User talk:Grayfell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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)

Paul Tucker[edit]

Hi there - can you please clarify what was not okay with the FSB and BIS sources on Paul Tucker's work while at the FSB? I'm struggling to think about better sources and I think the contribution was quite informative and interesting (on top of correct) for Wikipedia users. Many thanks for any insights you can provide.

Best, Chospo (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chospo: Hello.
Please take a careful look at Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources, especially #Why independent sources are required. These standards are especially important for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, such as the article on Tucker.
Articles should, whenever possible, use third-party sources. Press releases and profiles-pages from organizations Tucker has belonged to are not third-party. These source are acceptable for routine information (such as birth dates and colleges attended) or for contextualizing information supported by third-party sources (such as responding to allegations). Directly citing a quote from a speech Tucker gave is not neutral unless this quote is supported by a reliable, independent source. When Wikipedia editors chose quotes like these without this context, it risks cherry-picking.
I have re-added the line about him being chair of the Working Group on Cross-Border Crisis Management, as it provided context for the next paragraph, which I missed. I have also removed another quote. The entire article seems to rely too heavily on affiliated sources, but this is a more difficult problem to solve.
I hope that answers your questions. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Grayfell: Thank you for this. I will look into it and try to find better sources if available.

Many thanks, Chospo (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

General sanctions alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism of Mubarak Muyika[edit]

The changes made on the page Mubarak Muyika do not meet WP:NOV. Mark Zuckerberg is an american business icon notable for computer programming and ultimately founding facebook. References of Mubarak Muyika as Mark Zuckerberg has been clearly sourced, clearly explained in the sources, independently collaborated by more than one independent & notable source. Your arguments do not meet WP:NOV,are not realistic and are lamely circumstantial aimed at poking holes and changing the narrative of the article through frivolous arguments for reasons yet to be established. You seem to have a continuous habit of changing articles and vandalizing articles based highly on circumstantial arguments that reflect bias esp from edits you have previously made. You are the kind of people destroying the fabric of what wikipedia was built for (freedom & neutrality) by being busy bodies apart from the meaningful contributions that are valid. It is imperative that you correct your attitude and behavior towards neutral points of view and sabotage information access for reasons known to yourself. Maybe ego, bias or yet to be known. by Jacobbs2090322 (talkcontribs) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow. No, that's not how Wikipedia works. This isn't a platform for promotion. Attribute opinions to people instead of WP:WEASEL words, and avoid superficial churnalism. You should also avoid personal attacks when your edits are challenged. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Rajneesh stuff[edit]

Thank you. I just saw this message. Sorry if I accidentally made an edit after you.

Vague a bond (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Vague a bond (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Vague a bond


...How come you didn't get one of these?. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I will add, with humor, that you are also very arrogant, all of you. With a sense of humor like that, they must've been the class clown at that real university that they attended. I am, of course, being sarcastic because I'm so irritating and arrogant. Grayfell (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


Hello, please be aware you have been included in a dispute. Please see find the link here: [1]

Thank you for your willingness to improve Wikipedia!Barbarossa139 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


For the edit, my reasoning was that when/if eventually Damore gets a free standing page, the link would already be in place for it. --Deleet (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's obvious. In the meantime, anyone clicking on that link is going to be mildly surprised or confused, making it an WP:EGG. The link to the document is in the same sentence, making this redundant, also. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Angela Nagle[edit]

Both anarchist blog LibCom and Neo-Fascist blog Social Matters are unquestionably disqualified as living persons biographical sources by Wikipedia guidelines due to 1) being extremist and 2) not having a serious editorial standard or fact checking system, along with a whole myriad of other issues. The "editor-in-chief" of Social Matters (which is not a magazine) "Hadley Bishop" is not even a real person (its a pseudonym).

The fact that claims of plagiarism against an author are very serious and potentially libelous means Wiki editors have a duty to ensure it is true beyond reasonable doubt, or not include it.

The only usable source you have for your plagiarism accusation against Nagle is The Daily Beast , which accuses her of 'sloppy sourcing,' and not plagiarism (two very different things). This one can stay.

Unless you can find a reputable for your claims of plagiarism, please stop reverting the edits.

Thank you.

FriendlyKor (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)FriendlyKor

@FriendlyKor: Please take this to the article's talk page, where I started a section on this weeks ago. Grayfell (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Lana Lokteff[edit]

