Jump to content

User talk:Grayfell/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Dinner Theater

Hello greyfell. I put up a new and improved one based on some of the research you told me about. please let me know if you think this is better. hre it is too cut and pasted for you to see.

Riddlesbrood Theater[edit] Self-Help Theater: The New Jersey-based Riddlesbrood Touring Theater company concerns itself with the typical dinner theater fare - Murder Mystery shows, Comedy shows, and some community Theater - but what has piqued the interest of many critics and sets this troupe apart is their penchant for propagating a strange self-help message, beyond the Christian themes one would usually expect. A few theater watchers don't know what to make of the different language, an entirely new creation, they use to communicate with each other and to the audience in their shows. [22]. Some reviewers are put off by it; others just seem confused. What is particularly unique is how they seemingly embed ideas from the New Thought movement into the shows. Many elements of their custom scripts propagate a “Positive," can-do belief system that is based on a fictional narrative of a spectral visitation experienced by the founder, which has been employed as a back story for the troupe itself. Much of this self-help message and ideology is outlined on the troupe's website. [23] The Director is also quoted, “What you can conceive and believe, you can achieve” in an article referencing Napoleon Hill TaggzTowerz (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Grayfell. You have new messages at LFaraone's talk page.
Message added 02:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LFaraone 02:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a spammer, and www.giocoleria.org don't sell anything! it's a free community with 30000 italian jugglers. I think the link in wikipedia it's legal and it's not spam or adversiting. We want only to be a great site for jugglers and juggling world. (I'm sorry for my english, I hope you can understand me :D) have a nice day! LSamael1976 11:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Spamhaus Project

Hello, you've undid my change to The Spamhaus Project article and commented on my talk page that I didn't included reliable sources. But I've had listed two references to Spamhaus listing and delisting terms. They clearly approve that they will do what I've described in my changes to article. Here those links:

  1. From Listing policy:

    SBL listings are immediate and, in the case of known spam operations, are preemptive. The SBL does not require warnings or have a 'grace period' and does not require physical evidence of spam received from any specific IP to qualify a listing (in the case of known spam gangs, any IPs under their control are listed on sight)

  2. From Delisting procedure:

    To request the removal of an SBL listing, the ISP to whom the listed IP address belongs must contact the SBL Team, by email, using the dynamic 'mailto' link visible on the SBL record page.

  3. And here is an example on how they blacklist big blocks of IPs of the major France provider OVH. If you checkout first /24 blocked subnetwork SBL191352 it's obvious they've blacklisted /24 network (255 hosts) only because 5 hosts were "supposed" to be sending spam ("supposed" just because they state they don't require evidence at all). Besides there isn't such block on RIPE if you can check WHOIS information that is obvious also.

I think this information should be in the article, because it is important enough to know. Please let me know your opinion on this. NStorm (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Take it to the article's talk page if you want to make your case, but your additions are written with many grammatical errors and include a great deal of editorializing and NPOV junk. Saying that "Such behavior leads to many false positive results." Is completely unacceptable without a source saying exactly that. It's not up to you to draw those conclusions. Read more of the welcome on your talk page if you don't understand that. Grayfell (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
SpamHaus - What a waste And there are many similar proofs like that on the Internet. But it's not a reliable source in Wikipedia's terms. Like such cases: http://blog.sucuri.net/2010/02/amazon-com-blacklisted-by-spamhaus-xbl.html. But current article only praises Spamhaus as it's a greatest service ever. Current article is biased and based only on sources from the Spamhaus site itself. It's not a neutral article that way. NStorm (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Plus you've undid Comparison of DNS blacklists changes, claiming its not NPOV. How it's not NPOV if every sentence is referenced to Spamhous official site citing their policies? Like this:

Only major ISP can request removal. [1]

NStorm (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: nope. Having ISPs (the source says nothing about only major ISPs) be the ones who ask for delisting is so simple that it doesn't even need to be explained. You're just trying to make Spamhaus look bad. If this is really so unusual or noteworthy, you will have to either find reliable, non-primary sources explaining the issue, or wait until such sources appear. Did you actually read my response? You clearly understand the difference between good sources and bad, so find reliable sources or leave it out of the article, it's that simple. In the future, please make all comments at Talk:The Spamhaus Project or the appropriate talk page. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Baba Rampuri

Dear Grayfell,

Please excuse me that I am not yet familiar with the correct protocol for contacting you on Wikipedia.

I am working with lawyers in New Delhi to file a criminal complaint within the next week detailing blackmail, extortion,and fraud, along with Cyber crimes such as Intellectual property theft, cyber stalking, and other crimes, and with their permission I may be able to provide you with a copy, not for publication, but for your information, so that you can be assured what I am telling you is legitimate. I think, though, you can easily see a pattern on the Baba Rampuri article that lends towards this. I am an intellectual, an author, teacher, and blogger with a 44 year record and interest in Oral Tradition and Sacred Speech. I am in the process of writing my next book, "Sacred Speech." This is clearly not the pattern of entries or attempted entries in this article. Wikipedia is being used by cyber criminal(s) in a way that goes against the principles and goals of Wikipedia in order to threaten me, and deceive you and the public.

If there is a better way of communicating with you and others regarding this, especially if there is a somewhat "secure" way of doing this, I would appreciate precise instructions, and I believe we can solve this issue in a collective way.

Thank you for your patience with me.

Best wishes,

Baba RampuriBabaRampuri (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Completely disagree as to your removal of the links to the sex education documentary. The youtube documentary is a scientific documentary which was approved by the UK TV standards watchdog (read the judgement here http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb77/issue77.pdf which youtube has concurred). The point is not to boost a websites count but to educate the public. Restricted videos on youtube are not allowed to have commercial gain. Your reconsideration is appreciated as this is an important educational source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

(Responded at User talk:Chemicalnasties.) Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Much clearer argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Greetings Grayfell! Thanks for your message, it's always nice to wake up to suggestions from a fellow editor. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskymorning (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Rising Sun Flag

Dear Grayfell.

