User talk:Grayfell/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Sigma Beta Rho

Hello Grayfell, I am the National Director of MIS for Sigma Beta Rho Fraternity, Inc. and I created the web content for both our national website and this page. Please do not alter this page content again as it is against content approved by Sigma Beta Rho. I am not copy-pasting official content this is content i created. Do you have any affiliation to Sigma Beta Rho?

@Sigrhoemt: Hello. You appear to have some serious confusion about how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is for anyone to edit (not just affiliates) and it is WP:NOT a platform for promotion. Neither you, nor your organization WP:OWN the article in question, and regardless, you do not have the right to insert previously published material into Wikipedia. A quick Google search shows that at least some of the material in question has already been published elsewhere. It's a not productive to pretend otherwise. Material was obviously copying from [1] and other places, which is not acceptable. Even if you are willing to donate that material to Wikipedia, which is not something that should be taken lightly, it would still be far, far too promotional to use in a Wikipedia article. Grayfell (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tsunami

Hello, I do in fact think my edit to the page was constructive. It relates to America's Game and the changing history of the 100 year old rivralry. It is honestly becoming the tradition of the United States Military Academy,something that rarely happens.Tsunami2014 (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit? Sorry, I don't agree. It was written as a non-neutral joke, it was not supported by a reliable source, and it wasn't a minor edit. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Introduction to understand more about editing Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how you reported me on your page when YOU invited ME to reply to your claim. Tsunami2014 (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You added weak jokes about freebasing and penis length to an article, and then claim it's not vandalism. What did you expect? Grayfell (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually did neither of the two. I expected for free speech to not be inhibited on a site by an individual who cries "vandilism". I would love to hear your argument for te "weak jokes about freebasing and penis length" I believe you are taking it WAYYY out of context. If you youtube "Army Tsunami 2014" you will see how cadets unified under the song during the football game. Tsunami2014 (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Penis length and freebasing jokes added right here: [2]. "Free speech" huh? Wikipedia:Free speech doesn't give you the right to vandalize a group effort. Find a reliable source about the Army/Navy thing if you're serious about it. Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you paid the slightest bit of attention to detail you would know that the edit was not made under me. You have made a false report and it is undair. That was one of my careless classmates but it was not me. I should not be held at fault for another users edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunami2014 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, but you restored it. That info was removed and you put it back. You are responsible for edits made with your account. Find a reliable source (Youtube isn't going to cut it) otherwise leave it out. Grayfell (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Touche but here's my rebutal on the source part ->If youtube is not a reliable source then Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. What sir/ma'am/robot would you consider a reliable source? The Duffel Blog perhaps? Yik Yak or would you like for the POTUS to make a statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunami2014 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and should not be used to source other Wikipedia articles. Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. I think we're done here. Grayfell (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence Lockman

Why did you replace "criminal behavior" in the title with "tax protesting?" Intentionally refusing to pay your income taxes is a crime, as is encouraging others to do so. One can protest without committing a crime, so the former title is more descriptive than the latter.Jiminyjillickers — Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Lawrence Lockman, which is where the conversation should be held to include more editors, and facilitate building WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Where's the beef?. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Victor Victoria (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Help me in editing my Page

Hi Grayfell, I am an owner of a page GreyCampus. It seems my page looks like an advertisement. It was under deletion under wikipedia deletion policy. I guess i have updated this page according to wikipedia notability guidelines. Can you please help in editing this page and avoid deletion. Let me know if any changes can be done.

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Suha Emma Suhaemma (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Suhaemma: Hello. First of all: you are not the owner of that page. Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. In order for the page to be kept, reliable, secondary sources need to be added. Right now there are no news stories, no academic papers, and no discussion in books about the program. If these things exist, the should be included in the article. Right now, it still seems very promotional. It reads like an advertisement, not like a neutral article about a business. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising. I Hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, Please Help Me Publish First Article

Grayfell, I am a new user. I have met the requirements to post my first article. I edited 10 articles. Sunday will be my fourth day as a registered user. My article is written and coded on a word document. Can you please help me get it published on Wikipedia directly? Or can you do it?