Boring Nazi drivel
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. You just broke this rule. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No I didn't. This was not a revert, as it had nothing to do with the other issues we were discussing. Per the above page To revert is to undo the action of another editor. Who added that section? Who's defending it? Not all editing is reverting. Grayfell (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Smart, getting around the three-revert-rule by editing something irrelevant to the overall discussion while also changing the things I've added before. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? This is just editing, not gaming the system. The only activity in your account's edit history is trying to downplay her status as a white supremacist. Did you edit that part as an IP, or under a different account? Do you have a strong opinion on this content at all? If this really bothers you, I'll self revert, but you should explain why on the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It's the first article that I checked out on Wikipedia that made me want to correct the misinformation. Since anyone can write anything on here, I felt the need to state the truth. What you, Calton and SmokerOfCinnamon are doing is trying to use certain kinds of sources that fit your agenda - and I do feel that it is an agenda. Even after reading, watching and listening to hours and hours of Lana Lokteff's work, I haven't found a single thing she did, said or indicated that makes her a white supremacist. I don't have to edit under a different account or whatnot, as this is the first time I'm editing anything on Wikipedia. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Hours, eh? Okay. If you're into youtube, here's a mere 10 minutes from someone with a different view on Red Ice's flavor of history. You're free to loath me as an SJW or whatever if you want, but consider the possibility that not everything Lokteff says, promotes, or tacitly endorses is correct, or honest, or well-explained. If you're going to get angry, get angry for the right reasons.
I certainly have a perspective, but the "agenda" here is to preserve a neutral overview. Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise Lokteff's self-promotion. Neutrality on Wikipedia is maintained through reliable, third-party sources. No article should function as an outlet for public relations. Lokteff can, and does, publish her own material. She has a website and a youtube channel, and probably a all the rest. This isn't her encyclopedia, though, and our goal is to give an independent overview. This means independent (third-party) sources.
If this is your only account, so be it, but please make sure it stays that way. Grayfell (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Interesting video, but I don't see how that has anything to do with Lana Lokteff. The video you cited doesn't have anything to do with Red Ice or her. It talks about people who call themselves "holocaust revisionist" and the uploader makes the point that he thinks they're all just denying the holocaust. There is a difference between saying "the holocaust didn't happen" and "the holocaust happened but not in the way we're being taught". That's what most of those "revisionists" are saying. Calling them "deniers" is just the same as calling someone who questions the amount of impact of mankind on climate change a "climate change denier". It's nothing but a slur that's inaccurate, especially considering that most "climate change deniers" never even claim that the climate doesn't change.
Furthermore, I never thought or said that everything Lokteff says is even accurate, honest or well-explained at all. I like to watch all kinds of different political opinions from different people, one of them being her. But when you're a white supremacist and proud of it, you usually say just that. There are actual white supremacists out there who openly say that they believe whites are superior and should rule over other races. There are, however, also white nationalists who follow some of the ideologies of white supremacists, but not all - and most of all, don't want to rule over other races and want all races to have their own place in the world. Lana's statements all reflect the viewpoints of white nationalists, not those of white supremacists.
Lastly, if you can't use sources that aren't strongly biased on the opposite side of the political spectrum, don't use them at all if you want to state truths about someone. I know that Wikipedia sees that differently but it's necessary to maintain truth and facts. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
As white nationalism explains, the lines between these terms are fuzzy. It's possible, but fairly uncommon, to find a white supremacist who openly calls themself a white supremacist. This is why there are so many terms for these redundant or closely overlapping concepts: white advocate, white separatist, white nationalist, "identitarian", and countless others which all blur together. Wikipedia articles shouldn't use euphemisms.
The idea is not that every supremacist wants to own slaves so they can whip them. She chose to lead her video by presenting white supremacy in the most extreme and overt possible form. This is either intellectually lazy, or it suggests an intentional misrepresentation of the term which suggests she knows full-well what the term really means and why it applies to her. Neither are persuasive.
As for the political spectrum, Wikipedia see it differently for a very good reason, which perhaps you don't realize. You say "opposite side", but what does that mean? Who gets to decide which positions are opposite each other? Why does being "opposite" one position make a source reliable or significant? This is assuming a false dichotomy. Wikipedia doesn't include perspectives just because they are opposite. That would be fundamentally non-neutral. It is not up to you or me to pick sides. Lokteff and those neo-Nazi sites you tried to add as citations only provide a very, very narrow set of perspectives. Trying to pick two different sides and pitting them against each other is missing out on a thousand other "sides", and those perspectives might be closer to the truth.
The video linked mentions and shows many of the people who appear on Lokteff's shows. These are positions that Lokteff has shared, endorsed, and repeated. These "revisionists" are trying to make extreme, antihistorical perspectives seem reasonable. They are trying to make their side seem closer to the "middle" than it truly is. These revisionists find a minor discrepancy and misrepresent it to suggest that the entire position is radically different from what everyone else is saying, which is the same tactic as pseudoscience. Wikipedia absolutely should not support this kind of deception. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The lines between white nationalism and white supremacism aren't actually as fuzzy as the article suggests. White nationalists want to be left alone. They want an ethno-state with only whites, or at least 95%+ whites in it. They want to have a homeland in which they can be among themselves and in which they won't have to deal with other races. Every other races has said ethno-state. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, all African countries, all Middle-Eastern countries, all Hispanic or South-American countries and the Jews. If you belong to any of these races, you can just choose to go there and live among almost exclusively or exclusively your own people. The only race that doesn't seem to be allowed to have that are white Europeans. So how come that ethno-nationalism is just fine and not "supremacist" in any way when it comes to all other races and in fact, it's not even being called "ethno-nationalism" but just "nationalism" when it comes to all other peoples? White people wanting to live among themselves and having a place where they can live in peace without race quotas or immigration from other peoples is not the same as supremacy. It's pretty much clear cut, one wants to rule over other races, the other wants to be left alone and choose their own destiny. And it's exactly that what's the problem here on Wikipedia. The sources being used that are "reliable" are overwhelmingly left-wing and as such, they portray white nationalists, white supremacists and even conservatives to some extent as being almost the same and "blurred together" when there are in fact big differences between these terms.
Lokteff has shared, endorsed and repeated some of the claims of those "revisionists". So what? It doesn't make her a white supremacists, just because she questions the circumstances of the Holocaust. Not everyone who questions the Holocaust is a white supremacist, considering that the overwhelming amount of people who openly say that it didn't happen at all are Arabs, mostly Muslims. Are Arabs now white and also white supremacists? Of course not - they're not white,they're Arabs. "They are trying to make their side seem closer to the "middle" than it truly is" - well, just like the left wingers in modern politics are trying to make their side seem reasonably in the middle, when it fact it's borderline Communist in nature. That's all nice and we could discuss this in detail but it doesn't have anything to do with Lana Lokteff as a person. If you read up on the Holocaust and watch interviews with different people who lived back then and who had access - they don't all say the same thing about what happened back then. In fact, there are countless interviews, countless articles and countless who claim either the opposite and many more who claim that the real truth was something in between. Questioning the accuracy of today's narrative is not misrepresentation, it's conversation and questioning.
Who gets to decide which positions are opposite each other? Why does being "opposite" one position make a source reliable or significant? That's exactly the problem I have. It seems that especially in the Lana Lokteff article, literally all positions, all references and all information about her in general comes from left-wing media sources. And we know that they are all left wing, if we just check their history and bias. So, if you want to have a neutral outlook on the truth, you would have to either not use only left-wing-biased sources that call everything right of a modern neoconservative a Nazi or white supremacist, or include the extreme opposite from actual neo-Nazi sites to balance it out. Otherwise you'll always end up with a biased and factually incorrect narrative. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I've heard all of this countless times before, and it's still absurd. "Ethnostates" are a fantasy that could only be constructed through violent suppression and supremacy. Have you ever studied European history? We've already seen "ethnostates", and they led to feudalism, slavery, and centuries of war. If you don't believe this would led to suppression and violence, you're speculating about a fairy tale. Deciding who gets to live in your community based solely on whether or not they are white (which is itself a messy, fuzzy concept) is completely compatible with white supremacy. "Ethnostates" are not the only form of white supremacy, but so what? When discussing an ideology built on violent racism, the specific details used to justify the violence becomes trivial.
It doesn't matter whether a source is "borderline communist". We go by reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. There are plenty of left-wing outlets that fail this test. There are also conservative sources which don't. The Wall Street Journal comes to mind... guess what, they also issued a retraction for the same thing Vox did! See where this is going? You've decided that sources must be biased because they disagree with your prior assumptions, but nobody cares about your assumptions, or your belief that white nationalists are completely different from white supremacists or whatever. A source can be left-wing and still be accurate. Any further posts to my talk page should be accompanied by reliable sources, otherwise I'm reverting it. Grayfell (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Since you found the previous Three Arrows video interesting, here's another on "peaceful ethnic cleansing", which seems like what you're proposing: If you want to continue this here, you need to include at least one reliable source. I thought I made that clear enough the first time? Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC) here's your "reliable source" for what's happening in South Africa. Black supremacists in the process of ethnic cleansing? Nah, of course not. Just people taking "their" country back, amirite? I'm proposing free association between peoples and their ability to choose their own destiny. However, I'm for violent solutions if other peoples aren't leaving these peoples alone and try to interrupt their peaceful way of living. That's not ethnic cleansing of any kind, it's defending your way of living. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, the far-right's talking point de jour. That has little to do with anything we're talking about, however. Does anything about the extremely complex South African farm attacks look like peaceful ethnic cleansing to you? This is the opposite of peaceful, isn't it? So this an example you're looking to emulate? Even your source says "The white nationalist lobbying group Afriforum". Afriforum's sources don't even strongly support their own claims, since more black farm workers are killed than white farm workers.[2] Afriforum's been pushing a pro-apartheid agenda for years,[3][4] and apartheid was a white supremacist ideology. If you're trying to distance yourself from white supremacy, don't cite fake white supremacist statistics. So what, according to your peaceful ethnic cleansing fantasy, would be done about this problem? Move all the black farmers somewhere else? How would that be done "peacefully", and where would they go? Move all the white farmers? Alos pure fantasy. You're not looking for solutions to problems, your just presenting flawed reasons to justify violence and hatred. Please try harder if you want anyone to take you seriously. Grayfell (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not distancing myself from white supremacism, I even like some of the ideas of it. Which is exactly why I can see the difference between white supremacists and white nationalist in a different way than you can. I dislike those terms getting mixed up and blurred as you would prefer it. Also, I hope you're joking about Afriforum. According to all the sources on the Wikipedia article about Afriforum, they're not a white supremacist advocacy group by wanting Apartheid. Even a lot of black South Africans want to bring Apartheid back because they see what their country has become[5]. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice this?[edit]

