and see if it looks similar. Here are some examples: Slate industry in Wales, Petroleum industry in Iran, and Economic history of Argentina. These have been recognized as exemplary articles, and it may be useful for comparison. It's helpful to see how the articles are divided into paragraphs and sections, how they use wikilinks, pictures, and so on. It doesn't have to be held to that standard, but it may highlight some of the problems your draft article has.
  • Many of the sources you use will have to go. Statements cited to sources like wikitravel (currently source #65) should be removed, as that is not a WP:RS. As another example among many, Ref. #74 is to a site called Global Property Guide, but the article is anonymous, and their about page doesn't list any editors or show any awards or other indicators of community trust. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. If you have any doubts about a specific source being used for a specific item, you can ask for community advice at WP:RSN, but use the search there first to see if it's already been discussed. Find reliable sources first, and then add content from them second. Adding what you personally know to be true and then trying to find a source leads to frustration.
  • The article isn't neutral. It's very positive about investing in Panama real estate, or retiring to Panama, or similar, which is outside of the scope of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or promotion, and it is not a how-to guide, per WP:NOT. What about local issues? 25% of Panama's population lives in national poverty, but no mention of how real estate issues effect them? Many of the current sources are very weak or are only being used for vaguely promotional content. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia. There are far too many minor statements here, and overall context suffers for it, creating a very upbeat view of a complicated subject.
  • The sandbox has no wikilinks, which leads to redundancy with other articles. Rather than explain about the politics and economics of Panama, article's should wikilink. Economy of Panama, Politics of Panama, etc.
  • Section titles should be useful. Instead of "Third section" with Panama Investments Security underneath it, just title the section "Investment security". You can also create subsection headers, as well. See MOS:HEADINGS. Use sentence case, not title case. (I.E. Do Not Capitalize Ever Initial Like This)
  • Sources do not actually have to be in English. It's preferable, and it's always good to include a translation if available, but per WP:NONENG, other languages can be used. Likewise, offline sources can also be used, but convenience is appreciated, and the more difficulties tied to the source, the more likely it is to be challenged or removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability explains all this.
  • Not every source needs its own sentence.
  • As you probably know, WP:SELFCITING is allowable, but it's also a conflict of interest (WP:COI). As long as the sources are vital to the article it's okay. Are they vital, and are you impartial enough to make that call?
Like I said, there is a lot going on here, and I'm sure I may have missed something. The biggest issues I see is that the article is not neutral. This needs to be addressed before going any further. If you have any additional questions, let me know. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Greyfell,

First of all I want to thank you for the time you took reading my Sandbox Draft and the useful critiques you wrote to me 10 days ago.

Since then, I have posted a COI on my user page and posted a question on the Reliable Source Talk regarding my using 6 different Panama law firms website articles as reliable sources and am waiting for comments regarding that.

I also deleted the entire section called "Why Panama" as it was just news stories praising Panama. I also added news articles regarding corruption, money laundering, and poverty as they affect real estate and the economy in the economy and market trends sections. I also deleted the Global Property Guide citations. I have made changes to make this article neutral. And, I added Wikilinks.

When you have time, please review my Draft again and advise me if any more editing will be needed.


Steven Rich in Panama (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note to mention that I've removed a {{helpme}} template from the section heading. Since you're contacting Grayfell directly, no help template is needed. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 19:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Steven Rich in Panama: Hello. I've moved your recent comments to the bottom of the section to keep them in chronological order, per WP:TPG.
The draft is a greatly improved, well done. While I'm not an expert on this area, the COI declaration looks great to me. It goes beyond what is strictly required, which demonstrates a clear commitment to ethical editing.
Here are some more pointers about the draft:
  • There is no lead section: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. This is vitally important, but I wouldn't blame you for wanting to get the body right first, since the lead should summarize the body. Leads generally don't need sources (for uncontroversial statements) if the information is supported in the body. Conversely, everything in the lead should also be explained in the body.
  • There is still a lot of redundancy with other articles. One of the great things about Wikipedia is the utility of wikilinks (and hypertext in general). I can't find the exact guideline, but there are a couple of ideas in play. One is that it's unrealistic to ask editors to keep dozens of articles up to date about information when it's already covered in depth by a single page. The other is that articles should only give enough tangential info to explain the topic, otherwise it makes the article harder to read. So for example, in your draft, I would condense the sections on the government and economy of Panama to a couple of sentences each, tops. Instead of explaining it, send readers to Economy of Panama and Government of Panama, etc.. Notice that neither of those articles cover much about the other's domain. You are, of course, encouraged to edit those articles as well, and your familiarity with relevant sources would be appreciated.
  • The article is now overlinked. Sorry, I should've warned you about that one. Generally only link to a page once in the lead and optionally once again in the body. See WP:OVERLINK
  • There are a handful of other technical issues I notice, but nothing major. There should be no space between punctuation and refs, and multiple refs do not need to be separated by semicolons. Section headers do not need to be bold, and should use sentence case instead of title case.
I have some other thoughts, but that's all I have time for now. Hopefully that's helpful. I will be notified of any edits to my talk page, so as another editor mentioned, the 'helpme' and 'ping' templates aren't needed here. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Grayfell (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Greyfell,