Japanese Rising Sun flag have been the symbol of Japanese imperialistic army. It is not a problem of value judgment, but a historical fact. If you want to apply the principle of neutrality, you have to apply the same principle to the Nazi's Hakenkreuz symbol because the Rising sun symbol is Japanese version of Hakenkreuz. Is there anybody who protect the Hakenkreuz and Nazi in our planet? The perception about Japanese Rising Sun symbol have not been proper in western because western people have not known about the historical tragic facts those are much similar to the facts about the Nazi. Moreover, Japanese and other people who don't know the right fact, even use this symbol unconcernedly. I think it is necessary to make a link between the page of Rising Sun symbol and the page of Hakenkreuz symbol to inform the right fact.

Thank you for reading this.

Best regard, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.107.197.252 (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand something. Hakenkreuz was a flag of a political party. The rising sun flag was/is a military flag, and it was/is not equivalent to the Nazi flag, but the Iron Cross. Linking to the Hakenkreuz article is just simply inappropriate. Oda Mari (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Oda mari.

Your opinion is right. The Hakenkreuz and Japanese Rising Sun represent for Nazi party and Japanese imperialistic army, respectively.

But, tragic things those had been done by Japanese and German war criminals under two symbols, are very similar: ex) massacre, human experimentation, biological warfare, military sexual slavery, etc. In other words, two logos represent imperialism in common although two logos symbolize entities in different categories.

Historical facts related these can not be treated 'simply', absolutely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.107.197.252 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's your personal opinion based on your anti-Japanese sentiment. You wrote "Is there anybody who protect the Hakenkreuz and Nazi in our planet?", but if these are acceptable in your country, why not the rising sun flag? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. Oda Mari (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oda Mari. You are trying to blur the essence of this problem by picking on abnormal examples. Moreover, I can't see your examples because the links shows just the main page of Japanese Yahoo.

I like your country, Japan. But, I feel so sad when I see some of peoples in the Japan, who are called 'ultranationalists'. I hope that you are not one of them. And, I hope that the number of peoples who have the same opinion with you about the tragic history, is very small.


None of the links either of you has posted meets external link guidelines or reliable source guidelines. Wikipedia doesn't shy away from controversial issues, but we try to deal with them civilly, and from a neutral point of view. The appropriate place to discuss this further is Talk:Rising Sun Flag, thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Grayfell I will visit the Talk:Rising Sun Flag.

Reason for MonaVie Reversion

You listed a reason for replacing the summary (which I accept), but not for the other non-notable (WP:EVENTCRIT) trademark court cases which were dismissed. What is your reason?Blueskymorning (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Blueskymorning

The summary gives a specific number of lawsuits, so not listing all of them would make the summary confusing and nonsensical. I didn't feel like rewriting the summary, and I felt your edits were unduly promotional, so I reverted. If you would like to discuss this any further, I suggest Talk:MonaVie, so that other interested editors can be involved. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Prison Slang

Grayfell, I received a message that you deleted http://www.williamdhastings.com/penitentiary-lexicon/a/ from the external links section of the "Prison Slang" page. I believe that the author of the site, a currently incarcerated felon who is mid-way through a 19-year sentence, would have a superlative knowledge and expert experience relating to contemporary prison slang. Please consider re-activating the link, as the content is accurate, relevant, and useful. Thank you for your time and your valuable input managing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.157.233 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia has specific policies about self published sources and external links to be avoided. The site you have added doesn't appear to meet those guidelines. I'm not questioning his credentials or expertise, but that's not the only thing that's needed. It's not just the Hastings has to be an authority, he has to be a recognized authority. As a rule of thumb, this means he should qualify for an article of his own and also be published on the topic, or possibly be identified as an expert by several other sources. If there are any reliable sources that talk about Hastings but which aren't written by Hastings, let me know and I'll be happy to try and help you figure something out. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for your explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.157.233 (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Vemma

In the "Products" section, I have added that the Vemma formulation has been reviewed and published within the scientific community. I then included links to two studies as references, one from the Vemma website (because I could not obtain a publicly-available link elsewhere) and the other from another site. You have deleted this additional information and reference. What is the reasoning behind this action?

In the "Business Model" section, I revised it to say that Brand Partners are not recognized as distributors. The company's compensation plan actually says that and I therefore linked to the page for reference. You have reverted this to say that the company sells products through independent distributors. This statement is not consistent with fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.115.145 (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

For the first issue, the first link was WP:PRIMARY. As you say, it was from Vemma's website. The second link merely confirmed that a study had been done, but didn't explain any context or results. Simple saying that the product has been the subject of scientific study is not encyclopedic. It makes Vemma look more important without actually imparting any information. If you think that the studies are significant to an understanding of Vemma, you can explain the studies' findings, but you should familiarize yourself with the guidelines for medical sources (WP:MEDRS). They are much stricter than for regular sources, (which you should also familiarize yourself with, if you haven't already). If you would like to go down that route, I would advise you to find good secondary sources.
As for what Vemma chooses to call their distributors, the article already explains that Vemma refers to them as 'Brand Partners' and, unless I missed something, the promotional brochure you attached as a source did not dispute that they are distributors. Wikipedia articles should use clear language. Reading that source, it's apparent that 'Brand Partner' means the same as distributor. That is to say I can see no functional difference between a 'Brand Partner' with Vemma and a distributor working for any other company on this list. The jargon they use internally doesn't make the article any easier to understand, so I don't understand why the article should put so much emphasis on it. Grayfell (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


BRAND PARTNERS ARE NOW BEING REFERRED TO AS AFFILIATES! And Vemma is considering themselves an Affiliate Marketing Company not. I placed a viable source on the bottom attached to a video. I did this on the wiki page yet you keep removing the link! Please consider Vemma an Affiliate Marketing Company.

http://www.businessforhome.org/2013/11/vemma-2-0-announced-brand-partners-will-be-affiliates/

Greyfall, here is another link determining that to be true. Don't make a judgement call based on your opinionated issue. This site is meant for facts, not what you think. And especially since you probably have 0 affiliate marketing experience compared to what I have, you should definitely take this as a reliable source:

http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27338%3Avemma®-makes-the-move-to-affiliate-marketing&catid=309%3Apitchengine&Itemid=446