Same editor.[6] Doug Weller talk 12:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice that, but the SPLC edit showed up on my watchlist. I really should pay more attention to IP ranges. Grayfell (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Cypresscross edits[edit]

Hi. I noticed that an editor called Cypresscross has been aggressively "managing" the page ROTH Capital Partners with minimal push-back. The page is very short, has a history of COI editing, and was recently nominated for deletion. I've visited it several times in an effort to improve it, but have been blocked repeatedly by this editor with no explanation, my edits reverted numerous times. Each was then met with negative additions that don't respect NPOV. Not sure how to proceed, and plan to just move on to better projects, but thought someone should be aware of what appears to be going on in that corner. A bit of digging led me to you... Thank you. (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiVolunteerBen could be back on Wikipedia[edit]

There is a user named Somerightstuff that has made edits on the Patriot Front page that were very similar to the edits made by WikiVolunteerBen/Hansnarf on the Lana Lokteff page back in June and July. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... Makes sense. At a brief glance, the article edits are generic, but the talk-page behavior is very similar. Both are highly focused on accommodating white supremacists' preferred euphemisms. There is a similar selective, warped invocations of "reason" and "logic". Both also seem willing to throw garbage sources at the wall to see what sticks. All these are pretty commonplace among these kinds of editors, however. If this continues, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hansnarf seems like the next step. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Update: On WikiVolunteerBen's talk page, I saw WikiVolunteerBen say "Well, off to make a new account then. Won't let myself get silenced. <Gross personal attack redacted>". SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Confused or pov pushing?[edit]

You restored a blatant BLP violation [7] claiming Gibson gets drunk and attacks people. The only cite for that's a student newspaper article. Clearly no good. Now, I shouldn't have to come here and explain it since it was pretty clear from the multiple edit summary but now that there's no doubt it'd be good if you removed it. Thanks. D.Creish (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRYBLP. You were already advised to take it up at WP:RSN. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


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

The copy below is neutral and does not warrant erasure:

"The Antifa activist look may include black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles. [12] The shadowy activists may wear black hoods and sunglasses[13], though not always. Some carry makeshift shields or weapons as well, or flags.[14] The tactic is known as "black bloc" [15] a strategy that may hide their identity or show cohesion."

Do NOT undue the work.

  • The paragraph has proper citations from reliable newsprint sources.
  • There is no inflammatory copy.
  • The words "may" and "some are used appropriately to indicate possibility or probability.
  • CNN (a leftist friendly news source) has provided the definition of "black bloc" and citations have been noted.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"Shadowy activists" is transparently loaded and non-neutral writing style which violates both WP:NPOV and WP:TONE. Fixating on their physical appearance is undue and you did a bad job of contextualizing it. Get consensus on the article's talk page. I will continue to "undue the work" when it damages the article. The burden is on you to get consensus for the changes you want to make. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Grayfell, Regarding Antifa... On Aug 5 2018 you again dismissed my research (Non-neutral language. WP:TONE. Black bloc already has an article.)