Again, thank you for your excellent suggestions which I just finished incorporating. When you have time please look at my changes and make more suggestions, or of you have the authority and feel it is ready to be published, please do so. Steven Rich in Panama (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Greyfell,

It has been 2 weeks since you last checked up on my pending article. I am done with my contributions. Is there anything else I need to do or is this article ready to be published? Steven Rich in Panama (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Russ Ramsey[edit]

Hi Grayfell! An article I submitted through AfC was accepted, but had a orphan tag placed on it. I found a couple places where the article can be easily connected, but I'm having trouble finding anyone to make the edits. Here's the Talk page note explaining where the article can be linked. If you have just a few minutes, would you be able to do it? Sorry to bother you with something so simple, I just really don't want to make any edits myself. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I've responded on the talk page, but put simply, the proposed changes need better sources, so you were smart not to make that edit yourself. Good luck. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ip editor[edit]

Why do you stalk me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

We've been over this already, haven't we? I have the article Master Locksmiths Association on my watchlist (Help:Watchlist), which I check regularly. Your edits are too promotional, which is prohibited by Wikipedia's policies, and you should already know that by now. Since you have admitted that you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI), you should make suggestions on the article's talk page. See Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for more about that. If you really think that's stalking, you're free to seek dispute resolution (WP:DR) or ask for administrator help (WP:ANI). Grayfell (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Manosphere article[edit]

I'm glad to see that you reverted [5] [6] all my edit without trying to sort the and the bad things from what I wrote but I'm OK with that it is the game of wikipedia editing.

I just want to check one thing: Did you see that all the references given on that article point to article that are feminist and more or less opposed to the manosphere? I tryed to neutralize this by citing the definition that people from manosphere use and not what feminists say about the manosphere. Did you see that?

I don't want to engage in a sterile fight. So if you are a feminist and trying to censor content that bother you (understand contradict your set of belief) just say it and I will stop there.

But if your are intellectually honest, can you give me your point of view on the neutrality of the manosphere article?

