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)

Lowercase title for golfscape[edit]

Hi Grayfell,

Thanks for your warm welcome to Wikipedia (I only now saw it as a notification). Regarding the page title, 'golfscape' is spelled with a lowercase G directly from the source website (, Bloomberg, as well as a couple other third-party sources (here and here). The capitalized G has been used by other sources where it is the first word in an article title, and this is where the discrepancy seems to be. I would appreciate if we can update the Golfscape Wikipedia title to lowercase, especially as the uppercase G is causing confusion with the name when Google uses the Wikipedia spelling in the Knowledge Graph which contradicts the company name. I appreciate your comments, and look forward to your feedback. Thanks!

RudyPlus (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@RudyPlus: Hello. The issue you are describing comes up a lot, and is specifically dealt with by the manual of style: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter. I think you've already seen that, right? As an aside, I will note that neither of those 3rd-party sources are truly 3rd party, since one is an interview where the interviewer doesn't actually use the name outside of a web link (and is a poor WP:RS anyway), and the other is a thinly veiled press-release. Sources are not the only deciding factor in this case. Lowercase names in English cause too much confusion to readers. Is golfscape a proper noun, or is it a common noun describing a general concept? Adding branding at the expense of clarity is not what a neutral encyclopedia should be doing. Wikipedia doesn't do this for Craigslist or Adidas, either, so you're in good company.
Since this issue is specific to this one article, I suggest moving this discussion to Talk:Golfscape to facilitate wider consensus, but I oppose such a change for these and other reasons. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Men Going Their Own Way[edit]

Thanks for your edit to Men Going Their Own Way. We have what looks to be a single IP editor, editing from a number of different UK mobile provider IP addresses, edit-warring there: I've semi-protected the article for a week to put a stop to this for now. Please let me know if this resumes. -- The Anome (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit to Peter Marino page[edit]

Hi Grayfell, I am failing to understand why you believe all of the content that I added to the Peter Marino page to be "promotional". There are a few sentences that I can see needing a bit of revision, but the Education and early career section is completely factual and objective. Also, the citations are from many reputable sources including the New York Times and Business of Fashion. I also don't see how the quote is promotional. He is simply describing his approach to architecture and it sums it up well. Many other well known architects have lists of their project and awards so I don't see how that is an issue either. Then it appears you are personally attacking me since you tagged the Horton Plaza Park page as an advertisement when it has been live for months with no issues. I am relatively new to wikipedia, so please enlighten me on all of this. Emikey-34 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Emikey-34: Hello. Wikipedia has a serious problem with paid editors and promotional editing, so when a new editor adds large quantity of flattering material, experienced editors often check that editor's contributions to and see if it's part of a larger pattern. This information is easily visible for all editors; mine is here, for example: Special:Contributions/Grayfell. I hope it's clear why that happens, and I know it can feel unfair and distressing, but this isn't personal. I do not know who you are, and unless you have a conflict of interest or are using a sock account, I do not have any interest in that at all.
Regardless of your intention, I stand by my claim that the content you added to Peter Marino was far too promotional. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and phrases like "internationally acclaimed", "luxury concepts", "engaging a dialogue between art and architecture", "iconic names from the worlds of fashion, art and society," and so forth, are flattering without being particularly informative. The purpose of the article is to provide an overview, not to promote or name-drop. Things like that are fine for a press release, but absolutely unacceptable for an encyclopedia article. Writing like that makes it read more like a PR packet, which is a violation of one of Wikipedia's core principles. WP:WTW may also help explain why this is such a red flag. Beyond that, the level of detail must be proportional to reliable sources. Passing mentions are not good enough. Press releases are also not good enough. You also introduced content that wasn't supported by the attached sources, such as his work with Bulgari. This is a strong sign that you were not approaching the article neutrally.
Awards are especially easy to abuse for PR purposes, so as a general guideline, awards which are not themselves notable, meaning they already have a Wikipedia article, should include reliable, independent sources and provide context about what the award is and why it's noteworthy. If there are other architects with such lists, and I'm sure there are, unfortunately, let me know and I will be happy to help clean them up. Wikipedia is always a work in progress, so existing content is not always a valid precedent.
Horton Plaza Park also includes a large number of peacock words and other vague-but-pleasant details which do not match Wikipedia's style or goals.
I hope that is somewhat enlightening. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Grayfell:Those phrases you quoted accurately describe the work Peter Marino does. He designs buildings for major fashion houses - are you saying Dior, Valentino, Yves Saint Laurent, etc. are not iconic fashion designers? I think the fashion industry would disagree with you. He is known in the architectural world as bridging the gap between art and architecture and working with luxury fashion clients, so how else would this be stated? This information is very much informative and the article would not be accurately descriptive of his work without it. Also note there are not any press releases in the citations so I don't know where you got that from. Most of the articles cited are entirely about Peter Marino himself and are not "passing mentions". The mention of his work with Bulgari I will accept as not appearing in that citation, a small mistake. I can easily find another reference to support it however.
Wikipedia doesn't use WP:PEACOCK words to describe people. They should not be described as "iconic" because that doesn't actually mean anything substantial, and Marino's page would not be the proper place to describe them that way if it did. "Bridging the gap" is a aesthetic opinion, not an incontrovertible fact, and it's an especially poor metaphor to use for an architect. Any such assessment must be clearly attributed as an opinion by a reliable source, not stated as a plain fact in Wikipedia's voice. Marino has doubtlessly said many things about himself, but Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality require secondary sources to summarize opinions (or controversial details) in most cases. Some (but not all) of the content you added may re-added with changes, but the promotional tone was flatly unacceptable. If you want to include the specific details, please do so neutrally. I reverted your edits in multiple steps so that I could leave an explanation for my actions. Editing Wikipedia means getting reverted sometimes. If you are not interested in collaborating, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell, I went back over the Education and Career section and made changes to remove any promotional language. Could you possibly look this over and tell me if it is objective enough? Then also, what is the best way to go about reinstating the corrected sections to the article? Do I make a new edit entirely or can I make changes when "undo"ing your reverts? Thanks.

Marino earned a degree from Cornell University’s College of Architecture, Art and Planning. Marino began his architectural career working for Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, George Nelson, and I.M. Pei / Cossutta + Ponte. In 1978, Andy Warhol hired him to do a renovation project for his townhouse on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and then the new Factory at 860 Broadway. That led to commissions from Yves Saint Laurent and Pierre Berge, Gianni and Marella Agnelli, and Giorgio Armani. In 1985, Marino was hired by Barneys New York to design the new women’s store concept and 17 freestanding Barneys stores worldwide between 1986 and 1991. It was while planning Barneys that Marino met many of the fashion designers whom he would eventually design shops for, including Calvin Klein, Donna Karan, Giorgio Armani, Ermenegildo Zegna, Fendi, Chanel, Dior, Louis Vuitton, and Loewe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emikey-34 (talkcontribs) 16:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Emikey-34: Hello. We should probably move this to the article's talk page. That's better for this, as it invites other interested editors to chime in, and the discussion can be more easily found in the future. When responding, you can WP:PING me there to specifically get my attention (there is no point in pinging me on my own talk page). I'm going to copy this there for convenience and then reply. Also, don't forget to sign talk page posts. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Emikey-34 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Frivolous report. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

History of Marketing: Deleted Content[edit]

I see that you saw fit to delete some content that I added this afternoon.

What you call "editorialising", I see as scene-setting. I actually think that it is important to make a distinction between 'marketing as practice' and 'marketing as a discipline'. And, that was what I was trying to do.

What you call, "original research" is lost on me. I have no idea what that comment was about.

As for the history of marketing and the evolution of marketing needing to be collapsed into a single section - well, that's exactly what I was trying to do. The evolution was within the History section, but with a few paragraphs that provided some context and background. Marketing didn't just begin with the production era.

And, as for McCarthy being mentioned multiple times, I absolutely agree. I had fully intended to go into the later section and revise it. But that was until you deleted the passage that I wrote about McCarthy's contribution for the History section. So, if the emergence of the 4Ps doesn't qualify as part of the "History" of marketing then I'm quite sure that I don't know what does. And, if the roles played by McCarthy and Kotler don't qualify as part of that history, then I'm totally lost.

BronHiggs (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@BronHiggs: Hello. "Original research" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia: see WP:OR. All but the most very basic conclusions should be supported by reliable sources. Your expertise in the subject is an asset in that you are familiar with sources and understand what they mean, but we do not just take your word for it; content must still be verifiable (WP:V). It must also be written in a formal WP:TONE. In order to set a scene, you should cite reliable sources to support the distinction between practice and discipline and explain what that means. If sources do not mention the first towns and cities after the neolithic, for example, then it is, by Wikipedia's standards, original research. It would at least be editorializing, as either it's obvious enough that it doesn't need to be mentioned, or it's worth providing context based on sources. When writing about something as 'historical', it should be supported by WP:SECONDARY sources as historical with some form of context. Otherwise it's presenting material as encyclopedically significant without verification. While that may seem overly fussy, it's very important to be aware of to preserve neutrality. I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for clarifying. So what I take from that is basic conventions of writing in an interesting manner - e.g. paragraph intros, conclusions, transitions, lead-ins etc cannot be used because they would not contain sources.

In future, I'll be sure not to contribute to this page given that it is subject to such extraordinary vigilance and pedantic interpretations of what it means to be 'encylopedic'.