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.118.18 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not even close to a reliable source! It's a press release. As for the Business for Home site, it's own mission statment make it clear that it is an advocacy site which is designed to promote MLMs and similar. Not neutral, not independent, not reliable. Reliable sources are not something we just take on personal opinion, please read WP:RS for more information on what qualifies. Grayfell (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait so I put another source in the link besides business for home that is unrelated to Vemma and you turn it down?! I have a video of our CEO talking about our move to Affiliate Marketing, do you want to se that? Stop being biased. I am neither a supporter of Vemma or a hater, I just edit websites correctly and where they need be. http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27338%3Avemma®-makes-the-move-to-affiliate-marketing&catid=309%3Apitchengine&Itemid=446 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.6.146 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You are being incredibly biased. You take important information way such as Chris Powell supporting the Bode Brand and you put down information from Truth in Advertising which is an organization like Business for home, they therefore they are biased and not credible. And the NY Post form a woman who has no network/affiliate marketing experience. What about the unbiased sources that provide positive facts? What about the actual Vemma site which is the most credible out of every source since it is the companies site!?!? Do you choose to leave those out because you are ignorant? Either/or your running this site, be unbiased and act like a professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.6.146 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Vemma. At this point it's clear this is a content dispute, and any further discussion should be held there. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Colonization of Mars

Hi. Our mutual friend is at it again. I'll warn him but I'm reluctant to revert him myself yet again because it might look like an edit war, but if you feel like reverting and he then re-reverts then there's a strong argument for admin intervention. andy (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverting is simply delaying the inevitable at this point. In my opinion he's demonstrated that he's not interested in contributing productively. He's called us both 'morons' and 'Wikipedia Gestapo' on his talk page after being repeatedly warned against personal attacks, so I think admin intervention is called for regardless. I am putting in a notice at WP:AIN. Grayfell (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Vijay Eswaran

You removed properly sourced information in the Awards and Accolades section. 1) Asean Business Advisory Council is a highly regarded industry body of the Asean region that has instituted the MBA awards 5 years ago and several notable and prominent Malaysian business leaders were recognised at this event, as shown in the news report in The Sun newspaper, one of the largest circulated publications in Malaysia. 2) Information about the NGI Excellence award was sourced from The Malaysian Times. I have now added an additional reference from the Gulf News[2] , one of the biggest publications in UAE that also confirms this information. it is not up to any individual to decide whether an award is notable or not, unless there is evidence to back it up. Freudianr (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If they are so highly regarded, write an article for them. Wikipedia is not a trophy case. I'm not denying that he has received that award, I am saying that he has received dozens of awards, and most of them are not significant to an encyclopedic understanding of him as a person. No amount of puff is going to change that. Grayfell (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
When I read this article, there is some significant on the award. It is because there is no article on Wikipedia for those awards, doesn't mean that they are not notable.Hillcountries (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
As an experienced editor, you should know by now that Talk:Vijay Eswaran is the proper venue to discuss this. Grayfell (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Theodore Beale interview

Hello, this is sjscott80 -- sorry, I'm not a pro at Wikipedia, so I may not be writing this code correctly. I just saw that you had deleted my link on Theodore Beale (Vox Day)'s page. I had added the link as the author of the interview because I thought the extensive interview would shed some significant, objective light on him and his website and add information that people would find useful. But I'll leave it up to the community to decide! :) Sjscott80 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)sjscott80

Hello. I removed the line for a few reasons. First, it didn't actually explain anything about Beale, it only said that he had been interviewed, and having been interviewed isn't noteworthy by itself. Second, the link doesn't appear to meet guidelines for reliable sources; it's debatably WP:PRIMARY, and it's a self published source. Third, since you wrote the article yourself, it's a WP:SELFCITE, which is allowed, but is probably not a great idea; again, since you didn't actually add any information about Beale other than that he had been interviewed, it seems way too much like self-promotion to me.
A reference like that could, maybe, be used to clear up some point of confusion in the article, but just sitting by itself it doesn't look like a good fit. I know that's a lot of policy to throw at you, but hopefully that cleared things up a little. If you have any other questions, or if you disagree with me about this, I am happy to try and help you figure out a next step. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! If you're interested, mind taking the time to read the full interview (it's lengthy)? http://www.sjscworldwide.com/blog/blogging-case-study-vox-popoli-vox-day/ Perhaps you or others may or may not think that he states things that are "newsworthy" enough to include. If so, then I or someone could alter the line to include excerpts of the interview to add more context rather than simply state that he was interviewed. Either way, it's cool! Sjscott80 (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)sjscott80

The interview is almost entirely focused on blogging. Since the Wikipedia article barely even mentions his blog, you would need to find reliable, independent sources about Beale's blog first, and use them to build that section up. Once there is content about the blog (ideally supported by WP:SECONDARY sources) your interview could potentially be used to support details in that section. I strongly discourage you from introducing quotes from your own interview into the article. If you think such quotes belong, I hope you will discuss them at Talk:Theodore Beale rather than inserting them yourself. Your interview is only usable as a source in limited situations, and your conflict of interest makes it more complicated. Thanks, Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Its the MO of a banned user(s)

re your edit summary [8]. Thats the MO of the socks of the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia banned accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't remember how I got there, but it was probably from idle browsing of the Morning277 page. I had not seen the actual article, however, that is very informative. Other than basic edits like the one you linked, I'm at a loss for what I could be doing to clean up the problem. I wouldn't shed a tear over Legitmix being deleted, but it seems like it passes GNG. From what I've gathered it's basically going on a page-by-page basis, is that about right? Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Probably. I am not actively involved.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Islam in Oceania

I see you reverted my edit. If you find it hard to see a scientific projection of World population up to 2300, you can read UN Report. As of the methodology and estimate of Muslim population in each country and worldwide from 600AD to 2300AD, you can read Kettani, H. (2014). The World Muslim Population, History & Prospect. Singapore: Research Publishing Service. I hope this is helpful to you to keep my edits. Hkettani (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The UN source is a better one, but it doesn't mention religion at all. I'm not saying such projections don't exist, I am saying that such ambitious projections need to be properly sourced and placed in context. Even if the book you mention is a solid source, including far-future projections in the lead is unnecessary and distracting. The article should only rely on a single source when absolutely necessary. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

meow wolf

Hi, Im guessing that if you've decoded my user name you are VERY familiar with Meow Wolf! I'm a little disappointed by the volume of your deletion, but its still much better than it was. I am brand new to wikipedia editing and mainly joined because it seemed like the Meow Wolf article was stuck as a stub. I definitely want it to be objective and accurate. I do not think the wolf pac section is important, it is as minor and any of the more minor art shows you deleted, but I wont re-edit your edit. Thank you for your input. I hope someone fleshes out the article some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1800marzipan (talk • contribs) 02:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Beta Theta Pi members, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Donald Peterson and William Cook (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Grayfell, thank you for your comment about Michael Levine. I will fix those errors.