Thank you. --Sertimini54 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sertimini54: The place to have a discussion about the manosphere article would be Talk:manosphere. Wikipedia's policies are very clear. You need reliable sources, and you don't have them. If the reliable sources are all supposedly feminist, then so be it. Yes, I looked at your edits before reverting them, and I explained why I reverted them in the edit summaries.
If you can find reliable sources about the manosphere that are more flattering, fine, but using unreliable sources to add a specific point of view is false balance, and is against both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If your edits are based in fact and are verifiable, then you should be able to find reliable, secondary sources. At least you need to explain (on the article's talk, not here) why the current sources are not reliable without resorting to ad hominems or dismissively labeling them 'feminist' without elaboration or proof. If you think that removing badly sourced content from an article qualifies as censorship, then you may have difficulty editing Wikipedia from a neutral point of view. As a collaborative project, your edits are not personal expression, they are on behalf of the encyclopedia. Since neither you nor I have the right to speak for the entire Wikipedia community, your voice is not sacrosanct and reverting edits to articles are rarely, if ever, true censorship. Calling reversion of edits censorship, or dismissing me because I may, possibly, be a feminist (*gasp*), suggests that you may not be here to build an encylopedia, and are instead more interested in righting great wrongs. Please include reliable sources in future edits. Grayfell (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
All right, let's suppose that you are not a feminist and you use the pretext of wikipedia policies to make information that bother you disappear.
About the suspicion of ad hominem attack
I looked at your reverts and I had a doubt: I wanted to know if you reverted my edit because your priority is the quality of wikipedia or because you wanted to censor content that bother you. The potential problem was not the Manosphere article, it was you. So that point had to be discussed on your talk page and not the talk page of the article.
This is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is an attack use to avoid answering an argument.
Actually I think that you are poisoning the well when you attack the form of my argument (grammar and WP policies) instead of answering the content.
You had a choice between remove all my edits, only remove the part you found problematic or insert templates like {{refnec}} or {{primary source inline}} if my references were incomplete but you chose to remove everything which raise a doubt about your intentions.
About verifiability
The manosphere is an Internet phenomenon so you could go and see by yourself that the notion that I mentioned exists in the "manosphere" so don't speak about unverifiable informations.
I asked you if you saw that all the references given on that article point to article that are feminist and more or less opposed to the manosphere?
And you answered that "If the reliable sources are all supposedly feminist, then so be it."
Feminism is a point of view and is highly criticized on the manosphere.
So you are admitting that there is a problem of neutrality in the sources mentioned in that article and that it doesn't bother you so don't try to hide yourself behind WP:FALSEBALANCE or the concept of neutrality: You acknowledged that the previous version of the article was not balanced. (And this is what I tried to correct btw)
I know that feminism has become what Karl Marx would have called a dominant ideology, that it is very hard to contradict it but it doesn't erase intellectual dishonesty: It is not acceptable to define a group of only by citing what its strongest opponents say without at least mention what the members say about their own group. That point of view was absent from the manosphere article.
If you don't want to mention the point of view of people from the manosphere then rename the article to "Criticism of the manosphere" and everything will be all right.
you should be able to find "reliable", secondary sources
Feminist have proven that they can harass and threaten the career of anyone who disagree with them. This make secondary sources that contradict feminists very hard (or even impossible) to find at least in the main stream media and universities. And when secondary are made hard to find because of censorship you have no choice but go to the primary source, that's what I did and it is permitted by the policy WP:SELFSOURCE.
Here are examples of feminist harassment:
your edits are not personal expression, they are on behalf of the encyclopedia
I read Wikipedia:General_disclaimer and it is written that
None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.
Which means to me that I am responsible for what I wrote on wikipedia not wikipedia, you are responsible for the content that you delete, not wikipedia and the readers have to sort the informations that they can read cross informations by themselves.
Calling reversion of edits censorship
If the purpose of a reversion was to make some informations disappear then that reversion was censorship: this is the definition of censorship. Like wrote I had a doubt about your intentions and that's why I came here to discuss that point.
suggests that you may not be here to build an encylopedia, and are instead more interested in righting great wrongs.
I your definition this is a personal attack.
Actually I'm here to build an encyclopedia and I know that the lack of neutrality on subject that contradict feminist doesn't honor wikipedia. I tried to do my best to correct the article following the principles of Prefer nonjudgmental language and Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves.
--Sertimini54 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
None of that has anything to do with the article on the manosphere, nor why I reverted your edits. I have explained that on the article's talk page, and another editor has agreed with my reasons and removed the section.
Nobody is under any obligation to preserve your edits if they do not comply with policy. The burden is on you to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, and {{CN}} and similar are optional.
I don't believe that I ever said the previous version was unbalanced. It doesn't matter if you or I are feminists or antifeminists or neither, because Wikipedia articles should cover perspectives in proportion to reliable sources. That's what "Balance" means, not choosing two opposing sides and giving them equal time. Wikipedia articles summarize reliable sources- that's pretty much it. Using non-reliable sources, such as most of those you mention above, to imply that this is part of a feminist plan to suppress information is against WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SYNTH. That viewpoint is not supported by reliable sources, and is not directly relevant to this article. Tim Hunt and Matt Taylor have their own articles, so trying to drag those issues into this one is an inflammatory distraction. Even in articles about specific blogs or people (which manosphere is not), the usefulness of primary sources is limited.
You are responsible for what you wrote, but the fact that you personally think that it belongs in the article is not a sufficient reason for inclusion. The content is in violation of multiple Wikipedia guidelines, and editing is not censorship under any meaningful definition of the word. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Carnegie Mellon University people[edit]

Classify List of Carnegie Mellon University people as a good article and have it featured on Wikipedia's main/front page — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayRider (talkcontribs) 15:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@RayRider: Who are you, and why are you giving me orders about an article I've never edited? If you want to nominate it yourself, you can find more info about that here: Wikipedia:Featured lists, but that article has a lot of non-notable people and unsourced info, so nominating it now would be premature. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

J.J. Green[edit]