BronHiggs (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@BronHiggs: Did you think it would be easy? Yes, you do have to adapt to Wikipedia's guidelines. That means summaries, transitions, and conclusions need a bit more work. Find a source summarizing the history of marketing, and then write from that. Just making stuff up about the Paleolithic reads like filler, and it trivializes debates in the history of economics. Some people might appreciate the conversational style, but I'm not one of them, and I think Wikipedia's policies and guidelines agree with me. Grayfell (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not about being 'easy'. It is about following Wikipedia's guidelines. Here is an example from Wiki's tutorial on editing:

  • " "Paris is the capital of France" is an example of a statement that does not necessarily need to be sourced, because it's common knowledge and everybody knows that there are dozens of sources which could be cited. The information is attributable, even if it is not attributed."

This does not suggest that EVERY sentence must be referenced, as you suggest. Nor, does it suggest that self-evident statements are banned. On the contrary the guidelines also indicate that sources are required for statements that are controversial, but not necessarily for statements that are unlikely to attract counter-arguing from a rational person.

Here are two examples of paragraphs from a Wiki Page that is a featured page(i.e. it is considered to be of very high quality by readers.) You will note that these paragraphs contain a number of sentences that are unsourced along with some that are.

From Wikipedia, Bacteria (A Featured Page)

  • Certain genera of gram-positive bacteria, such as Bacillus, Clostridium, Sporohalobacter, Anaerobacter, and Heliobacterium, can form highly resistant, dormant structures called endospores.[76] In almost all cases, one endospore is formed and this is not a reproductive process, although Anaerobacter can make up to seven endospores in a single cell.[77] Endospores have a central core of cytoplasm containing DNA and ribosomes surrounded by a cortex layer and protected by an impermeable and rigid coat. Dipicolinic acid is a chemical compound that composes 5% to 15% of the dry weight of bacterial spores. It is implicated as responsible for the heat resistance of the endospore.
  • Bacteria are further divided into lithotrophs that use inorganic electron donors and organotrophs that use organic compounds as electron donors. Chemotrophic organisms use the respective electron donors for energy conservation (by aerobic/anaerobic respiration or fermentation) and biosynthetic reactions (e.g., carbon dioxide fixation), whereas phototrophic organisms use them only for biosynthetic purposes. Respiratory organisms use chemical compounds as a source of energy by taking electrons from the reduced substrate and transferring them to a terminal electron acceptor in a redox reaction. This reaction releases energy that can be used to synthesise ATP and drive metabolism. In aerobic organisms, oxygen is used as the electron acceptor. In anaerobic organisms other inorganic compounds, such as nitrate, sulfate or carbon dioxide are used as electron acceptors. This leads to the ecologically important processes of denitrification, sulfate reduction, and acetogenesis, respectively.

And, as for your recent point about not enjoying the style/commentary, can I draw your attention to another Wikipedia guideline (below) which suggests that a person's subjective opinion about what is acceptable does not carry a great deal of weight:

  • “Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers… is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia…"being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal or inclusion of content.” (From:

I think that there is a whole other agenda going on here. This is not about being 'encyclopedic' - it's about something quite different, and only you know what that is. There is evidence of far too many arbitrary decisions with paltry attempts at justification. Dismissing emphasis by calling it "Shouting" or "gratuitous". Dismissing sentences as lacking in source but then dismissing other sentences because their sources have been deemed "unreliable." You are happy to delete most of a paragraph, but leave one lonely sentence dangling dangling in mid-air - lacking in any context and without any integration to the material that surrounds it. Dismissing other content because somehow 'evolution' and 'history' have become synonymous. Making wide-ranging unilateral decisions, without any attempt to seek consultation from other editors or giving contributors the opportunity to add a reference where you think one might be warranted (e.g. by using [citation needed]) signs. Rather than give new or inexperienced editors any opportunity to improve the quality - let's delete all contributions unless they meet some higher standard of excellence - where the excellence rule book is some kind of secret. As I said previously, I am simply not prepared to play any game - where the rules are arbitrary and enforcement is carried out on a whim.

BronHiggs (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I think Wikipedia's policies and guidelines agree with me. That was my point, not that the content should be "censored". Wikipedia is a collaborative process based on many policies, guidelines, a sprawling manual of style, and sometimes unwritten conventions. It's messy and arcane, which is unfortunate but unavoidable. WP:BRD is an essay that's often cited by the community, and it underscores the common-sense idea that in most cases the burden is on the one providing the content to support it. The place to discuss this would be the article's talk page.
If you think that "Endospores have a central core of cytoplasm..." is self-evident along the lines of WP:BLUESKY I don't know what more to say. Even if something is self-evident, an article still needs to provide a reason to mention it based on verifiable content. The neolithic existence of marketing is not self-evident, and would only make sense if we accept a very broad definition of the term. Even then it runs against the anthropology of economics, and the myth of primitive barter economics, and other issues in messy ways which are controversial and far, far outside the scope of the article. If you introduced it to ease the reader into the topic, that's a good goal, but it's just not that simple. A [citation needed] tag is a courtesy, but not a requirement. Some content simply doesn't belong without a source.
If you really think I have an "agenda", take it up with a noticeboard or something, because speculating about my motives without any concrete accusations or evidence is inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It's all fine. I have tried to make my case to no avail, and have no desire to take it further.

I came to Wikipedia just a few weeks ago with a mission to correct several foundation concepts which I had noticed were confused in a number of prospective text-books and prospective journal articles (I work part-time as a writer, reviewer and editor for several publishing companies and universities in Australia). I wondered why the confusion was creeping into the literature over the past year or two and decided to investigate the issue. I found that several marketing tutor websites and Wikipedia were all using incorrect definitions - and any one of these could have been the original source of the error. After attending to that, I noticed other problems on other Wiki pages and began to 'improve' these pages. However, my original goal is accomplished, and after this experience, I have lost the desire to continue so I am out.

I do think that your editing is very heavy-handed and somewhat arbitrary- and not always in accordance with Wiki Policies -(but as you say, editors could revert etc). The downside is that this approach is likely to discourage other editors from making new contributions.

BronHiggs (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@BronHiggs: I'm sorry to hear that. I can live with being called heavy handed, but it was not my intention to stop you from editing. My intention was to prevent you from adding contributions that I felt would later have to be removed or seriously altered. As frustrating as this is, it would be much worse the more time had been spent, right? I hope you will keep contributing.
Most of my editing lately has been articles about extremist politics, while I've also worked hard to remove covert spam and paid editing. Both of these areas have serious, persistent problems that get personal very quickly. You mentioned being tired of games... well, my patience is even thinner than usual, and perhaps that rubbed off on this article, for which I apologize.
There are a lot of problems with marketing articles on Wikipedia, and they could definitely use more attention from knowledgeable editors. That said, sources are absolutely vital. While it's sometimes a major hassle, it's the defining hassle of Wikipedia, and it's a big part of why Wikipedia keeps getting cited by college kids and overworked textbook editors. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia's policies are rambling - and vague in places, leaving a lot of room for different interpretations. Along with many marketing pages that are in need of an overhaul, Wikipedia's policies are very much in need of consolidation and clarification. However, I will leave all that for the attention of other editors. BronHiggs (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Gary Young[edit]

Would appreciate your review and edit as needed of today's history. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I've posted a comment on it, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grayfell, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Notifying you because the filer didn't. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. While by itself, this is more amusing than anything else, I suspect it might be dredged up by other editors with an ax to grind, so I'm requesting that it be deleted. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Supply Side Economics[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.
At this point this belongs at Talk:Supply-side economics, not here. Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You undid my edits to supply economics. After searching google scholar where papers are published that makes an argument, supply economics did have an impact on GDP and unemployment. However, all papers that were published, are by economists that favor support supply side economics. They are economists no different then Paul Krugman. My question, should I waste my time going through google scholar to reference the papers, or will it seem to be a conflict of interest? Which brings me to my other question, Keynesian economists are stated all time defending their position, so why can't supply side economists do the same? Nobody is arguing the revenue stream problem that Paul and other Kenesian points out but there is evidence made by supply side economists that the Regan and JFK tax cuts did grow the GDP and cut unemployment.(User talk:Madsalty) 08:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Madsalty: Hello. I'm not really sure I understand what you are asking. Supply-side economics and the Laffer curve are controversial to put it mildly, but there are some reputable economists who support them. Supply-side economists have built walled-garden for themselves, so it's better to summarize based on independent sources, but that's kind of subjective. Citing papers by sympathetic economists isn't a conflict of interest. Just advocating something isn't a conflict. If you wrote the paper and were adding it to the article, or the author of the paper was paying you to add it to Wikipedia, that would be a conflict of interest. The important thing to keep in mind is due weight. Opinions should be presented in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. It's also much better if the sources summarizing these positions are WP:SECONDARY. If not that, they should at least be from recognized experts like Krugman, in which case it should be attributed to that expert.
I reverted your edit because linking hard GDP numbers to supply-side economics must be done by sources. Saying that it was "put to the test" is somewhat ambiguous, and would need to be more clearly explained, economists, even those who are sympathetic to supply-side, agree there were other factors than just taxes, so attributing successes or failures needs to be explicitly done by sources, and likely with attribution. Peter Ferrara's position would have to be presented as his opinion with clear attribution, and the lead is not the place to do that, at least not without discussion on the talk page first. Additionally, Forbes give almost no editorial oversight to articles published by "contributors", making it a poor choice for something that's placed as being of prime importance to the topic. (Forbes has become a borderline blog-hosting service, at this point). If Ferrara's point is lead-worthy, it should be found somewhere more reliable. If it can't be found, it doesn't belong.
I would suggest starting a proposal at Talk:Supply-side economics so that more editors can chime in. Grayfell (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Grayfell: You answered my questions perfectly. I have a better understanding on what's required. Thanks for the reply and your time. I appreciate it. (User talk:Madsalty) 06:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Madsalty, this is a question you should bring up on the article's talk page. In terms of substance, part of that edit is synthesis - the part about the continuous growth between 1984 and 1990 based on BEA stats (and I think you might be looking at nominal GDP anyway) and it's also original research. The other parts are not really about supply side economics - a fiscal stimulus, even if carried out via tax cuts is a demand side policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services. In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply. <--- Supply-Side Economics by Arthur B. Laffer (GDP) in the U.S. was 3.4 percent per year, and 3.8 percent per year during the 1983-1989 Reagan expansion alone. <-- From the papers I cited. When you do the math it's about 4% annually. Reagan proposed a phased 30% tax cut for the first three years of his Presidency. The bulk of the cut would be concentrated at the upper income levels. The economic theory behind the wisdom of such a plan was called supply-side or trickle-down economics. <---Reaganomics: supply side economics in action by Bruce Bartlett.
If you guys want to leave the page as is, fine.. But if you read it, it's not even remotely balance, Should just be called criticism of Supply Side Economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madsalty (talkcontribs) 04:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
If anywhere, this should be posted to the article's talk page instead. Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi Greyfell[edit]