Thank you, Cczeto (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Hi Grayfell,

I know you deleted the Michael Levine photo and that was not a violation of code at all. That photo belongs solely to Michael. So, I don't know if I titled it wrong because we used that for a article that was written about him. I would like to upload it again. I am sorry that I am not understanding some things I am new at this and read every guideline before I do any edits.

Thank you. Cczeto (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cczeto.
I understand that Wikipedia can be confusing, as there's a lot of info to digest. File permission is an especially common source of difficulty and confusion.
Before I get to why I nominated the photo for deletion, let me cover an important point. The article already has a very nice photo of Levine, so I would advise you not to bother adding another just like it. The two photos are similar enough that they add absolutely nothing from an encyclopedic perspective. They were both taken at a similar time period, from similar angles, and with similar facial expressions. This is crucial: Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Adding two pretty picture of him is not going to help anybody understand who he is better. The whole point is to build a better encyclopedia, and if your only goal is to promote Michael Levine, then you should not be editing at all.
As for why the photo was deleted, the picture you uploaded had a copyright notice directly on the image. Commons is mainly for images that anybody can use for a broad range of purposes both commercial and non-commercial. The photo you uploaded should be usable for remixing, editing, satire, as an example of 'generic smiling white male' printed out and sold on eBay, or countless other uses. This means that copyrighted images are not usually appropriate. The image you uploaded explicitly states that it is copyrighted, so we have to accept that statement. It has nothing to do with what you intend to use it for, or what the file was titled. If you used the upload wizard, which is the default way to upload images to Commons, then you may have noticed the chart indicating what you can and cannot upload. In general, (except for very old images) you cannot upload images which you did not create. When I say 'you' did not create it, I mean it- this isn't about verbal permission from someone else, this is about verifiable copyright info. The fact that it belongs to Michael Levine is exactly the problem, it doesn't belong to you, and so you cannot release it for use by Commons. Does that clarify things?
If you are working with Levine, (or if you are Levine) you should read Wikipedia's guidelines on having a conflict of interest. If you still feel that you want to upload the image, you can try to work out licensing permissions through the Commons:OTRS. The OTRS volunteers are sorely overworked, so it would take about 10 days, (or more considering the time of year). For this reason, and the reasons above, I ask you not do this, but it's up to you.
Thanks, Grayfell (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Grayfell,

You made yourself very clear ... and THANK YOU for being very clear. I do not want to make dumb mistakes. I like being here. I did read the instructions on uploading images and just miss the understanding and that I apologize for. I am in no way of wanting to promote Michael Levine or his books. My sole purpose is to be informational about who he is and what he has accomplished, that's all. The only reason I liked to Amazon (which I will never do again with anything I do, Ron Jones, a volunteer with you, educated me on that) was to show he really wrote those books. I edited his profile again and reference only to his publishing companies which I should have done in the beginning. I thought in my mind if I showed he was an author of books that were being sold on credible or reliable outlets that would be a credible source. But I am learning. Please check his profile and if there is anything else that is needed or needs to be change then please let me know. I would like to add a History section that Ron suggested but don't know how to do that. Again, I am not interested in promoting Levine.

Thank you for your time Grayfell, (Cczeto (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)).

Oh boy. Well, if you're not promoting Levine, are you promoting Tom Melody? Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view and in an formal tone. Your edits are neither. Why are you mentioning 9/11 in the lead? Was he connected to 9/11 specifically? The use of terms like 'humble beginnings' is another example of this. Your use of quotes is far, far too extensive. Read WP:QUOTEFARM. In a nutshell, use quotes sparingly, and summarize the rest in a neutral, formal tone. Sorry, I'm going to revert most of those edits, they are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, Well I am not familiar with Tom Melody but no I am not interested in promoting him either. I will work in this and get it right. Again thank you for your comments. (Cczeto (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)).

MonaVie

Hi there,

On MonaVie the Huffington post "source" at citation 13: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/19/monavie-juice-pyramid-sch_n_651845.html

isn't actually Huffington Post. It's a redirect to a blog that has no editorial oversight whatsoever. The huffpo snippet is just a title scraper to the huffpo food blog. Please remove this citation. The accompanying scheme text is supported by the Forbes blogpost.

You'll see a similar situation with newsweek at cite 10. That is a deadlink. How about leave the Forbes blog piece (cite 12) to support the scheme angle.

Cite 10 and 13 should go.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.7.162 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good points. See Talk:MonaVie. Thanks Grayfell (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

abilene paradox

Dear Grayfell, I have requested that a key external link be whitelisted. I posted the request on Jan. 11 and, as of date, nobody has commented on the request. Could you please assist in moving the request forward by offering your viewpoint? Thank you. IjonTichy (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... It looks like the ball is rolling now. I think that's the first time I've seen that page (Abilene paradox), although I vaguely recall having heard the term before. I don't have a strong opinion on the link yet, so I'll keep an eye on it and chime in if I have anything to contribute. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mata Amritanandamayi

I have provided references along with all the edits. Mata Amritanandamayi is not devi. Devi means goddess. A living person cannot be devi, unless it is a name given So, correct that part. Also, the wiki article says, Satnam Singh attacked security guards, which is not true. I have added the youtube link of the incident, but you removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bincyphil (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Although I did revert an edit of yours, I didn't remove a Youtube link, that was someone else. The edit you added was a violation of WP:BLP, which is a very serious problem. Please discuss future edits on the article's talk page: Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the multiple BLP violations going on on the Mata Amritanandamayi page. Is there anything that can be done to prevent this Wiki page from being a platform for defamation? 67.0.219.20 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I was out of town for a couple of days, sorry it has taken me so long to respond. Wikipedia works on a WP:CONSENSUS model, which can be tedious, but is a very powerful process. It looks like an ongoing discussion is happening at the talk page (Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi). As long as that is still going on, continued WP:CIVIL discussion is probably the best way to go forward. You might also take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive195#Mata Amritanandamayi, which was just posted. Keep an eye on that, and chime in if you think you have something to contribute there. If things become a serious crisis, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is one place to consider, but only as a last resort. Most administrators are sympathetic to how difficult it can be to navigate Wikipedia's maze of sites and policies, but there's very little patience for 'forum shopping'. I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Street Art