New to the editing of a wikipedia page. Thank you for your assistance. I would like to ask for more assistance on my J.J. Green page. There is a lot that can be added and I would just need some help making it happen. before you propose for deletion please help.Wetellthetruth (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I will respond on your talk page in a moment, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi Man ,why are you deleting my editions there ,Regarding your copy write allegation ,proper reference is mentioned .thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zqxwcevrbtny (talkcontribs) 06:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zqxwcevrbtny: Hello. I deleted them for a couple of reasons:
  1. They were redundant. The article already has a 'reception' section which is where that kind of thing goes. Making two sections that say the same thing is pointless. Also, movie articles almost always list that stuff later. We all know it was a terrible movie, no reason to hammer on the reviews just to make a point. Also, I don't think "Bollywood Celebden" is a reliable source, so it probably shouldn't be used.
  2. You are mistaken about the copyright issue. The reviews you added do not follow Wikipedia's copyright guidelines, which are very strict. You cannot just list the source as a ref, you have to use brief quotes only with quotation marks, and explain where they come from in the article, not just as refs. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean "Bollywood Celebden " is not reliable ? do you consider Indian express as reliable or not ? are you this MSG Baba follower or paid by them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zqxwcevrbtny (talkcontribs) 06:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zqxwcevrbtny: Correct, Bollywood Celebden is not reliable, that's what I just said. The Indian Express review is already in the article. Look at the Reception section, it was added in February. I'm not a paid editor for this or any other article, and I'm not a follower of Singh's, either. Why don't you look at the article's edit history, or its talk page, and then see if you still think I'm paid by them. I don't edit for money, because that's against both my own code, and Wikipedia's rules. Grayfell (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Grayfell:thats great if true ,one more thing general public "Reception " is different from "Professional critique Reviews "they can have different section ,allow me to do that .thanks

@Zqxwcevrbtny: "If true"? See for yourself, it is already in the article. Or did you mean about my motives? Wikipedia has rules that you must assume good faith.
"Reception" should not be separate from professional reviews. The reception section is for notable reviews as covered by reliable sources. That's the only kind of reception that Wikipedia uses. That's it. If you do not have a reliable sources, do not put it in the article.
Also, you do not have to ping me on my own talk page, and please sign your posts. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Vijay Eswaran[edit]

@Grayfell:greetings, i wish to add reliable data on Vijay Eswaran i do understand the conflict of interest - but he is a born vegetarian and he is Dato Sri, so simply because i know him does not mean i should not give viable records about,.

ref : Vegetarian

ref : Dato Sri,.

Rajeevtco (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rajeevtco: Wikipedia has guidelines about due weight, because Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. All of the sources you mention are published by Vijay Eswaran himself. Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY sources for determining what should and should not be included. If you cannot find a reliable, secondary source the material should not be included in the article, but you should not be the one to add it either way. The exception to the secondary rule is for very routine or uncontroversial information, such as birth-dates or schools attended, but even then secondary sources are preferable. Regardless, dietary habits are not noteworthy for an encyclopedia without a source supplying meaningful context, which is rare. Additionally, Wikipedia doesn't usually include WP:HONORIFICS or titles without such sources either. There are exceptions, but this is not one of them.
Again, since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be the one making such edits yourself. Instead, make all suggestions at Talk:Vijay Eswaran.
Also, you do not need to ping me on my own talk page. I am notified of comments here just as you are notified of comments on your talk page. Grayfell (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

On Editing[edit]

Does Wikipedia not have an onboard "alphabetizing" option in sandbox? If not until now (I have received suggestions to and vital parts of my posts have been edited out) maybe its time to factor it in. We learn as we go on Wiki, and thanks to the numerous editors. Neazcool (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)NEABEN Neazcool (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

See Also Sections[edit]