Got our message about the removal of the external link I've added to Thanks for informing, you are saying they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The Wiki article says "many independent reviews named Wix as one of the best free website builders", but there was no confirmation of it. So I managed to add a link to reputable source with the review of website builders, that actually named Wix #1 for beginners. it should have made this information more reputable, haven't it? Anyway, not sure it is the right place to post this, as you can see I'm new here :)

Multimrnk (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Multimrnk: Hello. Thanks for starting a talk-page discussion. There are a couple of overlapping issues. Is reputable? Maybe, but I don't think it is by Wikipedia's standards. It might be a perfectly fine resource for some, but it looks like a one-man site without any editorial oversight or the "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" required by Wikipedia's guidelines. It's basically Robert Mening's blog, right? So who is Robert Mening? See WP:SPS for how blogs relate to Wikipedia's policies.
The part you added a source for was a very promotional claim which would've needed to be rewritten based on much, much better sources. The article had a lot of what are known as WP:WEASELs and WP:PEACOCKs, although I previously removed most of them. I guess I missed that one. I've removed that line and adjusted the paragraph to be less promotional. A source is definitely better than no source, but the problem ran a bit deeper than just the source. The page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and WP:SOAP would be my recommended reading for that, if you're curious.
If you have any more questions, let me know, but I'm not going to be able to answer for the next few hours. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Will read all of the above guides for the next references! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multimrnk (talkcontribs) 10:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Edits to page on Graphology[edit]

Hi Grayfell, thanks for your advice on providing a summary/reason for editing and I have changed my preferences as you suggested. Have learned a lot in the last few days. Best regards, Geeveraune (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

A Different Drum - Revision History[edit]

I see that we're going to have an ongoing relationship here regarding the page for A Different Drum. You seem to be infatuated with correcting my edits. Are you stalking me? Opticon98 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Opticon98: Hello. I can see why that might be irritating or distressing, but stalking is not what's going on here. I use the Help:Watchlist feature to keep track of articles I'm interested in, which is a very common practice and is a feature that's available to all registered editors. The watchlist allows me to see when articles I'm interested in have been changed or updated. Since your earlier edits to that page introduced some unexplained issues, such as removing template:infobox record label and template:for with this edit, I have been checking that page when I see it on my watchlist to make sure the changes are okay. As far as I know that's the only article we've both edited, right? I sometimes glance at other editors' actions through their user contributions page (which every editor has), but only follow up if there is some specific sign that there's a problem, such as spam or vandalism, which is not the case here. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Greyfell: I can assure you that I am anything but a vandal. I'm a really nice girl. You just don't know me yet. I've been on Wikipedia for many years but lost access to my previous account due to my ex-husband, and his malicious ways. I have more than 25 years invested in the Synthpop scene globally, and have personally met many of the bands on A Different Drum, Synthphony Records, Section 44 Records, KMA Records, Ninthwave Records, Metropolis Records, and many other of the labels. I've attended many concerts and festivals since the early 90's, and contributed to much of the content here through my experiences and knowledge. You'll be seeing me around. Cheers! Opticon98 (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

SMART HDD Standard Censored?[edit]

The early IBM HDs must have had some diagnostic information. Without an online manual one has to guess as to the parameters provided. Yet otherwise coverage of this improvement in the article is really lacking (separate from the SMART technology article).

In the modern era the S.M.A.R.T. HDD telemetry provides about 120 parameters out of 256, as for some reason the idiots that created the standard did not use UNSIGNED INT16 in the specifications. IBM's original HDDs must have provided at least 5 to 7 HD running parameters as a bare minimum.

Ergo, based on an average HD providing about 40 operational parameters ... this leads to a 7 times increase in provided data. Why anyone would want to censor this is beyond me, as HDDs are slowly verging towards the ash heap of history (due to the Flash Memory technology). Eyreland (talk)

What? I don't think calling this "censorship" is productive, and calling it that on my talk page is really not productive. See WP:FREESPEECH. Discuss this on Talk:Hard disk drive, and listen and respond to what other editors have to say. Do not remove anyone else's comments, like you did with this edit. Thank you. Grayfell (talk)

Best way to cover DC cannabis topic? Your input requested[edit]

Please see here: Talk:Initiative_71#Rename_to_Cannabis_in_Washington.2C_D._C..2C_split_off.2C_or_what.3F

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Your approach to the Reader page[edit]

There are probably many people like me who do not use this platform very often nor, because of other responsibilities and interests, do we have time to use it often, and yet we try to contribute meaningfully, fairly and even boldly.

My very limited experience of your editing style, limited to one page, and reading through this Talk page, is that you seek to be fair, to encourage neutrality in how people are editing, and you are interested in building the community.

That said, some of the ways in which you are interacting and your choices of editing are not aligned with these intentions you have.

My own experience of editing The Reader page included that my contribution was continually challenged and changed by you. Rather than seeing my evident knowledge on the subject as an asset, you viewed it, from the outset, with suspicion, and you continually eliminated my work. You justified doing so with a flourish of Wiki-regulations and jargon.

At The Reader and my personal Talk pages, I've taken much more time than I probably should have to explain where I believe you were wrong in your editing. I imagine some people, after reading through these notes, may find your editing unquestionably wrong, anti-collaborative, and alienating.

With your superior knowledge of this platform comes a responsibility to use this knowledge to foster the collaboration of others, and thereby build the community and the value of information on this platform, rather than use it to push them away.

Clearly, I'm not the only one who feels this way. Elsewhere in this talk section, another editor has experienced something similar in which s/he said, "I do think that your editing is very heavy-handed and somewhat arbitrary- and not always in accordance with Wiki Policies...The downside is that this approach is likely to discourage other editors from making new contributions."

I think it would be more fair and a wiser move to see others' contributions who have considerable knowledge on a subject as a result of place, proximity and experience and who are clearly trying-- as I have-- to live up to the ideals, rules and values of Wikipedia, to allow them their say. If you don't do this, and you use your superior knowledge of this platform to get others to do what you want, you're essentially pushing them away from the platform, which I know you don't actually want to have happen.

Most recently, although I'm not sure what the notification means, you wrote something at my Talk page to the effect that my role as an editor may be taken away if I don't comply with certain rules and that you will soon enlist other editors to make sure I comply with other requests of yours.

All of this you are directing at someone who rarely uses this platform and tries to use it fairly to the best of their ability. Is that not being somewhat heavy-handed and needlessly intimidating?

Thank you for reading this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBalandina (talkcontribs) 04:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiBalandina: No, I did not use another account (that would be against the rules), and I did not ask the other editor to revert your changes, that was their own call.
The message I left on your talk page was a boilerplate warning about edit warring. I wanted you to understand Wikipedia's "bright line" about three reverts in 24 hours. I warned you about that so that you can keep contributing, because if you continued as you were without understanding that, you very likely would get blocked. If that's a threat, it's a threat the same way a speed-limit sign is a threat: it applies to everyone, and now it's on you to follow it. Not explaining that would be doing you a disservice, would it not?
I accept that people are going to complain about me on my talk page when they don't agree with what I've done, just like I accept that very few are going to notice when I do something they agree with. What, exactly, does any of that prove? By the way, the editor who left those comments you quote has made many, many edits since then, and has been very active in adding reliable sources to many different articles.
I understand that you want to contribute based on your expertise, but as I've been trying to explain, it's just not that simple. You are not the first person to be frustrated by this, but it's so fundamental to the project that it's not negotiable. Let me explain that another way, because it's very important. We do not ask you to prove who you are. There are rules about paid editing and sock-puppetry, but for the most part, Wikipedia tries very hard to preserve the privacy of individual editors. Outing another editor is forbidden, in fact. That protection of anonymity means we cannot take your word for it, because that would require us to know who you are. That is why we need, need, NEED reliable sources instead of personal familiarity. Does that address some of your confusion? If so, please tell me how I can explain this more clearly in the future, because it's a recurring problem.
So, for that and other reasons, your edits weren't going to work, and multiple other editors seem to agree with me. What, exactly should I have done differently? It was as you left it for months until another editor cleaned it up, again. You reverted without addressing the problems. Remember that you have no basis at all for making assumptions about our individual knowledge or personal history. What, exactly, should the other editor have done differently? Does her assessment not count? I tried to discuss this with you in multiple forums months ago, and all I got for my trouble is veiled insults and edit warring. Now a third editor has reverted. What, exactly, should they have done differently?
As I said above, I can live with being called heavy handed. So can you live with working with other editors, and can you agree to be civil about it (which is required by Wikipedia's policies)? Are you willing to work with the three editors who have reverted your changes? If not, you're going to have a hard time here regardless of my attitude or behavior. Grayfell (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Your editing choices and your interactions are more than "heavy-handed", they are pushy and reveal an overriding sense of your own rectitude and an incapacity to be influenced by others who disagree with your choices.