Synoptics Synoptics (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Synoptics: Hello. Sure, I would be happy to help. A good first step is to look over Wikipedia:Your first article if you haven't already. Editing 10 articles over 4 days means you're now WP:AUTOCONFIRMed. Usually you don't need to do that to create a page, although it's certainly a good way to get familiar with how Wikipedia works. Being autoconfirmed means you can edit pages that have been WP:SEMI-PROtected, which is a level of page protection admins use for pages that are likely targets of vandalism or similar problems.

Word documents are useful for spell-checking, but they need some editing and adjustment the work as Wikipedia articles. The easiest way I can think of to do that is to start a Help:Userspace draft, and then copy and paste the article there. This lets you preview the article and incrementally edit it in a way that makes sure it works with Wikipedia's system. This also allows you to include Wikipedia:Citations, which are absolutely vital.

I don't use Word anymore, so if there are any useful tips or tools specific to the software, I don't know about them. I would suggest the Wikipedia:Help desk, if there's a specific Word question you have. Sorry. If you discover anything, please let me know.

If the article-name you want to create was semi-protected, it's a good idea to figure out why. Most articles aren't protected, so the article might have been previously created and deleted, or be associated with spammers or something, and knowing what's going on can save a lot of hassle. Make sure the article is written from a neutral point of view, and everything is supported by reliable sources, especially controversial statements. WP:DUE weight is another area that often causes problems.

Let me know when you've created the draft or the article, and I'll be happy to answer any more questions you have. Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

When I paste it in user space, can you see it so you can tell me if it's ready to go public?

Snoptics Synoptics (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Synoptics: No, you need to save it. Your draft could be named something simple like User:Synoptics/Draft. As long as it starts with User:Synoptics/ and doesn't contain any odd characters, you can call it whatever you want. Once that has been saved in your userspace, it can be worked on before publishing. If you want, you can add {{Userspace draft|date=November 2024}} to the very top of the draft. This adds a box explaining that it's a draft and giving a little more info.

After saving it, you can let me know by linking to the page just like any other page on Wikipedia (Help:Wikilinks). As an example, here is a link to a user draft I've been working on occasionally: User:Grayfell/Salem High School (Missouri).

If you are having trouble with links, just let me know when you have saved the draft, and I'll find it in your edit history (Special:Contributions/Synoptics).

Once the draft is finished, it can be moved (basically just renamed), which is usually very simple. Incidentally, I am not an administrator, and I don't have any special privileges that you don't, just experience. Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, I Did It. Please Check

Grayfell, I created the article and saved it, as you said. Will you please look at it and tell me how to publish it?

Synoptics Synoptics (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find my article in my user box. How do I locate it? I saved the page. Please advise. Can you find it? I thought all I had to do was save page. I did that. Now where did it go? I pasted it onto a word document as a back up in case I could not find it.

Synoptics Synoptics (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, I had thought I was submitting my article directly. Instead, it is under review. Can I resubmit this directly for faster posting after being a registered user 4 days? The article is well written. -- Synoptics Synoptics (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to give you the link. Here it is. Can't I resubmit directly? that's what I thought I was doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Synoptics/sandbox/Modern_English_Version

-- Synoptics--Synoptics (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, my article was patrolled. What does that mean?--Synoptics (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Synoptics: Hello. My ability to determine what you're doing is limited. From what it looks like, with this edit you submitted the article to articles for creation. This is a review process for new editors. This may not have been your intention, but it's not a bad thing. This does mean that it may take a while before the article is published, however. After you submitted the draft article, another editor, User:Technical 13, moved it to Draft:Modern English Version, which is the preferred place for AFC drafts. This means that it's okay for other people to edit it. Since an article isn't owned by the person who created it, inviting others to work on it by placing it in a more public area of the site, is one part of the publication process.

Looking at the article itself, Technical 13 did quit a bit of cleanup, but the article still needs some attention. For one thing, it has no WP:WIKILINKS. There are the blue links that pepper most Wikipedia articles, and help provide important context. I think people who are not very familiar with Bible scholarship, especially non-Christians, are going to find the article to be too cryptic. This is why wikilinks are so important and useful. Rather than having to explain this info, you can simply link to Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, and King James Version. That way anyone who doesn't know what those mean, or who needs clarification, has a place to find some background info. Does that make sense?