Please explain how this is non-neutral language:

“The Antifa activist look generally is a black characterized by black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles or black hoodies and sunglasses with accents of red. Some may carry makeshift shields, weapons or flags.”

I used qualifiers (generally and some). As well I cited four news sources:

Incidentally, I’m new around here and I don’t believe your intention is WP:POVRAILROAD . I ask simply for explanation and cooperation regarding my research and the ancillary dismissal of my copy. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You should raise this on the article's talk page, because my objections are not necessarily anyone else's objections. Other editors have also disputed your changes, so even if you work something out with me, you will still need to gain consensus from the community.
Telling me that you don't believe my intentions are POVRAILROAD damages your argument. If you are going to assume good faith, just assume good faith without announcing it.
Using "qualifiers" for information taken out of context is in many ways worse than simply stating it as plain fact, and risks WP:WEASEL. The lede summarize the body of the article per MOS:LEDE, so adding arbitrarily selected information on fashion choices to the lede is front-loading the article with information you personally believe to be significant. This information would need to be included neutrally in accordance with WP:DUE in the body first, and only afterward briefly summarized in the lede.
Again, bring this up on the article's talk page if it's important to you, not here. Grayfell (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Grayfall, You have been evading the question at hand: how is the content below non-neutral language?

“The Antifa activist look generally is a black characterized by black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles or black hoodies and sunglasses with accents of red. Some may carry makeshift shields, weapons or flags.”

Help me understand what is objectionable. I believe the copy neutral. Also, I clearly told you that I DON'T think your mission is WP:POVRAILROAD. But in Shakespearian Jest, I think you doth protest to much! And yes, I did bring up the content for consensus building on the antifa talk page, but I do appreciate the conversation here so you and I can resolve any issues. I believe in collaboration and I sincerely think we can come up with an amicable solution. Cheers! SDSU-Prepper (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, trying to follow the rules and not edit myself without the appropriate four tilde marks. As far as correcting my errors: "Greyfell, But in Shakespearian jest, I think you doth protest too much!" 03:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did explain it, and you're in no position to badger me on this issue. Extracting information out of context from various sources spanning months or years and dropping it into the lede in a detailed fashion is inappropriate. I've already said this. It is presenting details that you, personally, believe to be significant as vitally important, but this significance is neither explained, nor well-supported, in the body of the article where it belongs. Introducing excessive levels of detail are a form of editorializing. The appropriate way to handle this is to summarize reliable sources in proportion to WP:DUE in the body of the article, and only after then briefly condense the body into the lede. This information should also be evaluated for redundancy, since black bloc covers this in better detail, and not all antifa are black block, as your own sources clearly explain.
Don't be surprised if I revert any misplaced comments to my talk page. I've already explained where this should be discussed. Grayfell (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Oh, you too? *lesigh* Drmies (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

BluetheGreen & GreenTheWhite[edit]

BluetheGreen & GreenTheWhite (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Same MO... Jim1138 (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup, quacking loudly. I was hoping an escalated warning would get the point across, but clearly not. Something about this reminds me of an older sock farm as well, but I can't remember the details. I'll dig into it if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I remembered and looked into it. It's probably not the same sock I was thinking of. Oh well. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

14 Words yet again[edit]

Certain White Supremacist groups such as Daily Stormer and Identity Evropa are trying to translate their message into an Apple Pie "American Nationalism". The 14 Words slogan are a "call for revolution" against the American government and David Lane consciously attacked the United States. So of course that should be noted on The Fourteen Words page since there is a concerted attempt to portray them as good old-fashioned American Nationalism. It relates because the basis behind that slogan is literally death to the United States, rather explicitly. (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Where are you getting this info about a concerted effort? What source says that the basis of the slogan is death to the United States? The same editor who was originally trying to add this was also trying to downplay the racist beliefs of Wotansvolk (by calling it "racialist") so I am a bit skeptical that this is as simple as you're presenting it. This perspective should only be mentioned in the article if it can be supported by reliable sources. If no such sources exist, this appears to be original research, which isn't allowed. Daily Stormer and Identity Evropa do lots of crap, but we cannot, and should not, attempt to document all of it. We have to follow WP:V and WP:DUE when deciding what to include and what not to include. Grayfell (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


I'm beginning to think that IcierJacks (account created 31 July) is the newest incarnation of PerfectlyIrrational. He's editing in alt-right and far-right articles, and, like MichiganWoodShop recently, he appeared out of nowhere to make a lot of edits to the articles he focuses on, in IcierJacks case Unite the Right rally and Unite the Right 2. As one of our resident experts on PI, would you take a look and see if you agree? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That thought had occurred to me also, but after a superficial glance it didn't seem too likely. I will look more closely. Grayfell (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
To quote Futurama: "All I know is my gut says maybe". It's certainly possible, and I wouldn't be particularly surprised, but I still don't think this is a sock. The sock accounts jumped around to a remarkable degree, typically editing several article in an hour, while IcierJacks seems more focused on single topics, specifically the Unite the Right rallies. IcierJacks is also interested in new areas.
It doesn't help that there are so much bad behavior in this topic area, which makes it hard to keep track of who's who, or who might be who.
I'm going to sleep on it. I found another account which does seem more plausibly like a sock, which I will look at in more detail later. If this turns out to be another sock, a checkuser might simplify things. Grayfell (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me know what you decide, and if you think you'll file an SPI or would prefer that I do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: The recent edit to Identitarian movement removed a lot of my doubts, so I filed it at the usual place. Grayfell (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)"
  • What are your thoughts about SmokerOfCinnamon? Similar pattern. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm feeling a bit under the weather today, so I don't have the energy to give this proper attention, and probably won't for a couple of days. If it's a sock, I would've expected that the checkuser for IcierJacks would've shown something. If I'm being honest, I did expect it, along with a couple of other accounts. That said, I do see some strong behavioral differences, which I also noticed looking at IcierJacks, which is why I didn't mention them in the SPI. I don't know. When my nose stops running and this headache goes away, it might be all blindingly obvious, but not right now. Grayfell (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