You have continually eliminated any possible positive statement made about The Reader Magazine, a sixteen year old publication in Southern California, which mostly as a result of your insistence, you have reduced to a single article written by a graduate student, who was subsequently sued for libel.

Most recently, you have argued that this article accusing the publication of plagiarism is so important that it be included in the second sentence of the entire entry on the publication, even though it is mentioned in the body of the entry. Your response is that it is proper to include it as it "summarizes" the publication-- according to who? You? You have eliminated positive, cited content to the point that the entry is so sparse that someone looking for information on The Reader Magazine-- because of you-- knows practically nothing about it, including information that is verified, cited and independent.

The positive statements about The Reader you argued to eliminate (and did eliminate) include cited statements made on record and in an article about The Reader Magazine by "Mr. Magazine" himself, Professor Samir Husni, a globally-recognized thought leader in the magazine publishing industry. Why would you would eliminate his critique of The Reader but not a graduate student's critique? Your rationale for eliminating his cited article and statements drifts into absurdity: you claim that Mr. Husni's article may be self-promotional, or that it appears online only even though the article you center upon, in the Columbia Journalism Review, is also only available online, and never appeared in print.

Please stop including that The Reader was accused of plagiarism more than once, and it should not be mentioned so close to the beginning of the description of the magazine. It colors the rest of the entry-- and let us not forget that this was an article written by student sued for libel, which is not immaterial. The rationale for making it somehow a "summary" is totally subjective, and it is unfair.

Second, please allow for "Mr. Magazine" or Samir Husni's statements about The Reader to be seen, because he is a distinguished, recognized authority in magazine publishing. To assume that his statements and article are not independent is to not assume good faith and is irrational given his position in the publishing industry as one of its leaders, and the credibility he has earned over decades.

Finally, The Reader Magazine is one of only 1,961 companies globally that has earned the designation of B-Certified (along with Seventh Generation, Etsy and others). Why have you, again taken this cited information away from the description? What I hope others see here is that your editing has been heavy-handed to the degree of unfairness. How? You have stripped down the description of The Reader to a negative caricature or cartoon. You've done this, even though information is available from independent and even non-profit publishers and globally recognized third-party institutions. So your style is actually materially hurtful to others-- all done in the name of your ballyhooed (and actually non-existent) neutrality, wrapped in your generous use of Wiki jargon, and ultimately unfair.

ThanksWikiBalandina (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiBalandina: I have moved your comments to the appropriate section, per talk page guidelines.
Obviously we are both coming from very different places here, but I am certainly NOT removing any "possible" positive statement. I am trying not to judge content exclusively by how positive or negative it is, but instead based on encyclopedic significance as determined by the reliability of sources.
Wikipedia's guidelines say that leads should summarize the basic details (founding date and location, etc) and major points raised by the article, as determined by sources and consensus determined on the article's talk page. All of this should be sourced (either in the lead, or in the body). If there are no sources and the content is challenged, it's removed. That's just how this works.
So, with that in mind, is Husni the only reliable independent source you know of? You've made your position on his interview with Theodore very clear, but I still do not think that the flattering quote from the intro is appropriate. Content from the interview could be used for either non-controversial details (which it already is), or maybe for attributed comments from Husni or Theodore in response to other, reliably sourced content such as the plagiarism accusations. Husni's blog is a blog, even if he is an expert, and it would need to be weighed accordingly.
As another editor has mentioned on your talk page, if being a B-cert company is significant to the article, then it should be possible to find a reliable, independent sources commenting on it. If it's not, then I do not think it belongs in the article, no matter how rare or common it may be, or how notable other companies who have received it are.
Being sued for libel is only material to the extent which it is discussed by reliable sources, (which seems like it's inviting the Streisand effect, but that's a digression). If this mere graduate student journalist was convicted of libel, or the publications issued a retraction, then that would belong in the article, and we could discuss, on the article's talk page, how best to present that information. Has that happened? Do you know of any reliable sources at all which support that?
I sincerely do not mean this as any sort of threat, but having the article deleted is another option. If you do not like the plagiarism accusation being so prominent, and you cannot find any substantial, independent sources which discuss the paper in general to offset it, then you can propose that the article be deleted based on a lack of notability. I kind of doubt it would survive the discussion, but I'm not interested in trying to get it deleted just to prove a point. If you want more info on that process, let me know. Otherwise, there's not much more to be said without going around in more circles. Grayfell (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of First World privilege for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First World privilege is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First World privilege until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsrestoresanity (talkcontribs) 05:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Grayfell. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Article about Sheila Sri Prakash[edit]

I have no ties to this living person. I am a tenured Professor of Architecture and Sustainability at the NUS (National University of Singapore). It is my opinion that the article about Sheila Sri Prakash is adequately backed by the numerous inline citations, references and reputable institutions that she serves, not the least of which include the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Furthermore, as a woman who entered this field in the 1970s from Asia, she is undeniably a trailblazer, social innovator and pioneer. Would you clarify your credentials/extent of expertise, to comment on the field of architecture and disclose any ties to the topic of this post, along with any conflict of interest with any others, as it appears that you are repeatedly trying to undermine the reputation of this living person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not have a conflict of interest, and my qualifications are not relevant, because Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not original research. The place to discuss this further is Talk:Sheila Sri Prakash. Grayfell (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Julius Evola[edit]

Please bear with me. Trying to clean up this article. Need help removing bogus citations. Never done that before. Dlawbailey (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a close look, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. Good luck. Grayfell (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Orlowski photo[edit]

Seriously you need a better photo.

Especially when yours is stolen from fucking flickr and cropped.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2016

It was uploaded to flickr with a creative commons license. Calling that "stolen" is just silly. If you know of a better photo which has a compatible license, go for it. Grayfell (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mi Pay[edit]

Thanks. Grayfell for sparing your valuable time on the article. However, every brand has different products and services and there are dedicated pages for them as well on Wikipedia. For eg. For Apple Pay and Android Pay. Hence, I created this for Mi-Pay. In future, I will pay heed to what you say, particularly, for products that are less noticeable. Gupta Dindayal (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear, I want to know, whether this article would be moved to the mainspace automatically after being reviewed or I need to do it manually. Please help!Gupta Dindayal (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gupta Dindayal: Hello. Do not move the article into mainspace. leave that to other editors. Notability is determined by sources. Having a notable parent company does not mean the product is notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED) The sources for Mi Pay are thin, so it would be better to clean up Xiaomi and add a brief mention of Mi Pay there. Adding a full article about this product is promotional, since it makes Mi Pay look more important than sources support. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. Articles like this need to be reviewed carefully for that reason. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk[edit]

Hello Grayfell,

I've seen you deleted some of my edits and I would like to know why. I added some paragraphs + external resource to hack up my data, don't you like them or just being picky? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Becks (talkcontribs) 13:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@M.Becks: Hello. Sorry, I should've left an explanation on your talk page. The links you were adding were to a set of commercial sites which don't appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If the information cannot be supported by reliable sources, it should not be included on the pages. Because you were adding these to many pages in a row, this is a form of spamming, which is prohibited. Adding links to the 'see also' section is even more of a problem, because it's promoting the site and implying it has authority or official status without providing context. For this reason I am reverting your changes again. I hope that answers your question. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I think these sites are positioned as trustful resources on its industry/market, also their writers have strong presence in sex work field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Becks (talkcontribs) 09:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@M.Becks: Do you know of any independent sources discussing these sites? Wikipedia's standard for sources is "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This means that sources should have some verifiable presence among outside analysts. Any discussion of the sites' journalism or editorial policies or similar, or if not that, outside articles about the sites' business history might be useful.
Writers with a strong presence is a good start, but it's not enough. If the contributors work has previously been published by other, reliable sites, that would mean they could be quoted as expert opinions, but those are treated differently, and such sources are only used for statements of fact with caution. WP:SPS explains this in slightly more detail.
It looks like there was some discussion of this in the past, also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escort Ireland. A concern raised there was that there are a lot of sites with very similar names, which is a source of confusion even among sympathetic, reliable sources. No idea what to do about that, but worth keeping in mind.
Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please reference the policy[edit]

"Let someone else add this if it's so important". Could you please reference which Wikipedia rule this falls under? TariqMatters (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I have responded with a template message on your talk page. Sorry it's boilerplate, but it covers the issue more comprehensively than I could alone. I'm sure you've also noticed the two banners across the top of Tariq Nasheed. As a first step it would be a good idea to try and address those issues, but only on the article's talk page (Talk:Tariq Nasheed), not directly. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you're violating "Assume good faith." But, I notice from other messages on this talk page and your contribution history that it's a pattern with you. Probably one of the reasons why WP has lost so many editors, from what I hear. Keep it up! TariqMatters (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
There are histories behind all of the other posts on this talk page. Some of them are well-meaning but ticked off. Some of them are long-term trolls who've since been blocked. Some just want clarification of something, or to point out a mistake I've made. Some don't agree with me because they think I'm part of some ideology they hate. How does any of this reflect on you having a conflict of interest?
If you want to actually explain how I was not assuming good faith, I'm willing to listen. If not, well, I'm glad I don't work retail, otherwise I might have to tolerate snotty comments like that without responding. That would feel kind of dirty, y'know? Like a violation of my principles. Fortunately AGF doesn't mean I have to act like a doormat, and I'm not paid for this either way, so... Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Trilateral Commission[edit]