Hello, thank you for advising on noting why changes were made. Per the See Also it look like the links are right to be under Relocation Service bc they are def indirectly associated. Why do you keep changing them? Crp2010 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Crp2010: Hello. There are a couple of things going on here. I don't think they belong because there are many such businesses, and it would be impractical and inappropriate to list them all. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a policy-based reason for that, but it's pretty straightforward from a practical standpoint as well. Why are the ones that are notable enough for articles being rewarded by having their articles linked everywhere? Are the other companies listed by HRO Today really so much less significant? Adding some but not others isn't WP:NPOV, and adding redlinks to a see-also section serves no purpose.
See also sections are about editorial judgement, and restraint and past consensus both tend towards smaller, leaner sections with little patience for favoritism. Adding links to articles about a company's competitors is most definitely considered spam on Wikipedia. If there were a "List of relocation service companies" article that might be different, but that brings with it a whole new slew of problems. Those kinds of articles tend to be spam-magnets which require a lot of maintenance. That's not a reason by itself to avoid creating such articles, but it's a good sign that they're not serving an encyclopedic function. Again, per NOTDIRECTORY. It's a moot point though, as there are so few notable companies, and lists of non-notable companies are unlikely to be encyclopedic.
I'm not going to revert your readdition again, at least not until the deletions are sorted out, but it's WP:EDITWARRING, and you should avoid doing that again or you could banned or blocked. Self-reverting would go a long way towards showing an interest in working towards WP:CONSENSUS, but obviously I'm involved with that dispute, so that's just something to consider. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok User:Grayfell I don't want to edit war but I agree with you that listing companies on other companies see more is a bad idea, the sections would get long. what is the self reverting? But some people don't know what a relocation service is and i think the relocation service page isn't very good at describing what it is, so the other companies help show that because they describe it better. That's why I put it there. Maybe we take them off when the relocation article gets better. Crp2010 (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Crp2010: Self-reverting is when you undo your own edits.
See also sections must still follow Wikipedia's rules about verifiability (WP:V), due weight (WP:DUE), and original research (WP:OR). If you can find a reliable, secondary source that explains why a company is exemplary or vitally important, then mentioning it in the see also is appropriate. In those cases, it's even better to just explain it in the article with prose. For example, Computer animation mentions Pixar because they released the first feature-length computer animated movie. That's an obvious reason to mention a company in an article about an industry. Similarly, Apple Inc. is such an important part of the history of personal computers, that it's easy to find reliable, secondary sources in major publications which support that.
And if you can't find sources, then it doesn't belong. It's just that simple.
I understand what you are saying about using see also to 'fill in the gaps' but I don't agree. If you want to improve the article, you should use reliable sources, not personal familiarity with which companies are good examples. At the very least, you should be able to improve it without using covert advertising for one particular company. It's better to have no article than to have an article that abuses Wikipedia's mission like that. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Cartus and General[edit]

Hello Grayfell, I edited the cartus page to make it a stub. I think the company is notable but it doesn't have much information added as of yet. I plan on adding much more to the article but I want to avoid another delete dispute. I've removed the delete warning and added a service-company-stub for now. Let me know if this is acceptable. Sorry for getting heated in prior arguments. Globalrelocation (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the notice. I saw that, and nominated the article for deletion before you posted here. The article absolutely needs reliable, independent sources of substance. If you can find and add sources that meet WP:ORG then I will withdraw my nomination. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Chi Phi chapters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Mary's University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

MSG and Indian cinema references[edit]

Hi Grayfell, I'm not sure how deep you are into the world of Indian cinema articles and references, but I have seen your name pop up several times and usually in a good context! I'm only in this world in my capacity as a gnome. At User:Cyphoidbomb/ICTF FAQ I'm trying to collate a list of acceptable and unacceptable references for Indian cinema, so that we all have something to go on, since there's so much promotional crap that gets added to these articles by the hour. One thing that is especially troubling, is that there are TWO Box Office Indias as you are also aware of. No pressure is being applied here, but whatever help you can provide at this document would be gratefully appreciated. Feel free to edit directly. Between the gross incompetence of the average user and the deliberate promotion/demotion/paid editing, the world of Indian cinema articles can be extraordinarily frustrating. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a great idea! I'm not sure how much help I can be, but I will do what I can. Thanks for letting me know. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Much obliged for whatever you can contribute here and there. Even just poking through some of the "not yet decided" entries, looking around, seeing if you can find any About Us pages that indicate that reputable analysts or reporters are involved, would be great because that would at least make it easier to present to the community for scrutiny. For instance, you might note some of my comments like for Box Office Hits and Indian Movie Stats. I went to those articles and poked around for a minute or two to see if anything would suggest that they are reliable, then checked my findings. One site said that it was founded at the end of 2014, so I included that (because it suggests an unlikelihood that a reputation for fact checking has been achieved) and so on. I will also make a formal request of a number of other users to contribute as well, so hopefully we can move along a little quicker. Thanks again! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

David Miscavige edit[edit]