New to wikipedia contributions[edit]

I'll read over the guidelines, prior to any further contributions. I read your comment and that makes sense. I stand corrected, and enlightened. Thank you Grayfell.--The Jahvinci (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Hey Grayfell, I am just dropping you a note about the reverts at CNN. Everything in my lede summary is in the body of the article, as I said I double checked after your first revert where you questioned this. And as for my "cherrypicking" from the controversies- feel free to summarize from the large body of controversies in the article. Help me out here won't you get the lede controversy summary started? I am just trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines that specifically say to include controversies in the ledes. And to have consistency across the encyclopedia as the other major cable news networks have controversies in their ledes. Thanks.Aceruss (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article are any of those sources used, and nowhere else in the article was CNN described as "liberal" or "biased" or having a "liberal bias", which suggests this is not about sources, and is instead about pushing a POV. This general approach has been discussed ad nauseum on the article's talk page, which you should review. Even if I agreed with your edits, which I obviously don't, this approach is unlikely to gain any traction without consensus from all those other editors who've commented on it in the recent past.
"Has been described as" is WP:WEASEL, since you are not explaining who is doing the "describing". The sources you used are being misrepresented as well. I don't believe is WP:RS, and is a blog maintained by only one person. The NYT article is describing a single incident, and also doesn't use the term "liberal" and says only that Trump's advisors have accused the outlet of being "biased" which would need substantial context to belong at all, much less in the lede. The Orlando Sentinal article is an opinion from a guest columnist which would have to be attributed and is likewise unlikely to belong in the lede without much, much better coverage. Again, this would have to be discussed on the article's talk page, not here, and you will have to bring your A-game if you want to persuade people this is worth rehashing for the millionth time and not yet another WP:FALSEBALANCE POV push.
I cannot emphasize enough how little I want to discuss this on my talk page any more, though. Review the many, many past discussions and start a new talk section on that page if you feel like your concerns haven't been answered. I will chime in there if I feel I have something to contribute. Grayfell (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Steven Anderson/Faithful Word Baptist Church[edit]

Steven Anderson is leading a growing-group in America, which is linked to Conservatism. -Rushwrj13 12:33 AM ET — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushwrj13 (talkcontribs) 04:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rushwrj13: Not sure what a growing-group is, but per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL the article would have to be linked from the template before the template could be added to the article. Since the article's only mention of conservatism is ...a publicity stunt organized by conservative radio talk show host... it would be undue weight to add the Church to the template. I'm not denying that the church is conservative, but if we added every single conservative church to the template it would be rediculously long and completely useless. If you don't agree with me, you can propose adding it at Template talk:Conservatism US.
Also, please sign your posts in the conventional way, per help:signature. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


What I posted was a primary source, which you rolled back in favor of "credible sources" that contradicted the evidence given in the primary source, I don't mean to sound terse but can you explain yourself?

Davidmclaughlin154 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources and strongly favors independent sources. Atmowaffen is neither reliable, nor independent of Atomwaffen. This has already been explained on your talk page. Any further discussion could be held on the article's talk page, if necessary. There is nothing else to be said about this on my talk page. Grayfell (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

False Vandalism[edit]

It is not vandalism if it is FACT. Debate me on how it isn't factual and I won't change it anymore. Donnyf68 (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Donnyf68: See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia goes by sources, not debates. That's for Reddit et al. Besides a) the claim was unsourced and b) nobody said anything about vandalism (except you). Kleuske (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@Donnyf68: I don't think sourcing is an issue - the screen capture in the article makes it pretty obvious. However, it's not discussed in the article and doesn't seem important enough to include in the first sentence. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The source is the actual game. Donnyf68 (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Discuss on the article's talk page, but find a reliable, independent source first. Grayfell (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, I left a vandalism warning template on this user's talk page, which is why they are saying this is "false vandalism". I left that based on this editor's prior activity, such as racist memes, childish vanity edits, and misleading edit summaries for almost every edit. This suggests the game article edit was also intended to be either trolling or controversy-baiting. Grayfell (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


Immediately revert this edit. wumbolo ^^^ 20:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems borderline to put it mildly, but I'm sure her fanboys will jump at every technicality, so I've reverted. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not borderline; WP:3RR is pretty explicit in what it allows. wumbolo ^^^ 20:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this was a revert, but it was 20+ hours ago, was uncontested, totally unrelated, and was contrary to a hidden note specifically requesting the edit not be made, which made the original edit borderline disruptive. You ain't wrong that it was a violation, but if anyone's chomping at the bit bring me to the noticeboard over this, it's obviously not because they're concerned about her youtube channel's precise number of subscribers. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
While neither me nor the editor changing the subscriber count are probably going to report you, semi-WP:IDHT won't help you explain yourself to other people who might come across your reverts. wumbolo ^^^ 20:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, probably not. I lost count of edits precisely because there was no connection between these ones and yesterday's. Asking other people to evaluate the context of a person's actions isn't unreasonable, and most admins I've worked with understand this, especially around edit warring. You wanna call that IDHT, go ahead. Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Internet of Things[edit]

Hello Grayfell. From looking at your talk page I can see you are very active in enforcing Wiki policies. You have me at a disadvantage as I am new to Wikipedia editing - I could barely figure out how to leave this message. My expertise isn't in the ways of Wikipedia, it is in the Internet of Things. I am by evidence a world expert on the topic so am I not able to clarify the page without citing my own work? I welcome a review of the material I edited by my peers in the industry but you are not qualified to unilaterally remove all of the edits I spent hours creating. I take offence to being called a Spammer. If you followed any of the links you will see they are 100% on topic and add value. For example, I wrote the best selling book (published by McGraw-Hill) on IoT business (maybe all of IoT). It directly addresses the areas of my edit. Because I wrote the book am I not able to cite it? That makes no sense. My book, website, podcast, course are all related to the topic. How do I challenge you deleting of all my edits?