Trying to game the system with this edit of yours after you reverted my edit in this manner doesn't put you in the greatest light as it just proves that you are just trying too hard to push your POV. If you have further problems with my latest revert of your reversion, do be more constructive in your attitude and take them to the talk page first. Flaggerton (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The burden is on you, there, bub. See WP:BRD. If you think Alex Jones, a fringe radio host, is on the same level as Noam Chomsky, on of the most cited academic in history, there's not much more to be said. Grayfell (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Peter Marino projects to add[edit]

Hi Grayfell, I identified a few of Peter Marino's notable projects and put a revision in my sandbox [[1]]. How does this look? Thanks for your help! Emikey-34 (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Emikey-34: I don't have time to give it a more thorough review, but I do notice some problems. Some of the refs might be messed up. One of the links is to the NY Times, while the formatting says its for the Telegraph. This kind of thing makes it really hard to verify, and sources don't support the statements they are attached to. That's not going to work, obviously. It looks like the dates are still poorly supported, as well. The "Palace Maker" article says the first Barneys work was in 1984, while your edit says 1985, and the Surface article currently used for the statement vaguely asks if it was the late 80s without getting a clear response. I will have a closer look when I get a chance. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Grayfell:Thanks for noticing the citation issues. It's great to have an extra set of eyes. When I cut and pasted the citations I forgot to change Telegraph to NY Times. I just corrected it. The text and rest of the citations are correct. I also just changed the date formats so they'd all be consistent, and found a specific source that confirms 1985 for the Barney's project date. Thanks again for your help. Emikey-34 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Kash Shaikh page[edit]

Which parts in particular should be removed or improved? Thank you for your help. A.s.jones (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@A.s.jones: I have posted information about the article on Talk:Kash Shaikh. The excessive use of buzzwords and heavily promotional language strongly suggests that you may have a conflict of interest. Worse, much of the content you added (such as, but not limited to, birthdays) was not supported by any source, suggesting that you have direct knowledge of Shaikh. If you are affiliated with Shaikh, you need to read about that here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you are being compensated for editing the article you are required to disclose that. Review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, as this is a policy with legal considerations. This is not optional. Please respond confirming that you have read this. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your note. I have no affiliation with Mr. Shaikh or his company besomebody. I downloaded the app a year ago and love the concept. I also have been following the movement during that time. I am not paid in anyway nor would I ever seek to be. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm very familiar with the rules and guidelines. I understand you're doing your part as a community leader, but I must say I am shocked by the unsubstantiated assumptions you've made. I was excited to contribute to the community and spent a significant amount of time researching everything prior to publishing. I used credible sources, including the actual organizations that gave awards ("ie Brandweek") and media (USA Today). I did not use any sites directly affiliated with Shaikh or his company. Moreover, I studied other biographies of living persons on Wikipedia to emulate the style and format of "proper articles" such as Gary Vaynerchuk, Kathryn Minshew, SaulPaul, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. I believe much of what was removed from my contribution was unnecessary, however I will look at the sources again and make the appropriate edits. Thank youA.s.jones (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@A.s.jones: Thank you for responding. I don't agree that my assumptions were unsubstantiated, since you included content such as his high school and birthdate which were not supported by sources. I think it's obvious why this indicates a conflict of interest. COI editing is a problem on Wikipedia, and spam damages the project and undermines efforts of impartial editors, so it's not something I take lightly.
Please note that two of the four articles you cite as examples have banners across the top mentioning the serious problems they have. Actually, I just added one to SaulPaul also, as it also has many problems. It's frustrating, but Wikipedia doesn't go by precedent, and the huge number of articles here means there is plenty of junk that slips through the cracks. Awards specifically are frequently abused on Wikipedia. The rule of thumb is that WP:SECONDARY sources should be used for non-notable awards, and such sources should clearly explain why the award is encyclopedically significant. The organization that gives an award is not independent of that award, so this is needed distinguish significant accomplishments from fancy acrylic paperweights. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, his birthdate is available on his public Facebook profile page, I had seen other articles reference birthdates in this way. I know now not to use those as precedent. Also, in one of the references you removed from a newspaper it referenced Shaikh as a Klein High School grad, also publicly available on his profile page. I appreciate this feedback and understand your concerns. It's cool how passionate you are about protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. I want to do that as well. I will be making some additional changes and then I will let you know. I would appreciate you letting me know if the edits/updates I make are in line with Wikipedia's ethos. I won't use other articles anymore as references." A.s.jones (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Grayfell. You have new messages at Jtrrs0's talk page.
Message added 15:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Chris Hayes journalist[edit]

Hi there, your comment about reverting my edit was "see talk," but I saw no discussion there, other than the one I posted tonight. Amywestervelt (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Amywestervelt: Hello. It took me a couple of minutes to type a response. Check again, please. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Creditseva page[edit]

Hi Grey

I have been trying to create a wikipage with the name Creditseva since a week and i am facing issues in this process. I have been modifying and improvising the content quality everytime you have suggested changes. Inspite of doing this at a regular basis, i have been seeing that my content is a promotional content and it looks like an advertisement. I have referred all the guidelines mentioned by you after you have reviewed the Creditseva wikipage. I fail to understand the reason for the content to get approved by you without the tag of advertisement or promotional content

Could you please help me on this, as in what has to be exactly removed in the content provided by me. As you had mentioned recently, there are no peacock words in this content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mratnam176 (talkcontribs) 10:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mratnam176: Hello. Three things:
  1. You already posted this exact comment at talk:Creditseva twice, and I already responded there. What's the point of me posting a reply if you're not going to bother to read it? You do not have to answer that. Just go to talk:Creditseva and discuss the article.
  2. You still haven't responded on your own talk page to the question about having a conflict of interest. Two editors have tried to explain this, so please read your own talk page User talk:Mratnam176 carefully.
  3. As is explained at the top of my talk page, post new comments at the bottom of the page. Not near the bottom. Please see Help:Show preview and start using that to avoid these kinds of mistakes in the future.
There is no reason to continue this here. Again: respond to the questions on your own talk page, and then read my response on the Creditseva talk page. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response Grey. Sorry for asking the same question at two different pages. I am not accustomed to the Wikipedia page, so it was difficult to understand where i was going wrong. Thank you for giving me direction and showing me the correct path in such a clear way.I am working on the guidelines mentioned by you, after i have completed making the changes, i will update you on this talk page. Please review so that i can post it finally on the wikipage in such a way that it is free from any errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mratnam176 (talkcontribs) 10:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Grey

I have made the necessary changes in the Creditseva Wikipage by improvising the content quality and removing all those words that made you feel its a promotional content, kindly review it and please remove the promotional content tag. Mratnam176 (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Stefan A-T Page[edit]

Thank you Grey for looking in on the page I created - I have seen all your edits and agree with them - I took off the Advert warning as I thought you had done a superb job of returning it to it's former glory - if you disagree - please let me know what else needs doing and I'll get on it - still learning the correct form! Commanderjameson (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Cuckservative reversion[edit]

Hello, I noticed you have made a revision to the how tag that I added to the article on Cuckservative. I've added a section to the talk page highlighting some of the questions I have with the accusations of racism. Feel free to comment here Sawta (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Arsh Shah Dilbagi[edit]

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and have been editing low stakes pages. I do not understand how that content appears to be promotional. If so, please help fix the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveDorf (talkcontribs) 07:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@SteveDorf: Hello. Please read talk:Arsh Shah Dilbagi. That you have only ever edited this one topic is a red flag that you have a conflict of interest. Please read carefully what I've posted on your talk page and respond there. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your patient and diligent work on Arsh Shah Dilbagi and related edits. Wikishovel (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I appreciate it! Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Red pill and blue pill reversion[edit]

Hello, I noticed you reverted the edit I made to Red pill and blue pill on the grounds that "Women's hypergamous nature" is a fringe opinion and should not be stated as a simple fact. I understand that the issue of hypergamy is very controversial and that the opinions of /r/theredpill are a minority. I apologize if my edit came off the wrong way but my intention was just to point out one of the primary issues/opinions that the subreddit discusses regardless of whether they are generally considered to be true or not. (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. The source does mention the hypergamy thing, but it says it's "one or two layers deeper" than the basic overview it gives. I think the underlying point is probably clear enough from the preceding sentence, also. Last time I looked, this was the only reliable source I could find which discussed the subreddit in depth, and the article shouldn't give undue weight to this otherwise obscure topic. So how important is it to explain the subtleties of this one subreddit on a "other uses" list? The main concern I have is that we don't present this as an uncontroversial fact. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

White supremacy reversion[edit]

With regards to your reversion, the language "real or perceived" is literally more neutral than the innate assumption that all systems in which white people hold the majority of social or financial capitol are operating under deliberately manufactured white supremacy. Consider a country like Sweden which until recently has not even had the chance to practice white supremacy politically due to its overwhelming native Swede majority: as its immigrant population increases the state has been incredibly accommodating. The notion of white supremacy is not a system of government, it's an ideology with various implications depending on social climate and history. Therefore, implying that suggestions of its existence in all given systems are automatically true is the biased stance. Saying "real or perceived" prevents generalizations in the global context.