I would like to appeal the reversion of my edit on the David Miscavige page. I personally think the first few sentences of the Media Coverage and criticism section add nothing to the section and the deletion of it does not take away from the purpose of the lead. Better to go straight the point. What do you think?Truegravity (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Truegravity: Thanks for taking this to a talk page. I think Talk:David Miscavige is a the best place to build consensus, but briefly, for longer articles, I think it's useful and appropriate to be a bit redundant with summarizing. Wikipedia's leads are supposed to be (in an ideal world) stand-alone summaries of the articles, but the summarizing a lengthier or complex subsection is also appropriate. Since the section in question is just multiple paragraphs of examples, it makes the article more readable to briefly outline what those examples are getting at before diving into them. Some people dislike that kind of thing, but it's a useful way to accommodate readers who are only looking for specific information, as well as those with different reading styles. If you'd like to discuss this further, I recommend starting a discussion at Talk:David Miscavige. It may be helpful to look over Wikipedia's manual of style as well, if you haven't already. Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice you had already started a discussion on the talk page. That's the place to continue this. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Munger Statement at Fiorina[edit]

Greetings, there's currently a dispute at Talk:Carly Fiorina regarding the notability of a statement by Charlie Munger. I believe the bar I'm trying to set for inclusion is consistent with past statements you've made. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the discussion there. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


Hello, are you familiar with the long discussions on this at Ted Bundy? - A window cleaner me (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting, I don't think I'd seen that before, thanks. I don't agree with the rational given there, and I think this could be raised at the Gacy article's talk page. A better place might be to raise it at Template talk:Infobox criminal with a notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography to let people know. Having it decided case-by case is a hassle, so it would be nice to start building a wider consensus.
There's a lot going on there, and I think differences between the common, legal, and medical uses of "homicide" is a cause for confusion and irritation. I don't think it's helpful to use that term in an infobox, which is supposed to be simple and straightforward. If something is constantly being changed (like it looks like it is at the Bundy article) then it's worth establishing a clear consensus about it, right? Grayfell (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Or you could get blocked as a sock puppet, that will work too. Grayfell (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Bajaj Allianz Life insurance[edit]

Hi Greyfall,

This in regard to edit of, which you have set a redirect to , the same is in correct as Bajaj Allianz Life insurance is a separate company, and Bajaj Finserv has 74% of its stake, once the page is restored we may enrich page by giving proper citation (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)shaswat dubey

I'm not the one who first turned that into a redirect, please look closer at the article's history: [7] The proper place to discuss this is Talk:Bajaj Finserv. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or promotion. Are you involved with any of the other accounts who have tried to add material about the company? Grayfell (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi I saw you reverted my change on "A Voice For Men" explaining there was consensus for buzzfeed as an RS. I don't see it on the talk page, is there somewhere else I can look? I also planned to add content from this article (Redacted) but I thought I'd check with you first. Thanks. (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to track down my IP address? Really? C'mon, grow up. Grayfell (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png I enjoy beer and I hope you do as well. Thanks for the help on the Dissociative amnesia issue. You are appreciated! AlF6Na3 (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Claims of Offensive Content[edit]

On the page "Zoë Quinn", I edited it to remove a few very bias points relating to the Gamer Gate section, but I see that you reverted it with claims of it having been neutral and me making the page bias. From a completely neutral standpoint, the page is currently bias in light of evidence presented against the state of Zoë Quinn as a victim, and the page was altered to create a neutral, entirely factual entry. This means that anything on the page that could be misconstrued as bias to any degree, namely claims that the validity of are currently in question, i.e. the victimizing of Zoe Quinn, should not be present on the page. As a result, I restructured the preexisting information to fit more accurately with a neutral standpoint on the issue, removing information such as the word "falsely" from her being accused, as to emphasize the fact that there is legitimate evidence to prove that the accusation was true, but due to the lack of concrete evidence proving it to be false, the word was removed. This was done for every non-quote in that section of the page, as the page in its current state clearly reads to be bias. Sme23 (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the article's edit history: [8] Your edit has been removed, so that only admins can even see it. There are a couple of reasons, but the main one is that Wikipedia takes the WP:BLP policy very seriously. I'm not an admin, and I don't remember all the changes you made, but this has been debated ad nauseam on the article's talk page and several other places as well. As for "proving it to be false", well, that's not the standard of evidence that Wikipedia uses, nor should it be. If a brand new, reliable, independent source comes out about this, you can start a discussion about it at the article's talk page if you think it's worth it. Otherwise, you can be reasonably confident that whatever you're adding to the article has already been discussed multiple times before. On the other hand, if you're trying to right great wrongs, you should probably just edit other articles instead, because that's not what Wikipedia is for. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I, User:Rhode Island Red award this Original Barnstar to Grayfell for his stellar and voluminous body of work, and for nobly upholding the principles and policies of Wikipedia. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I appreciate it. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)