Bruce-inc (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Bruce-inc

In the spirit of keeping a cool head and assuming you have the best of intentions in mind and realizing you are not a content expert but a Wikipedia expert, please explicitly tell me what needs to change in my edits to make them adhere to the Wikipedia rules. I could remove all citations but that makes no sense if they add value to the page. Bruce-inc (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bruce-inc: Hello. I dispute that the changes you made were an improvement to the article, regardless of your personal expertise.
Before going any further, I strongly suggest you carefully review WP:COI, which I posted to your talk page. You may also find Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide helpful. I say this not to discourage you from editing, but as you've noticed, Wikipedia has its own set of policies, guidelines, and internal culture. You don't have to become an expert on Wikipedia's messy idiosyncrasies, but citing your own work is a form of conflict-of-interest editing, and COI editing brings with it a large number of challenges and issues which you need to be at least partially aware of. For starters, Wikipedia doesn't attempt to verify that you are who you say you are without a good reason. Of course, I trust from your own admission that you are Bruce Sinclair, but it's not that simple. Wikipedia doesn't build articles on individual expertise, it builds them based on verifiabile reliable sources. Citing your own work combines both of these approaches which is one reason it's so messy.
In case it wasn't clear, you may want to review Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia if you do not understand why this is such a serious issue, but if your goal here is strictly to improve the encyclopedia, it's nothing you can't figure out on your own.
Moving on to more specific issues, most of the citations you added were not reliable sources, as they lack the reputation for accuracy and fact-checking expected of such sources. They also were clearly commercial in nature, which suggests a specific non-neutral POV. Adding links to your own training and certification program's website is absolutely indistinguishable from spam. I have no idea why you thought adding this link to the end of an existing paragraph was appropriate, but it was not. Likewise adding links to your youtube channel is crass and transparent. It simple appears like you are trying to push your training courses and related material. Do not do this again.
If you believe your independently published works may be useful for specific statements, I encourage you to discuss the changes you would like to make to the article's talk page: Talk:Internet of things. Do not add your own website to the article again. If you have questions about how Wikipedia works, I will answer them, but anything about specific changes to an article should be posted to that article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell, hello and thank you for your time on making the IoT page better. I am going assume your first line, "I dispute that the changes you made were an improvement to the article, regardless of your personal expertise" was made in good faith and independent of content and dependent on your interpretation of COI and SPAM.

Before going further, you will eventually win this debate. Why? Because I only have a finite amount of time to learn "Wikipedia's messy idiosyncrasies" so in short order I will run out of steam and surrender, resulting in an inferior IoT page (my opinion) to the detriment of all future readers.

Since you offered, I have a few questions on how Wikipedia works: 1) If I go to one extreme and delete all citations and repost the text, then does that eliminate COI and SPAM? I assume so, since then it becomes a content discussion? 2) If I disclose my COI for every citation (still have to figure out how to do that), does that eliminate the COI issue? 3) What is the definition a reliable source? You stated that, "most of the citations you added were not reliable sources, as they lack the reputation for accuracy and fact-checking expected of such sources". My citations do indeed have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking from IoT subject matter experts. Is it your opinion that they do not? If so, how do you come to this content opinion? 4) My book was reviewed by 48 IoT peer reviewers (4 per chapter) and McGraw-Hill fact checkers and has 70+ 5-star reviews on Amazon. Does this qualify as a reliable source? 5) You say, "Do not add your own website to the article again." however 95% of its content is interviews with over 100 IoT thought leaders. Does this not qualify as a reliable source? 6) Is it possible for a citation to be commercial in nature and of value?

Thanks for your help on this. Bruce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce-inc (talkcontribs) 23:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bruce-inc: When posting about this, please keep comments on this issue confined to a single talk page section. Please also review help:signature.
Have you read any of the links I've posted? If not, you're right, there's not much point in any of this.
I have specific criticisms of the changes you made that have nothing to do with your COI, but your COI really doesn't help. I believe the changes to the lede introduced non-neutral tone, increased vagueness, and introduced buzzwords to an article which already has these problems. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote the concept of IoT, it is intended to be an overview of the concept for an audience with no prior familiarity. As I said, the article's talk page would be the proper place to discuss these kinds of things.
The number of Amazon reviews your book received is pure trivia, but it was good for a laugh, so thanks. As a rhetorical question, did the number of reviews other books received help you decide whether or not a book was usable as a citation for your book? I sure hope not! It's already been linked both here, and on your talk page, but please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Using your independently published book as a source for specific points may be appropriate with restraint (per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing yourself which I hope you have at least started to look over). Using your book as an excuse to rewrite the entire article is not appropriate.
Regardless, there is a huge difference between citing a published book and introducing spammy links to your training program and corporate blog. Although they infest the project, Wikipedia isn't particularly keen on bizblogs and niche industry walled gardens. For this reason, esoteric debates about the nature of value are not possible in this context, because you are not a neutral party in defining these terms.
Interviews with "thought leaders" (which is a buzzword, at best) must still be published by reliable outlets. If your website has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking this should be supported by reliable, independent sources. This means your site must have a proven history of fact-checking, editorial oversight, and recognition from other sources, by publishing widely cited studies or breaking significant stories or similar. The wording of the submit a guest post page completely removes any hesitation I had that this is a WP:SPS outfit of no value to Wikipedia: "Fact checking is your responsibility". Okay, then. Suffice it to say, there is no way for neutral editors to assess which parts are valuable, and which are selling a POV as a prelude to selling a niche service. Advertising and marketing materials are not a usable replacement for real academic and journalistic work. Saying "you must be perceived as unbiased to establish yourself and your organization as thought leaders" isn't enough, and only undermines your credibility to outside observers.
Further, interviews with "thought leaders" are still WP:PRIMARY sources, and such opinions should either be clearly attributed as opinions, including enough context for readers to understand why this person is being mentioned. If they are not meaningfully opinions, that a better source should be found, or there should be a very, very obvious reason why this information must be included with a poor source. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

To capitalize or not to capitalize words commonly used to describe racial groups?[edit]