Nerdcatcher (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, specifically sources about the topic being discussed. Saying that Sweden did not practice white supremacy because they were too white shows a poor understanding of the term as it's used in this context, and seems like original research. The place to discuss specific content issues is the article's talk page, talk:White supremacy. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of Life[edit]

Re. your reverting my edits, there wasn't a word of original research. All fully referenced as David Benatar as I was just in the process of adding. Balance is needed in this section as there are scores of points on the good in life and one line on the bad. Perhaps you could add this balance? Pipkin2.0 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pipkin2.0: Hello. I will start a discussion at the article's talk page in a moment. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken it from the same text as referenced at antinatalism David Benatar. Sound reference, if a somewhat unpalatable subject for some. Pipkin2.0 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

You made some minor edits to List of sports team names and mascots derived from indigenous peoples (thanks) without commenting on my proposed split/renaming. Since it has been a month since I placed the notice I will proceed with the process.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will post a comment in support of that on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Rajdweep Dey[edit]

Hello Grayfell, Thank you for your advices. I have removed the promotional words from the page Rajdweep Dey. Please remove the advertisement tag as it is not an advertisement. Rajdweep is a famous playwright, lyricist from the state of Assam, India. I have given some reliable sources also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axomiya deka (talkcontribs) 09:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Axomiya deka: Hello. The article still needs much, much better sources. "Famous" is determined by reliable sources, which you still have not included in the article. The advertising tag has been removed, but that doesn't fix the article's more serious problems. If you cannot provide reliable sources (not IMDB), then the article will be deleted yet again. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Summaries are usually better than direct quotes. / Brianna Wu[edit]

If you say so. Personally, I feel such summaries fail to accurately capture what the person was trying to convey for the sake of shortening an article by a few characters. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's more accurate, but it's also selective. A quote like this takes a Wikipedia editor's choice of a journalist's assessment of the article subject's comments of what was relevant at the time they gave the interview (in response to an unknown question or talking point) and raises that quote to lasting encyclopedic significance. These are choices editors have to make, but picking one direct quote out of several makes the POV problems worse. If you want to make the case for that particular quote, you should do so on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I wanted to discuss it in general, rather than that particular quote, but it is the example we have at hand. Do you honestly feel that a Wikipedia editor choosing to summarize what the person wanted to express raises fewer POV issues than quoting them directly? (In this case there were no questions in the article, or I would have included a "in response to the question X" the person responded "Y".)
As this is our example, do you not feel you stripped something from what Wu said by removing the sentiment that "so many terrible things are going on"?
Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
That's kind of a loaded question. Presenting a quote without the surrounding context of the quote's source also strips something from what a person says. Whatever I may have stripped from what she said was not unambiguously important for clarifying her position. If its significance is not obvious from the source, then the quote's inclusion is subjective, because it's conveying something based on one editor's assessment of its relevance, not on the source-article's emphasis of the point. If this specific point were in some way confusing, or were controversial (as opposed to being about a controversial figure) or were being emphasized by a third-hand source, I would support its inclusion. This isn't the case. It was one of three paragraphs quoting her, and it's not clear why that one was better than "I think the next step is for women to reach inside of ourselves and find that courage and run for office to change some laws." or "It's so imperative that people of my generation, native to technology, that we step up and make our voices known." (I do not believe any of those quotes belong, in case that wasn't obvious.) It's clear from the source that her decision to run was not just about Trump, so using that quote while ignoring the larger context provided by the article is non-neutral. That's why quotes are so tricky. So to answer your question, yes, I believe my summary addresses a POV issue introduced by your direct quote. To extend this to an "in general" sense, this issue comes up pretty often. For several reasons, I feel that if a short summary works well, it's almost always (but not always) going to be more neutral than using a lengthier quote. Grayfell (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I know I used quotes again, but it is hard to rephrase tweets. If you can find a way to do it, please do. Cheers, SVTCobra (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Sebastian Gorka[edit]

I'm willing to wait on secondary sources that will be coming regarding the reckless driving criminal convictions. But why remove the entire paragraph including the weapons charge and upcoming sentencing of Feb. 3, 2017, which is well sourced? (I can and will add two more sources, including the WSJ and the Hill) This charge is quite relevant. Where do you propose this paragraph go on the page then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon3579 (talkcontribs) 05:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Anon3579, to consolidate conversation to one place. Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

White Pride redoux[edit]

Pacientia or Patience.jpg The Barnstar of patience
Bless you. 7&6=thirteen () 02:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I appreciate it! Grayfell (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Giving Copyright Permissions[edit]

Thank you for the input on why the material I added on my company's page was removed. I have a question, however. If I follow the procedure for giving copyright approval for the material from our website, will the OTRS pending template show up for all viewers, or only members of Wikipedia? Logan!1989 (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Logan!1989: Hello. Before I answer your question, I must insist that take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on having a conflict of interest: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may also find Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide helpful. I reverted your edits to EBSCO Industries because they were too promotional. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. That's reason enough to remove that material, so donating the content to Wikipedia would not be sufficient for inclusion in the article. The OTRS pending template would be posted to the article's talk page:Talk:EBSCO Industries. From there it would be visible to all users. For the above reasons, I do not think donating that material would be productive, however. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

T.S. Pettibone[edit]

Do you consider that Brittany and Nicole Pettibone should be merged into one article named T.S Pettibone? They are working with Lauren Southern, InfoWars, and are heavily influential in the alternative right movement. It would seem that it would carry a Wikipedia page, but it definitely requires work on independent third-party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Can1r53 (talkcontribs) 04:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC) WP:SOCK

@Can1r53: Hello. I'm not sure, but my first thought is that they should not be combined. Right now it looks like most sources discuss Brittany as the "Pizzagate expert" while some other sources discuss the twins' fiction career. I will take a look for more sources when I get the chance. I'll also set-up the talk page for the article to make it easier to discuss in a place where more editors are likely to contribute. Grayfell (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


Would you consider Brittany Pettibone as starting with alt-right or conservative in the description? I've seen both listed, but she seems to be freely associated with the alt-right movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Can1r53 (talkcontribs) 04:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC) WP:SOCK

Yes, I tentatively think alt-right would be appropriate, but... Describing people by their political affiliations needs to be handled carefully, and especially for alt-right figures. Some, like Mike Cernovich, embraced the label early on, but than distanced themselves as it became more clearly known as a euphemism for white supremacist. Cernovich has personally tried to remove the term alt-right from his Wikipedia article, which is an example of how things can get complicated. If sources are clear that Pettibone is an alt-right figure, and consistently define her as such, that could be put in the lead. If it's merely frequent, or tangential, it's probably better to discuss on the article's talk page. You should take a look at WP:BLP also, if you have not already. Grayfell (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello from Picnicin[edit]

Hello Grayfell, Thanks for the welcome, Hope its ok saying Thank you here! Picnicin (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi from Reggie.[edit]

Hello Grayfell, is there a means to reach you privately? If yes, do let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggie Olubunmi Atere (talkcontribs) 08:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Reggie Olubunmi Atere: Hello. I would much rather use talk pages. If you absolutely must contact my privately, you can send me an email through Wikipedia. On the Desktop version, this is done by clicking "Email this user" on the left-hand sidebar of this talk page. I will not respond by email to users I do not know and trust well, however, so again I would strongly prefer all communication be held on talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Farrell Edits[edit]

Discuss at Talk:Warren Farrell, not here.

Here are my complete edits and reasons. Please reinstate my changes...


Before writing further about men's issues and empowerment, Farrell spent years researching incest, including the ways people who commit incest justify their actions and (controversially) the potentially positive impact on family life. In a 2015 article in Mother Jones magazine, Mariah Blake summed up his findings and quoted him on the topic: "In a 1977 interview with Penthouse, Farrell explained that some saw incest as 'part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection.' The magazine also quoted him as saying that 'genitally caressing' children was 'part of a caring, loving expression' that helped them develop healthy sexuality." These ideas threatened his reputation; as Blake reported, "Farrell maintains that he said "generally caressing" and that the magazine conflated his ideas with those of his subjects. "'The question is, how does a man or a woman justify having incestuous relations?' he told me. 'I was reporting how people justified it. In most cases the article made that clear, but in some cases what the people I interviewed had said got mixed up with what I said.'" In the face of reputation-damaging public reaction, Farrell ended up not publishing the book.[16]


The only sources, pornography and a radical feminist magazine’s attack whose purpose is to discredit the men’s issues movement’s leaders rather than report what is being said, is not a source worthy of Wikipedia. Re; Mother Jones, the comment section documents how people attending the conference covered by Mother Jones reported a completely different experience, such as half of the keynote speakers being women, including women of color, such as Senator Cools of Canada.


Not all responses have been positive, as Mariah Blake notes in Mother Jones, and some readers have taken Farrell's claims to an extreme degree--using them as justification for violence, for example. As Blake notes, "It wasn't until recent controversies drew attention to the men's rights movement that Farrell began to feel his ideas were having a real impact. During an interview on NPR's All Things Considered in September (2014), Farrell suggested that men's rights activists were tackling the very problems that may prompt young men to go on shooting rampages. 'We're all in jeopardy,' he said, 'if we don't pay attention to the cries of pain and isolation and alienation that are happening among our sons.'[60]" The audience for his Twitter feed has found some of his tweets problematically sexist, such as "Does the [new edition of] Myth of Male Power start with a naked woman? See Warren Farrell's 2014 ebook. #mensissues."[61]

Replaced With:

While Farrell’s 2015 TEDx presentation on The Boy Crisis, [2] and his interviews related to his Why Men Earn More [3] have received broadly positive responses, he has also been controversial in both liberal and conservative circles. His support of Clinton in interviews with worldwide media also The Fiscal Times; Yahoo were protested by some men’s rights advocates [4]. Conversely, his statements on media such as NPR catalyzed the objections of some feminists. Farrell reminded feminists of the man-hating of some early feminists, such as Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men), and that it didn’t block him from finding feminism’s best intent. He argues that this compassion needs to be applied to men--that “it’s important to understand that anger is often vulnerability’s mask,” [See both, and] that it is better to hear anger than to allow a volcano of repressed emotions to explode into school shootings.