Hi, backjumps should be added to the article its verry important in the history of street art in Berlin. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/travel/02headsup.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.tip-berlin.de/Backjumps Thank youAgilemonkey (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, Street art is a big article that covers a lot of places and times. The NY Times article only mentions a Backjump festival once, from 2007, and doesn't mention it as being the most significant show in Europe or anything of the sort. The other source is just a local listing, right? It does look like it's somewhat significant, but you need to find better sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Grayfell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, I recently added a link to a music video about Salvation Mountain and Slab City to their respective Wikipedia pages. The link was to a song that was written about the Salvation Mountain and Slab City with a loving dedication to Leonard Knight. Leonard and others at Slab City, Salvation Mountain and East Jesus all loved Kylie Campion, the artist who wrote the song. Leonard asked her to help spread the word. The song and the video are going to be used in an upcoming documentary about Leonard and Salvation Mountain by Picture Lock Studios. I was wondering why you removed it? Did I do something wrong? Can we get it back up there? Please let me know. Thanks Camptunes (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Camptunes. Sorry, but there are several reasons I don't think the video belongs.
It kinda sounds to me like you're trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote a music video. No matter how good your intentions, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or soapboxing. It's also not a repository of external links, although it unfortunately tends to get used that way sometimes. You might want to read Wikipedia's policies on external links, but the gist of it is that external links sections should be kept small and tightly focused on the topic.
Without reliable sources it's hard to know how significant the video is to an understanding of Slab City or Salvation Mountain. Campion may be beloved by Salvation Mountain, but that info needs to be WP:VERIFIABLE, and it needs to be given due WP:WEIGHT. Think of it this way: Slab City and Leonard Knight have influenced many people. We can't begin to list all of them. We need a little bit of context explaining why it's important, and we need that to be backed up by sources, otherwise it just looks like advertising.
Hopefully I've explained where I'm coming from, if you have any additional questions, I'll be happy to try and answer. Talk:Slab City and Talk:Salvation Mountain are also good places to start a discussion. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reed Cowan

Hey, just giving you a head's up about what I'm doing with the article. I'm looking to see if there are any new sources out there for him. I've found a review for one of his documentaries and if I can find more, then that could help establish notability. I have a feeling that I might run this through a second AfD rather than replace the speedy tag, but in any case I wanted to let you know what's going on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no strong opinion one way or the other, I just noticed that there was some fishy editing going on after looking into an IP vandal. The article looks much, much better now. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Chuck's Challenge 3D

Factually Chuck's Challenge 3D is list on Desura however it has now been changed to 'Invite Only' which mean you can no longer download it from Desura unless you get special permission from the Developer. It is now available on Steam instead. Hence why I have updated where you can get it from Allack (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm very confused about your latest change for two reasons. 1) You say that Wikipedia isn't a directory of sales sites but now you want to list all the places where the game has been sold and is currently on sale. 2) Greenlight is not a store it is a place where the Steam Community votes on which games they want on the Steam store. Therefore removing the date it was voted on and calling it a store is incorrect. Allack (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess I wasn't very clear. We shouldn't pick-and-choose which sites we include. If a site was worth mentioning in the past, why is it no-longer worth mentioning now? While I don't think we should bother with listing all of these sites, I'm not willing to remove them just yet. As I said (on your talk), if secondary sources can be found we can re-assess this. Greenlight isn't a store, but it is a process by which a game reaches a store. The date it was voted on for Greenlight seems very trivial, and a tad promotional, and I'm not sure why it matters. Chip's Challenge already gives too much WP:WEIGHT to a different game that happens to be by the same author. I was attempting to trim it down a bit. I intend to trim it down further, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond, and hopefully find some secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

How about these http://gamerattitude.com/reviews-upated/chucks-challenge-3d-on-steam-review/ "Despite having the same core design philosophy as Chip’s Challenge the game does feel like a breath of fresh air." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allack (talk • contribs) 00:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Allack (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Steam Greenlight date might not be as important but that people voted for it and it got though is important as only a limited number get though. Allack (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It currently mentions that the game got to Steam via Greenlight. I'll expand that to make it clearer, but I think there are more pressing problems. I think you posted the wrong link, since it doesn't include the quote about Chip's Challenge. The gamerattitude review is by a guy who has only reviewed one game. The site is still very small, has no contact information to speak of, and the only reference to Chip's Challenge is in a search-tag. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library is a page specifically designed for this type of situation. Sorry, if I'd remembered it, I would've mentioned it sooner. Be wary of press-releases hosted by news sites, which are a common stumbling block. They aren't reliable as secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry here the right link for the first post http://enemyslime.com/2014/02/review-chucks-challenge-3d/
OK how about Rock, Paper, Shotgun here which is a much bigger site http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/08/chip-off-the-old-block-chucks-challenge-released/ When I was at school, before I discovered Doom deathmatch, I used to spend my evenings trying to beat every fiendish level of Chip’s Challenge. Wikipedia informs me that there were 149 levels in the version that I owned and I’m not convinced I saw more than a hundred. Tile-based, ice-sliding, crate-pushing, switch-hitting puzzlers aren’t my favourite forms of entertainment, but it’s more than nostalgia that has kept spiritual sequel Chuck’s Challenge on my radar. Developed by Chip’s creator Chuck Sommerville, it’s a puzzle game and creation tool all in one and it’s out now.
Or the actual Steam Product page http://store.steampowered.com/app/262590 From the design veteran behind the classic game Chip's Challenge, comes Chuck’s Challenge 3D, a fiendishly addictive puzzler that’s packed with features that will tease the brain and challenge the fingers.
Or US Gamer http://www.usgamer.net/articles/chucks-challenge-3d-pc-review-just-like-chuck-used-to-make Chip's Challenge originated on the Lynx but proved popular enough to spawn ports to numerous platforms, ranging from the Commodore 64 to DOS- and Windows-based PCs. Chuck's Challenge 3D is actually the third follow-up to the original game -- Chip's Challenge 2 never saw public release due to a legal dispute between Sommerville and the original copyright holder, and the original Chuck's Challenge was an iOS exclusive that came out back in 2012 from Sommerville's new company Niffler. Chuck's Challenge 3D is a reimagining of the latter, this time for Windows, OSX and Linux plus Android mobile devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allack (talk • contribs) 09:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Those are all pretty good (except the Steam Store one, which is WP:PRIMARY, not secondary). I have reigned in a lot of material that seemed pretty superfluous to me. The Desura thing is one of them, but I also removed a lot of info about being Kickstarted and Greenlit, as well. Upon consideration, it just seemed too trivial. As you may have noticed, none of the secondary sources actually talk about that stuff. If the Chuck's Challenge games get their own page someday, then maybe. My intention was to keep the article at an appropriate WP:WEIGHT, which is pretty light, since the games are fairly new, fairly small, and are being discussed in an article about a different game. At this point it's become clear that the place to discuss any further edits is at Talk:Chip's Challenge -not here. Grayfell (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mail from bsalyers re: SFUAD page