We're done here. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grayfell, I was under the impression words like Jewish, Black and White are capitalize, when they are associated with terms commonly used for racial groups. According to APA, racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized: Black and White. Do you have sources on Wikipedia to help determine whether a word is capitalized or not when referring to race?TonyMorris68 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know of any specific guideline for this issue in WP:MOS. APA style is very influential (obviously), but it's not Wikipedia's style. It is also designed for American Psychologists, which doesn't necessarily apply to situations like this. I think the article's talk page is a much better place to discuss this in any detail, since WP:CONSENSUS seems like the relevant fall-back policy. Grayfell (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you think there is a chance it might be racially insensitive to spell Hispanic, Arab, Jewish, Asian, or Black, for instance, with lowercase first letter, such as, hispanic, asian, arab, black, jewish? By lowering the first letter of the proper name / proper noun, it seems to depreciate these marginalized groups. TonyMorris68 (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
If you expect me to get dragged into such a loaded and pointless hypothetical discussion, than you must think so little of me that you shouldn't care what I think. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

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


Talk:Ponyo. I'm glad I noticed that. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

On "euphemistic whitewashing"[edit]

Thank you for your edits. I'd like to point out that "euphemistic whitewashing" is not always a bad thing in biographical articles. In my opinion, the encyclopedic style does not allow e.g. vague accusations or the predominance of an accusatory, negative tone in biographical articles (whether we sympathise with the person or not, and whether or not the individual in question is known to make such accusations or not). Further, I think a partly euphemised choice of words is part of the genre. The R word in particular has a strong effect, and should perhaps mostly be used when someone self-identifies as such? This does not necessarily apply to non-biographical articles. Let us try to conform to the requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which recommends particular consideration when adding controversies or negative information to biographical articles. If you disagree, I'd like to hear your opinion on this. Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:NPOV doesn't mean we ignore reliable sources when they say something that is unflattering. I've had this conversation too many times to be interested in repeating it. More concerning is that your activity at Aurelio José Figueredo appears to be a violation of WP:CANVASSing. I have even less patience for that nonsense. Discuss specific changes on article talk pages, not here. Grayfell (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I will look into WP:CANVASS. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

TakiMag an acceptable source on Wiki?[edit]

Hi, I was looking over the Wiki page for Curtis Yarvin and noticed one of the sources cited is an article by Nicholas James Pell for Taki's Magazine, a tabloid-ish website that has published white nationalists such as Richard Spencer over the years. Is TakiMag an acceptable source in this particular context or should it be removed? My hunch is that it should be removed but maybe there's some extenuating circumstances which allow it to be used here, which is why I decided to ask. Thanks for your input ahead of time.

AbsoluteEgoist (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@AbsoluteEgoist: Hmm... It looks like it's being used for a single comment on Yarvin's own beliefs, and an infobox entry. I agree we should be very cautious of using Taki's Mag for anything controversial, but for the comment about his own self-description it seems fine in context. Well... I think the article should be restructured to more closely adhere to what reliable sources are saying about him. That would also trim-away a lot of the pretentious pseudo-intellectual nonsense. The Taki's ref might not belong after that, but that's a more ambitious project.
The infobox entry is also not a big deal, although it does raise a separate issue. The cite is used to support a link to "neocameralism" as a "notable idea", but neocameralism redirects to a subsection of Dark Enlightenment where the term is only given a single paragraph. The sources for that paragraph are very clear that this is Yarvin's idea, and do not mention anyone using the term except in reference to Yarvin. This makes me skeptical that it is independently noteworthy of Yarvin. These are the kinds of things that should be discussed on the article's talk page, however. Good luck Grayfell (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Wayne Dupree[edit]

Another editor advised me to move it to mainspace last week since no one wanted to make a decision on it in the refund area, with a heads up, it could be scrutinized for AFD, and let other users weigh in on it passing muster then to let the article set in WP Purgatory. So I didn't just move it unilaterally or without some type consensus. Cllgbksr (talk)

Okay, who advised you of that? Per my posts to the draft's talk page, you moved it to the wrong space. Articles that start with "Wikipedia:" are intended to be about Wikipedia itself, for example Wikipedia:Requests for comment. This is important because it differentiates internal matters from general articles about similar topics, such as conflict of interest compared to Wikipedia:conflict of interest. It's also much, much harder for people to find Wikipedia-space articles when searching for a topic.
I would've moved it to the proper space, but there are also some copyright concerns, per the draft's talk page. Since I am not confident these have been addressed, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to take responsibility for the article by moving it myself. Since the deleted articles have such a messy history, I think it's best to resolve this issues fully, first. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Another editor who was involved in the voting process for AFD in 2017, (who voted delete) recused themselves from weighing in on it now passing muster, we've been emailing each another over last few weeks regarding the draft, they wanted to read the updated 2018 WaPo article I just added, and it was his/her suggestion to move to mainspace with their disclaimer it could be nominated again for AFD, since no forward movement was happening yay/nay when it was in refund waiting a decision. I guess I can email them and ask if they want to join in this talk conversation to clarify. As to copyright concerns have no clue what you're talking about, since I'm the creator and every article was properly referenced. Cllgbksr (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to explain some of my concerns at Draft talk:Wayne Dupree, which is the appropriate place to continue this. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
You did explain your concerns, they are valid. Agree we re-direct to the Dupree talk page and not use your user page any longer. Thanks. Cllgbksr (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Credit to Seedfeeder[edit]

Since it's not practical to open discussions in 50 pages, I opened a discussion on the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions. Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


See the editor's other edits.[12] Doug Weller talk 18:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasVox (talkcontribs) 07:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 Note: I am posting this here to avoid pushing the incident report further off-topic and cluttering it with an even longer digression, and doing so before publishing my response there so that I can link this there for the sake of the noticeboard's archive. Feel free to refactor or even delete this at your discretion.