The 2016-17 release of the documentary, The Red Pill, [FN: ] depicting feminist producer Cassie Jaye’s journey from her initial intent to do an attack piece on men’s rights activists, to her documenting why men’s issues should also be feminist issues, has had an impact on the popularity of Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power. It features The Myth of Male Power as the “red pill” that, once read by feminists, led to many becoming men’s rights activists. [FN: Besides Farrell, Fred Hayward, Harry Crouch, Paul Elam, and Steven Svoboda are featured, each originally feminists who became disillusioned.] The Red Pill also features Farrell as supporting the portions of feminism that expands women’s options, but objecting to the portions that he feels demonize men and undervalue the family and fathers.


Re: the eliminated paragraph, there is no evidence of anyone taking Farrell’s claims as a justification for violence. Re; Mother Jones, the comment section documents how people attending the conference covered by Mother Jones reported a completely different experience, such as half of the keynote speakers being women, including women of color, such as Senator Cools of Canada. A radical feminist magazine’s attack whose purpose is to discredit the men’s issues movement’s leaders rather than report what is being said, is not a source worthy of Wikipedia.

The eliminated paragraph only cites Wikipedia’s general page on NPR, which says nothing about the show being referred to. The replacement is the actual quote and a summary of the two NPR shows in which Farrell and NPR dealt with this issue. It is now in the context of both criticism and praise, in Wikipedia tradition.

Unseen remnant (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Unseen remnant: I have multiple objections to these changes, but the place to discuss them is the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Good evidence to support... but problem.[edit]

Brittany Pettibone is an extensive editor of the website. But there is no non-primary documentation that I could find about her and the website. Would it be okay to include a primary source due to its importance and the lack of current mainstream attention to it. She has a huge influential following, notability, and in my opinion should be included in it. Same thing with Lana Lokteff of Red Ice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorkvilleFan (talkcontribs) 01:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Editor is a sock puppet

@YorkvilleFan: I think it's time to move this to Talk:Richard B. Spencer, but without reliable secondary sources, it looks premature to me. The greater lasting significance of has not been established yet, and we should guard against WP:RECENTISM. It seems like it could be another minor site in the walled-garden Spencer and his friends populate. Honestly, I'm not sure that Pettibone's article would survive WP:AFD at this point, either. Wikipedia reflects sources, and if something lacks reliable coverage, that is not Wikipedia's problem to solve. It's a necessary blindspot. I would advise patience to see if more sources pop up, but perhaps other editors might have a better suggestion. Again, the article's talk would be the place to find out. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Red Pill[edit]

I noticed you removed Breitbart as an unreliable source. Is Breitbart unreliable on this article in particular because they supported the film, or has Breitbart been deemed unreliable in general? If the latter, please point me to the discussion page where this was decided. Thanks, --SVTCobra (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A bit of both, I guess. Breitbart isn't reliable for statements of fact per many, many discussion at WP:RSN and elsewhere. Its use for opinions, and move reviews specifically, has also come up multiple times at WP:RSN, and it's never pretty. In that case some leeway is given for using it for attributed opinions. One example was a lengthy debate which was very heated and very specifically tied to context. That discussion was about using a review by Christian Toto. Toto writes about film specifically, and is a member of Broadcast Film Critics Association (which isn't as prestigious as it sounds, but is better than nothing) and so his opinion holds more water. Yiannopoulos was nominally tech editor, not film editor, and was not in any way recognized as an expert on movies that I know of, making him even less reliable than usual. Incidentally, that discussion also reaffirms that Breitbart isn't reliable for facts. Grayfell (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk requested on Richard Spencer[edit]

I am contacting you in regards to the article, Cuckservative. There were a number of recent edits/reverts regarding whether or not Richard Spencer should be listed as either a Nationalist, Supremacist, or Identity Activist.

Please take a moment to review the talk section I have generated here and provide whatever information you wish to convey on the matter. Thanks. Sawta (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to Bhargav Sri Prakash[edit]

I am looking to understand the basis upon which you continue to revert edits to Bhargav Sri Prakash, as you repeatedly revert edits that have references to recently peer reviewed publications at Stanford Medical School, as well as a recent article on CNBC-TV18, as "puff". Both of these would be considered reliable sources for reference per wikipedia standard. Would you consider editing the contribution instead of just reverting it without even a discussion. It appears that your interpretation of the evidence presented in the scientific literature is inconsistent with the facts, as you assert that such research is based on psychology. Would you please disclose any conflict of interest with this subject and/or the need for misrepresenting the work of a living person? I am not a seasoned wikipedia contributor or power user but I am just a researcher. Should such baseless reverts of contributions prevail because of your administrative privileges, without as much of a willingness for a discussion on the talk page, then I guess I would just be more inclined to stop contributing to wikipedia. 2601:647:4D01:1100:95B6:66C:8B0F:C260 (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. That article has strong signs of having been edited by paid editors in the past, so accusing me of a "conflict of interest" is bizarre and misguided. The place to have this discussion is the article's talk page, but those sources were not nearly as persuasive as you are presenting them here. Wikipedia favors WP:SECONDARY sources, especially for medical claims, per WP:MEDRS. Again, this is not the place to go into further detail. Grayfell (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Do not abuse your power.[edit]

You disagree with me, and then threaten to block me and accuse of an edit war, which is also what you are doing. I don't understand why you accuse me of original research when I GAVE YOU THE SOURCES, THEIR VIDEO, WHICH WAS RACIST. Stop reverting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Williscroft (talkcontribs) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Samuel Williscroft: Hello. I'm not an admin or anything so I don't know what power you think I have, but nobody is allowed to edit war. Do you understand the difference between published research and original research? If not, you need to slow down and check that out. There are problems with your edits, and reverting to them over and over isn't going to fix those problems. If you have questions, the talk page is a better place, because if you keep edit warring, you'll be blocked (by an admin, not by me). If you want to discuss the videos, the place to do it is talk:BuzzFeed, but you'll need sources which specifically say "these videos are racist" or "these videos have been criticized for being racist" or something like that. The videos themselves don't work as a source here, no matter how racist they are. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Tri Delta edits[edit]

Hi there, you seem to disagree that an individual who has been on a Disney Channel program counts as a notable member. This seems to be a bit subjective, however, and simply because you do not feel this program is as notable as others, I ask that you avoid letting your opinion get in the way of sharing this information. Furthermore, a clip of the program is accessible online, but it is hosted on Vimeo and is not permitted to be linked in the Wikipedia article. If you simply perform an internet search of "maddy snow globe girl show us your stuff", the first video result is a clip from the program. There is also an Instagram post with thousands of likes and comments regarding the program, ( but I suspect that is not an ideal source either. Her linkedin profile as well as the Rhodes College Tri Delta facebook page both corroborate the fact that she is a member of the chapter. As such, there are independent sources proving that she is both notable, and a member of Tri Delta. Therefore, I ask that you stop removing her name and info from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia has guidelines for who is and is not considered notable. This is specifically to avoid subjectivity. Sources need to be reliable, and they need to be independent of the person being covered. This means that social media, like Instagram, LinkIn, Facebook etc., are not usable, because they aren't really independent of her or of the sorority. They are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards, either. The shows she appears on are not independent in this case, either, so video clips probably won't work. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) for more on this. Lists of people, such as the sorority article, have similar guidelines. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


When you have a problem with part of an edit, fix it, instead of lazily reverting the whole thing and throwing away hours of someone else's work in five seconds.Jwray (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Right now I am barely restraining the urge to tell you to go fuck yourself.Jwray (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't really care about your (lack of) restraint. The burden is on you to establish consensus for contested edits. The sources were not good enough and the wording was loaded and editorializing. Take it to the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Nazism sidebar[edit]

Because of a multiplicity of new options, I've withdrawn the RfC you participated in and replaced it with this one Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing notable alumnus from Lancaster Country Day[edit]

Hi Grayfell,

I'd appreciate it if you stopped defacing Lancaster Country Day School's page by removing my contributions to notable alumni. If you would like proof of the validity of the edits, I'd be happy to chat about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I do not accept your comment that I am "defacing" the page. If Ralph Drake is notable, it should be possible to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. If those guidelines cannot be met, he is not considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. Being a computer scientist isn't inherently noteworthy, and being an "innovator" is a peacock term, not a real title. I recommend discussing this at Talk:Lancaster Country Day School instead, so that other interested editors can participate. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Art+Feminism @ Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (March 18, 2017)[edit]

You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (415 Southwest 10th Avenue #300, Portland 97205) on Saturday, March 18, 2017 from 10:00am – 5:00pm. For more information, visit Eventbrite.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thrillist Media Updates[edit]

It looks like someone from the corporate side of Thrillist (Grp9) is trying to delete public information about the CEO of TMG and now Group Nine Media, Ben Lerer. Thank you for handling that. Lerer is currently in a public battle with employees over unionization efforts.

Carlstreator (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)carlstreator

Copyright specifics please[edit]

@Grayfell Hello, please specify what you mean by copyright. I work for Isagenix and everything (perhaps with exclusion to the Dr. Oz fact) that I updated is facts from our website and/or from our health blog in which we have permission to use.There is a ton of misinformation in all sections on the page that needs to be updated, this is not self promotion. Melizdean (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Megan

@Melizdean: Hello. I will respond in more detail on your talk page for consolidation, but for emphasis, read WP:COI. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Pampers page[edit]

@Greyfell Hello, I had seen you had revised my edit to the Pampers page and I understand why some was taken off however the UNICEF portion was written exclusively by me and there should have been no issue with the copyright there. Sorry about that, thanks.Sorry I believe I signed correctly if not my apologies.--Cmitham (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC) @cmitham--Cmitham (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple Sclerosis Foundation[edit]

Hi Grayfell,

Thank you for the warm welcome. Twice now. I was not aware of the username policies when I created my original name - MSFocus.