Hello, Grayfell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bsalyers (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Beta Theta Pi chapters, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bethany College and Westminster College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Amen

I reverted your edit to Daniel Amen. I think the article make it pretty clear and there is additional support on the talk page. Also treatments, diagnostic techniques etc are biomedical information if not supported by MEDRS (and Amen's work isn't) they must be qualified on WP. Bring suggestions to talk. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

After looking over it some more, you were right to revert me. The wording is so unusual, I reflexively assumed it was something fishy, but he's really that odd and legitimately controversial.
Thanks for your openmindedness and perusal of the article. To be frank, I put much of that wording in hastily to bring the article in compliance with MEDRS. If you have suggestions for better wording or phrasing, by all means edit. The article may have tipped... - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Nah, it looks fine to me. I might tinker with some of the wording after a good night's sleep. Grayfell (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work on Narconon

Greetings, Grayfell! That was an excellent update to Narconon, it reads one whole hell of a lot better now. Damotclese (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Gosh, thanks! Grayfell (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Beta Theta Pi

Can you please explain how my changes to Beta Theta Pi are making the page into an advertisement? I work for Beta Theta Pi's headquarters, and the changes I have tried to make are to clarify the points and facts that are already there. Is it because I am not citing them correctly? If so, I will do so going forward. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Sorry for the trouble, still pretty new to this. kg252500(talk)

Replied here. Future discussion should be held at user's talk page, or at Talk:Beta Theta Pi. Grayfell (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ambit

Where are you getting your information on Ambit? Hard for me to believe that if Ambit's customers weren't happy in New York, they would have never received the award from JD Power and Associates in 2013 for customer satisfaction.67.246.134.173 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Dan Byers

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Yank Barry. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

New Age

Hello, I know very well the philosophical metaphysics, but I know nothing about the New Age, so I want you to explain to me this “metaphysics is a significant historical part of the New Age movement”.--Alexis1102 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, my revert was based on Wikipedia policy more than philosophy. I think the article already explains the connection, and, superficially, the sources seem to agree. I'm not trying to draw a specific connection between the two, and I agree the relationship is debatable to say the least. However, since the term 'metaphysics' (and variations) is prominently used several times in the article, removing the categorization without changing the article seems premature. The term is also used in many of the article's sources, as well. Sometimes it's used to mean 'non-physical', but others seem like they are referring to the philosophical meaning. Since this is a specific content issue, it might be a good idea to continue this discussion at the article's talk page Talk:New Age. I'll just add that reviewing Wikipedia:Categorization might be useful, if you haven't already. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

95.86.92.87

Hi Grayfell,

Thank you for your kind welcome to Wikipedia.

I don't see why changing the order of some paragraphs indicates that I'm biased. I think it's fair when describing a company to present their research studies before other people's opinions. Mannatech has a few studies that show that their supplements are helpful. That to me is more significant than the opinion of a 10 independent glycobiologists. The article quotes about 10 glycobiologists that felt they were ineffective, but there were no specific studies mentioned.

I think whoever wrote the article on Mannatech was biased against their supplements. The only question with their supplements is whether they are effective or not. There are no known negative side effects. When you compare them to drugs, such as antidepressants, they are extremely safe.

By the way, are you on Wikipedia's staff?

Sincerely, Sam 95.86.92.87 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. In the first paragraph of this page, I think you meant "four tildes" not "for tildes."

Thanks for catching the typo, I appreciate that!
Wikipedia tries to rely on reliable sources. Content discussing the safety of Mannatech's products must be supported by reliable source. Specifically, Wikipedia has higher standards for medical content, and you can read about that here: WP:MEDRS. In general, Wikipedia favors WP:SECONDARY sources, that is, sources that are not affiliated with what they are discussing. Since Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising, it's important to treat Mannatech's studies with due weight. The glycobiologists mentioned in the 'independent' section are recognized experts in their fields, while the studies funded by Mannatech are a different animal. If you would like to discuss this further, I recommend Talk:Mannatech so that other editors can more easily participate. If you would like, you can copy this discussion to that page. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "Content discussing the safety of Mannatech's products must be supported by reliable source." None of the glycobiologists against glyconutrients claimed it was unsafe. They only questioned its efficacy. By the way, I do not work for Mannatech. A friend of mine mentioned glyconutrients and I thought I would look it up.
You mentioned that they are safe, and that they had no known side effects, that's why I mentioned content about the safety. Stating that Mannatech's products are safe, or even implying that they are safe, absolutely needs to have WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Actually, though, you're right, efficacy must also be supported by solid sources. Also, the independent commentary section does specifically include three references. Two from Glycobiology (journal) and one from Science (journal). Again, the best place to discuss these issues is Talk:Mannatech, so that others can chime in. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Union High School (Utah)

The article Union High School (Utah) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to not be noteable enough

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dudel250 (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh... No. Community consensus has been that high schools are usually notable to their communities, and are therefore notable enough for articles Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). The school is verified with four reliable sources, three of which are independent, covering both routine academic matters, and for a newsworthy event with the football program. Grayfell (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Patent Troll Page