Continuing from that digression: Alas, Stirner died before Evola lived and his specter can now only be found haunting the minds of the more philosophically oriented anarchists and nihilists, but the prospect of works about Evola's interest in Stirner is very intriguing to me. Perhaps the lead at this definitely non-reliable source and its footnote will help. I may search around further when I have the time. Unfortunately, both Stirner and Evola are considered fringe and largely neglected. While many claim them (separately) as influences, few talk about them or how they were influential, especially at length. Stirner has fared slightly better in terms of (unsympathetic, non-anarchist) academic attention, but not by much and mainly due to Marxists wanting to contextualize Marx. It's ironic, too, since it was originally Marx's excessive polemic against "Sankt Max" (the censuring was longer than all of Stirner's published writings combined!) that arguably buried Stirner in the first place. This academic neglect and lack of at-length treatments seems even more the case with Evola, though, whose influence is obvious among (neo)reactionary intelligentsia but who seems to get more attention from Bannon name-dropping him than most of them ever provide.

I don't know if I will contribute to the Evola article anytime soon, since I have a lot on my immediate to-do list, but I might if I can find anything worthwhile to add. Sorry if I seemed excessively aggressive in my initial reply to you at the incident report, by the way. I could have, and should have, handled it more sensitively—or not have interjected at all. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 01:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate this, thank you. Yes, Stirner was long dead before Evola came along, I was obviously confused about who we were discussing. I think you hit on something worth exploring in depth. Much like the far-right's oft derided infatuation with Nietzsche, citing a name as an "influence" is empty. Anyone can claim anyone else as an influence, and Evola's work was written in a way that a sympathetic reader can rationalize away many of his glaring flaws. Reading some of Evola's later writings and interviews, it's pretty clear he had evasion down pat, so I think this was intentional. As I said before, he leaves so much open to interpretation that any solid criticism can be waved away. This is a mark of bad philosophy, but he invokes the unfalsifiable shield of "mysticism" to insulate himself even more. With Nietzsche, everybody who pays attention realizes he's dense and inconsistent, but Nietzsche was sincere, interesting, and topical. Evola is never more than one of those three at any given time. Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
From what I have read of and about Evola, I am not very impressed, either. He has some interesting ideas and interpretations of prior ideas, but nothing very original it seems—at least, not much other than some of the occultism, which I guess has some originality that might excite a racist wizard. I am admittedly not very familiar with Evola's ideas, though, so perhaps it is just my unfamiliarity (though I doubt that). His contributions on idealism were new (as far as I'm aware), especially when considering how Stirner might have influenced that fantastic spectral display.
However, what makes him so relevant (as relevant as a fringe philosopher can be) is that he provided a philosophy that consolidated certain variants of right-reactionary thought into a set of synthesized theses. His works, and himself as a new member of the pantheon, were then used to bolster a right-reactionary intelligentsia that I find has seldom ever been particularly robust or original, not least because their goals generally amount to justifying prior conditions and reinventing the wheel. Even if Evola was all just smoke and mirrors, it has been an impressive enough show to be used as a regular intellectual justification of far-right ideology among its ideologues.
As for Nietzsche, I have found more substantial exposition on how influential he was among the radical left than the reactionary right, but that may just be a selection bias on my part. I know that Emma Goldman at least was explicit in her defenses of Nietzsche and Stirner (such as briefly in the preface of Anarchism and Other Essays), both major influences for her; and Gilles Deleuze wrote about both, even contending a clear relationship between the two. Stirner is, actually surprisingly, not mentioned once in the prose of the Featured article about Goldman. Perhaps that is worth changing, too. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 06:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
When I referred to the far-right's oft derided love of Nietsche, I was thinking of the several articles like this that have come out recently. Perhaps the overwhelming differences in worldviews among people who claim Nietzsche might say something against him. I think, instead, it speaks to how we have to build a scaffolding of assumptions to tackle things which are otherwise too complicated to digest. I guess that's my simplistic postmodernism showing through.
With Evola's work the mysticism and antimodern elitism both are in his favor. His mystical works are written like he's a fortune teller with a grudge, but his political stuff is not that different. He jumps from bold statements presented as though self-evident, to rapid-fire name-dropping quotes, to borderline non-sequiturs, all to reach conclusions that are either flimsy, wrong, or obvious. Every time I read his work, I'm bugged by his inability to get to the point. It's hard to put down for all the wrong reasons, which exploits the pattern-seeking instinct. Combined with his elitism, if anyone's assessment of his odd opinions didn't come out right... they must not have read him correctly. From this view, there is a correct interpretation of the world, and as a magical aristocrat, he knows it and we don't and everything he says is defensible.
So I don't think there's any value to Evola's occultism. He exploited people's willingness to assume he knew what he was talking about. His sympathetic readers have filled in the many gaps he left behind, much like the neo-Nazis have done with Nietzsche. If there's substance to Evola which can stand on its own, I haven't seen it yet, although I admit I'm not looking particularly hard. In this regard, Evola's history and writing style remind me more of L. Ron Hubbard than any philosopher I know of. Grayfell (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the link to that article. It is definitely disappointing that Nietzsche is becoming trendy again among reactionaries and the alt-right, if only as an edgy name to invoke. I seriously doubt Nietzsche would spare them from his contempt, especially given how slavish he saw nationalism to be, as well.
But yes, much of Evola's thought rests on his occultism; remove that and his politics and other writings can easily begin to seem ridiculous—that is, when it comes to whatever semblance of a message can be gleaned from them, opacity and obscurantism notwithstanding. Unless one is already steeped in occultism and an adherent of similar views, reading Evola may prove very interesting but not productive. That has at least been my experience, since occultism is among the spookiest of specters that I do not follow. Perhaps that is also why the only proponents of Evola I have ever met (off-Wiki) were also occultists and why even Mussolini did not seem to consider Evola enough a threat to be worth silencing.
Your commentary on all this has been a great read. Lastly, lest anyone think this is mere forum discussion, I will note that it helped indicate some omissions in our articles that may be worth addressing, like the absence of any mention of Stirner in the prose of Goldman's featured article and the insufficient coverage on Stirner's apparent influence on Evola. Thank you for your time. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 15:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, likewise. Thanks for the discussion. Grayfell (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)