This is about the page for *Multiple Sclerosis Foundation

I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia. I do work for the organization and wanted to maintain that transparency with my usernames.

I did not intend for the changes to be promotional, I just wanted to create an informative page, since our page in it's current form does not provide a lot of information.

Please let me know which changes I have submitted that need to be re-written in order to comply with Wikipedia rules.

Thank you

Tony at MS Focus (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tony at MS Focus: Hello. I appreciate your transparency. To consolidate discussion in one place, I will start a new section on the article's talk page: Talk:Multiple Sclerosis Foundation. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Paul Joseph Watson[edit]


I'm new to this but I can see you keep reverting the additions to PJW's page. I don't understand how someone's own YouTube videos are not valid sources? I will continue to push to have these links as I think they provide an important aspect of PJW


Tom230184 (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tom230184: Hello. You are describing edit warring, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please see Talk:Paul Joseph Watson, where I have started a new section on these issues. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Seb Gorka[edit]

Hi, I'm a reporter with CNN doing a story on Seb Gorka editing his own Wikipedia page.

I believe these four accounts are all possibly Mr. Gorka editing through different accounts, after his initial account Sk-Gorka was compromised and Wikipedia flagged him editing his own account.

I noticed you also noticed this and request a Sockpuppet investigation. Is it possible to trace if the accounts are linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNNKFILe (talkcontribs) 17:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@CNNKFILe: Hello. Short answer: yes it's usually possible, but only for some Wikipedia administrators.
For privacy reasons, only a subset of administrators have access to the software needed to determine if accounts are shared by a user. This tool, and it's users, are called CheckUsers (Wikipedia:CheckUser). Since it could be used to personally identify an editor, and Wikipedia allows and protects editors' rights to edit anonymously, this is only used in limited cases. Checkuser is only rarely used to link an account to a real person, but this might be an exception. It's complicated, and I'm not an admin (nor a checkuser), but those are the basics.
Since this is an unusual request, you could try Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting a CheckUser to see what they say. Hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNNKFILe (talkcontribs) 00:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi Grayfell, appreciate your edits, but the stuff that was taken out of the Emmanuel Lemelson page was either unsourced or inaccurate - hope to improve the readability of the page and improve accuracy. Welcome discussion. Cypresscross (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cypresscross: If you welcome discussion, you should respond to my comments on the article's talk page instead of edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Just finished typing the response on the talk page, which I didn't see before. No intention of edit warring, which is why I reached out to you on this page and thanked you on the edit history for the constructive and positive edits made.Cypresscross (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cypresscross: If you are not interested in edit warring, you should revert until the discussion is resolved. Your revert also undid several other formatting fixes without explanation. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Larvatus v. Prodeo[edit]

Larvatus v. Prodeo is not a sock of Seb Gorka! Please leave the red link to Paul Gorka alone. As mentioned on the Talk page I am preparing a stub for him. He is noted in multiple sources. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Larvatus v. Prodeo: When the article is ready, then it can be linked. Currently your sandbox only has a routine link which utterly fails WP:NBIO. Without some indication of notability, notability is not inherited and the burden is on you to establish that through reliable, independent sources. Additionally, calling another editor a "nooby" and "annoying" is inappropriate, especially since that editor is more experienced than you! No personal attacks. That's a policy. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The hope is that someone else might contribute it. I mentioned on the Talk page I would prepare one when I had time.. That wasn't a personal attack. Stop being a pain. And that wasn't a personal attack either. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Larvatus v. Prodeo: I get it, but as a practical matter, redlinks are extremely inefficient at prompting new articles. At least, by themselves they don't accomplish much. In this case, the link implies a greater degree of significance than is necessarily warranted. The burden is on you to provide sources for challenged material. I know it's a pain, but editing Wikipedia is often a pain, so... Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding MyPustak[edit]

Hi Grayfell, appreciate your edits, but can you please explain how the references of 3 different media channels (popular hindi news papers) are not reliable or independent? You can simply google about it and get enough information. I am associated with this company so I know about it. You can see its impact by reading reviews on site, news papers or you tube videos. You are very much experienced as I have seen your enormous meaningful editing on wikipedia pages, so you can guide me. May be I can find more reliable information to make MyPustak wiki page with more informative with independent contents. I am a wikipedia reader since more than a decade so I am aware that it's not a marketing place, rest assured that my contents won't violate this condition. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, I don't have time to give a more thoughtful response right now. I will give this matter appropriate attention in a few hours, hopefully. In the mean time, please carefully read WP:COI if you haven't already. Thanks for bringing this to talk, and again, sorry for the brief reply. Grayfell (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Grayfell: No Problem. When I said I am associated it doesn't mean that I am an employee or promoter of this company. Saw about them in newspaper and also donated my books to this company. when I found that it doesn't have a wikipedia page so created it. I tried to collect all relevant information from google. will keep adding if I find more. That's maximum I can do. You are most welcome to edit, remove or delete this if it is not meeting wikipedia guidelines. --Gelato7311 (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I've responded at Talk:MyPustak. To avoid confusion, it would be best to continue discussion there. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Following my edits[edit]

Greyfell I noticed that you have been following me around from place to place on Wikipedia, regularly making unconstructive comments and/or edits to various pages that I've worked on, which is beginning to be a disruption to the work. Can you please explain what your aim is, is there an overriding reason for this? Cypresscross (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have been keeping an eye on your activity. I am concerned by the promotional style of many of your edits. The Lemelson articles had a very disruptive history with sock-puppetry, personal attacks, and other disruptive activity. Many of your edits have been almost exactly the same as those past edits, including the using of "Religious leadership and philanthropy" for a section header. That you have been editing other topics is a positive step, but much of that activity has also been promotional, as I've explained at those articles. Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
What you are saying here, like the entry you made on my talk page, is neither true nor accurate. Entries that have been made on various different articles have been carefully thought-out, well referenced and supported by other editors. Occasionally those edits have been improved by other editor, but so far you alone have undone my edits, and you alone follow me from place to place on Wikipedia, making destructive and negative comments. Cypresscross (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted my entry on your talk page here. You need to review WP:3RR given what you have been doing to my edits, it is a hard line you need to be aware of to avoid being blocked for edit warring. You my also want to review WP:HOUND, which is a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Cypresscross (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You reverted twice without even leaving an edit summary. That's the start of edit warring, so I stand by that message. You posting something in two places, once to your own talk page and once to mine. I already responded once, and having the exact same thing in two places is totally redundant and almost certain to cause needless confusion. I do have some authority over my own talk page also, per WP:TPG, and reverting redundant content, once, isn't editing warring by any stretch.
Labeling something 'bad' doesn't make it bad. Your dislike of my changes doesn't make them destructive or negative. Improvement isn't confined to making articles more flattering, or to piling on more content. I know it might seem frustrating, but that's the nature of editing - knowing what to leave out, and knowing how to preserve WP:NPOV. If you want to add interesting info you've found about people you're following or admire, you have to prove that it's encyclopedic. That's messy, and sometimes very stressful. A glance at the older posts to Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson proves that.
The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. - Between past history of the Lemelson article and promotional content added, I believe that I have good cause to track your edits. I have not checked most of your edits, and don't intend to. Grayfell (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Labeling edits or content "promotional" doesn't make them promotional. I hope you understand that the rules of WP apply to you as well. Cypresscross (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and I am happy to go into detail about why some of your edits have been promotional. I think the appropriate place would be the articles' talk pages, right? Grayfell (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding BAMN[edit]

Hi Greyfell,

I made an edit to the BAMN page regarding accusations of cultish behavior. You said that I didn't provide resources but I'm very sure that I did. In any case, here are the resources.

This includes someone's personal account from 2014 of escaping BAMN (his words, not mine), a site that claims to speak for "survivors of the organization" and Sargon of Akkad's detailed look at BAMN itself and cross referencing it to several videos he did about cults a year before based on Dr. Arthur Deikman's book on cult behavior. I believe that should be enough to warrant the section going up.

Thanks. Life (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Not just sources, they must be reliable sources, which has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. None of those you added are reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. Please find independently published sources (not self-published sources, like blogs or Facebook posts) which have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Sargon of Akkad is a popular Youtuber, but he isn't a recognized expert on any of this, so his opinion is not usable for this article. If there were good secondary coverage of his opinions on BAMN, it could be considered for inclusion with attribution, but I don't see any other way to add that to the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a record of how a close affiliate of BAMN failed to investigate abuse and physical assault of DFT members by BAMN members. I can look for other records but there are some seriously shady things about BAMN if we want to be nice about it.
Honestly, give /pol/ about a week on this topic and they'll dig up the sources needed by your standard. Life (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure they will try, but the chans have a very uneven record with vigilante justice, if we want to be nice about it. Whatever they dig up, or claim to dig up, still has to be published by reliable outlets, and /pol/'s not exactly a trusted journalistic source.
That Detroit News source is a step in the right direction, but it's too weak for any grand claims of shady things. Be very cautious of original research. Whatever shady things you find need to be directly linked to BAMN by those reliable sources to be included in the BAMN article. If it's not spelled out by the source, it doesn't belong in the article. WP:DUE is also worth looking at. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)