Greetings: I hope you can explain to me why the references to The Patents Video have been deleted from the Patent Troll page. As pointed out in my last version, in the early 1990s (I began practising IP law in the Silicon Valley in 1990), lawyers in the patent profession used the term Patent Troll to describe Jerry Lemelson (do you know who he was?). At any rate, in my video made in 1994, which I do not sell anymore, I just have the clip on YouTube, we depicted a patent troll. I certainly have ample evidence of that (before there was internet of course, and we barely had email at that time). It was sold to hundreds of universities, law firms and companies as stated on YouTube. I left the US in 2004, and it was not until 2007 or 2008 that I became aware that Mr. Detkin held himself out as "coining" a phrase in 2000 that had been around for yonks. I took exception. So, after negotiation, the page was changed. I did not think about it until today, and I now find another person has taken credit, Anne Gundlefinger. So I changed it again. And then it change back. So I changed it again. And then it changed back. How is it that it changes so fast and no one has discussed this with me? At any rate, it should tell the truth. Neither Anne Gundlefinger or Peter Denkin coined the phrase. It was around when I made the video. ~~Paula N. Chavez~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paula Natasha Chavez (talk • contribs) 07:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Paula Natasha Chavez (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Paula N ChavezPaula Natasha Chavez (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Paula Natasha Chavez (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

May 25 2014

Dear Grayfell, I just wanted to let you know that the page Albuquerque,New Mexico that you edited and erased the nickname I left which was "the metro" that Is a real nickname of Albuquerque you could hear it on all the news channels they say it all the time and i just wanted to let you know that, I hope I don't sound rude and if i do please let me know because Im not trying to be or sound rude.

Thank You — Preceding Thedude505 comment added by Thedude505 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dude. Thanks for starting a discussion about it. The problem with Albuquerque being called The Metro is that metro just means 'city', so most big cities are called that. When the news says "The Metro area" they just mean the area around a city. Not just Albuquerque, but any city. I grew up in New Mexico, and I never heard it used as a special nickname just for Albuquerque, but I could be wrong. If you think I'm wrong, we should discuss it more at the page's talk page: Talk:Albuquerque, New Mexico, and find a reliable source explaining the name. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


June 1

There are no promotional pieces in the YTB Internatonal section.The information you add and place as "current" on the YTB page are not reflecting the current status of the company and it appears as you have an axe to grind somehow by taking off everything that might be positive about a company and only adding negative views. This is biased. I made sure to show all the aspects of both the bad and the good about this company to allow the reader to learn about the company without weight or emotion. I have followed some of your edits and noticed you have something with mlm companies. Not sure if you are a person who buys into these companies or if you had been a part of YTB itself? If you cannot keep your opinions and edits unbiased and current - with fact and no emotion, perhaps you should consider it. No more rumors. KillTheRumor (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

Hello there Grayfell. Sorry to disturb you, but in this edit diff here: [9], you mentioned that I needed to insert some secondary sources to make the article crunch and not puff. Could you please tell me what did you mean by that? -- Vacationlandman (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)?

Sure, sorry, that was kind of an obscure way to describe it. The entire article is only supported by WP:PRIMARY sources, meaning sources that are affiliated with the fraternity in some way. This is a common problem with fraternity articles, not sure why. The lack of secondary sources makes it very hard to determine WP:DUEWEIGHT. Not every detail of the fraternity's history should be included, and the best way to get a sense of what's significant to the topic (crunch) and what's only added to make the frat seem more important (puff) is with reliable, secondary sources. I hope that clears things up. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that does clear things up. And just to clear things up, I didn't write an NPOV section on the Pi Lambda Phi article; It was someone else who wrote this and I felt like restructuring it to a more appropriate section. Thank you for the feedback and happy editing! Vacationlandman (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool, glad I could help. I get snarky in edit summaries, but I didn't mean to accuse you of anything. Pi Lambda Phi is hugely improved, thanks so much for that. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


A Hello from Dr. G

I see you have discovered Jordan Burroughs! How did you learn of the Olympic Gold Medalist? Sometimes, on Wikipedia, I feel like someone is checking everything I do, you know? Have you ever had that feeling? Like someone is always watching! Anyway, you didn't really think I only contributed to the Yank Barry discussion did you? The talk page, sure. There is no Burroughs talk page, just one guy who doesn't understand wrestling. I can tell from your edits and reverts you don't know much about college or Olympic wrestling either do you? As far as edits to the actual article, though, I've only made one edit to the Yank Barry article and believe me that was a nightmare. Even though you are not a fan of how I try to contribute to articles, I do appreciate you not just outright reverting all my work and rendering my time wasted. That is a horrible feeling. I have made at least 4 times the edits to the Jordan Burroughs article as I have the Yank Barry article, yet I've still been called awful names at that Yank Barry page. Tough place to try and be a Wikipedian. Anyway, I guess I'll see you at Jordan Burroughs page or the Yank Barry page. Hey, can you be an SPA by definition if you are contributing to two articles? Also, if you'd like me to fill you in on anything as far as wrestling is concerned I'd be more than happy. You seem to be more of an academic than athletic. I meant that as a compliment. Good night, sir.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did check up on your edit history. You repeatedly commented on how you hadn't seen behavior similar to the Yank Barry article on any of your other edits, and I wanted to know where you were coming from. For Jordan Burroughs, I would strongly advise going over WP:TONE and WP:NPOV. The article has significant problems with both, and your additions added to those problems. In addition, there is a lack of sources for the specific details you included.
As for your claim that you've only edited the Yank Barry article once, that's flat-out false. It takes an experienced editor about ten seconds to check your claim: According to the Toolserve analysis, you've made 9 edits to the Yank Barry article which is more than any other article. A glance at the article's history shows 5 'sets' of edits. Furthermore, talk page edits also count, and you've made 99 edits to the Barry article's talk page, and none to any other article talk pages. Easily over 90% of your edits are regarding the Yank Barry article. Many people edit under their IP address before starting an account, which complicates things, but regardless, you have clearly edited the article more than once. I'm not sure why you would claim otherwise, but if you made a genuine mistake, I suggest striking it out and adding a correction in the places you have made that statement. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay slow down. I didn't write everything in the Jordan Burroughs article. I wrote a section, and added to others. I understand what you are saying. I did't think describing a match as thrilling would be a problem. It WAS thrilling and that goes for Taylor and Burroughs, not just Burroughs, but even if that is a no go, most of that was already there and I wrote in the spirit of the article so it wouldn't seem out of place. I wasn't just going to show up and revert a bunch of work and waste an editor's time, I don't like it when that is done to me. My question is why can't you help me without suggesting I read something I've read 50 times? I'm a teacher, I'm not totally dense. I can comprehend simple subjects at least. However, I am new to Wikipedia, so no, I don't know all the ins and outs and rights and wrongs. I wish I could find an editor on here who would help me without calling me names and assuming things that are blatantly false. Please lets go over the Yank Barry edits. I had an edit reverted, which I changed, then it was reverted, and I left it. Then another editor said it was okay, so I added it again, then it was reverted. All of this was under the same topic, please check, I'm not an out and out liar, and I'm certainly not on here for a single purpose! I thought I explained the Yank Barry article has an active talk page where I see problem after problem. The Jordan Burroughs page does NOT have an active talk page. How am I going to have a bunch of talk page edits on the Jordan Burroughs page to myself? Go ahead and count talk page edits if you want, but if you need me to explain this further I'm happy to. Please, continue to vet me, there is nothing worse than being misunderstood. Also, I thought I added citation to the Burroughs article, I meant to, please show me where I didn't and I'll correct it. My overall point is I'd appreciate help without being treated like an idiot or a puppet. I just want to be treated how every other editor on Wikipedia would like to be treated. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I didn't edit under an IP address. I signed up at the end of May, can you guess why then? I just wanted to contribute to articles in a positive manner. It's been a bumpy ride and fellow editors have NOT been overly friendly. Some of that was my fault and where it was I have apologized and correct the matter. However, a lot of it was a total lack of good faith (I was called a sock on my second day, when the YB article was the third one I came across, right? not trying to make a false claim) from the beginning. I have other questions but I'll let you respond to what I've posted here so far. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to keep bothering you. I have a question. Is there anyway for me to see when people respond to me (for example when you respond to my posts above) if they don't use the reply feature? Also, just to be clear, no matter how many articles I edit, if I spend 90% of my time at the Yank Barry talk page (where I have come across the most problems), are you saying it's fair game for editors to call me names and assume I have ulterior motives? I just don't understand how I can be called an SPA when, you know for a fact, I have other articles I am trying to contribute to. That is the last one, I will await your response, please try to be nice. I'm a grown man, I don't expect you to take me under your wing, like some kid, but any cordial help would be appreciated. Nobody likes to be harshly criticized and made to feel stupid, you know? Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr Gonzo5269:, I think Atama's response to your comments on his talk page summed it up pretty well. It's not a simple situation, and choosing to edit that page as one of your first articles is like driving an 18-wheeler with a learner's permit: people are going to be skeptical that you know what you're doing. I can see why you might feel you haven't been treated fairly. I'm not trying to pick on you, but by getting involved, your edits are going to be scrutinized. If you would like a more welcoming experience, and I know I would in your shoes, there a ton of other resources. WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:ADVENTURE, and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user are some of them. Needless to say, I will join the chorus and advise you to spend some of your time working on other articles.
Regarding Jordan Burrough, as I said, the article already had problems, and your edits, in some ways, added on to those problems. You didn't do anything wrong there, and I don't think I called you any names, but I don't think your edits were %100 positive, either. Part of being an editor is knowing that your work can be undone, or deleted outright. No, it's not always a good feeling, but it's happened to all of us. I know you didn't start the problem, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. Someone else removed the word 'thrilling' after your first batch of edits, and you put it back again. By linking to a policy, like WP:NPOV, I'm not trying to be condescending to you, I'm trying to briefly explain my edits. Additionally, if you're being pointed to a page over and over, it's because we have no way of knowing if you've read it a bunch of times, or merely perused it once, or not at all.
As for keeping track of if someone has responded, I usually just add the talk page to my WP:WATCHLIST until the conversation is finished. It depends, I have mixed feelings about pinging other users. Some find it very helpful, some find it irritating, so I usually save it for very new editors, for people who have not contributed to a talk page in a while, or for people who specifically request it. There is also Template:Talkback, which you might be familiar with. Again, it's handy in some situations, but it's even more heavy-handed than pinging. Some people explain how they want to be contacted on their profile or their talk page. In my experience, those messages are not always read, but it's better than nothing. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Grayfell: Thanks for your help! Yes, I read and appreciated Atama's thoughts and help. I responded accordingly. I appreciate your help here as well. Believe it or not, I did not mean to reinsert the word "thrilling" into the Burroughs article. As I stated, it was already written in that fashion and I did not want my contributions to stand out or look out of place. I, 100%, understand what you are saying about using words like that. I have read some of your other sections and taken some lessons from those as well. Having taken a few days to reflect on it, I agree with you about being careful when choosing words to describe something as to not violate WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. What I am still having trouble with is when an editor adds something to an article that is FACT and is properly sourced and cited, and another editor argues WP:UNDUE. To me that is a total OPINION. One editor may think it is undue but another may not. I don't believe the content should be removed because one editor, personally, believes a fact is undue. What you have been talking about in the Burroughs article is cut and dry and easily understood. Wording it the way you did as opposed to "thrilling" doesn't convey as much to the reader what actually happened, but I only know that because some of the events I, personally, witnessed. However, it still makes clear sense as to why some details have to be sacrificed. When it comes to keeping actual facts from the reader, because an editor believes they are undue, that is where I'm still not comfortable. Just thinking about it as I'm describing, it is easy to just say every situation is unique. Too often that broad response (same with "comparing articles can be very tricky") is used to discount a valid point, I believe. All I'm saying is if the situation is fact, cited, and sourced and one editor's opinion is undue and one editor's opinion is that it's not undue I don't understand what makes one opinion more valid than another. Man, I hope all that made sense. My problem with some editors has been them acting as if their opinion is the way it is, without any patience for a differing opinion, and they operate as if they run the show. That rubs me the wrong way. I do not believe I am the boss of the Yank Barry page or the Jordan Burroughs page and I don't appreciate editors who act as if they are. Whereas what you are saying does sacrifice some elements of the story, it is not really an opinion that those terms violate a policy. Keeping a factual event out is more of an opinion that it violates a policy. I'm going to stop and hope that made sense. Thanks for your help. Your words have been helpful and I appreciate you being cordial. I look forward to any further thoughts you may have. I'm going to work on a few topics in the next few days and I don't mind at all if you check up on my work. Just please be nice in your constructive criticism. Good day.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
  1. ^ SBL Delisting Procedure
  2. ^ "Malaysia's Gandhian Entrepreneur". Gulf News.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grayfell/Archive_2&oldid=1146362528"