Knowing how much to wikilink is a bit subjective, but looking at other articles should give you a sense for what works. If a term is central to understanding the article, or is likely to be a source of confusion, adding a wikilink to the first mention of it is a good idea.

Info on patrolling is here: Help:Patrolled edit. Simply put it means that an experienced editor looked at the article to make sure it's not vandalism or an obvious copyright violation, or a test-edit or such. Wikipedia does get vandalized often, so these tools are helpful to keep everything tidy.

You do not need to create a new topic every time you post on my talk page, topics (sections that start == "Topic name" ==) really only need to be created for new discussions.

I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, thank you. Apparently it will not be deleted since it got patrolled. Right?

--Synoptics (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, would you kindly add the Wikilinks for these? Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, and King James Version. Or should I do that simply by putting the double brackets around them?--Synoptics (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, please advise.

It looks like my article is selected for speedy deletion. I found this on the internet:

"This article has recently been created via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon." --Synoptics (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Synoptics: Sorry I've been a bit slow to respond, but it looks like everything has worked out. The message simply indicates that that the article no longer needs review, since it's ready for publication. The article has now been published: Modern English Version.

You are correct about wikilinks. Just add two square brackets to either side of the word or phrase you want to link. Remember to use the Help:Show preview button to check and make sure the link is working as expected. Wikilinks are smart enough to figure out suffixes, so if you type 'cat' and add an 's' immediately after the brackets, it will show up as "cats", like this: cats. If you need to link to one thing while saying another, you can use a pipe: | (this character is above the enter key on my keyboard, your mileage may vary). For example: "Jane [[baking|baked]] a cake on Wednesday" links to "baking", and would look like this in an actual article: "Jane baked a cake on Wednesday".

I cannot find any indication that the article is going to be deleted. Are you sure you're not confusing it with some other article? Grayfell (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It was. I got the notice. But I went on the help screen and got a lot of help and was extremely surprised that one of them published it after 5 hours of more work.

Can you help me upload a box like the one on New International Version. I can fill in the information. Can you also upload a public domain photos of a Bible? I hope I am not wearing out the welcome mat.

I noticed you linked from Stanley M. Horton to Modern English Version. WOW. Thank you. What a surprise.--Synoptics (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Synoptics: We can add an WP:INFOBOX. Template:Infobox Bible translation is the one used on NIV. They can be a bit tricky, technically, so I will get the ball rolling, and you can fill in the details. Remember to use a preview button often, and work incrementally so you can revert if there are any mistakes or errors that are hard to track down.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out why the article was tagged for speedy deletion. I can't find it in the article's history, and it's not on your talk page. Looking at the article, it appears there might have been some problems with automatic copyright violation detection. According to Google books, the sections "Academic Background" and "Ecumenical Composition" were both modified from the this link. It's complicated, and obviously, any alphabetical listing of institutions is going to be a "copy" of any other alphabetical listing of those same institutions.

It's not really a copyright violation (I wouldn't consider it one, anyway) but it's still way, way too much detail. Think of it this way: articles on businesses don't list every single employee, no matter how highly regarded they are in their field. Likewise, it's hard to justify including the names of the people who worked on this translation. That's WP:NOT what Wikipedia is designed for, and not what it's good at. I've started a discussion of this at Talk:Modern English Version, so that other editors can chime in. Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, pictures, right. Pictures can be a hassle sometimes. To be blunt, it's the area that I see new editors get the most frustrated. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial is a good starting place. The picture used on NIV is not public domain. It's what's called "fair use". If you have a photo of the book, the 'upload a file' link on the left is where you'll need to click, but take it slow, read everything, and if you're still confused, you're not alone. Sorry, I have only limited experience with images myself. template:Non-free book cover is also worth a look. Grayfell (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for getting the ball rolling on the box. Tomorrow I'll see what I can do. I have to get some sleep now so I can get up for church.

There was no copyright issue. I wrote everything myself. The information you deleted is not even in the actual book. I have a copy of the book. I had typed it myself and documented the source and footnoted it.

The issue was using neutral sources, so I had to delete the MEV sources, which did not contain the information you deleted. I also had to write more formally and delete what appeared to be conjecture, but really was not. I know people on the translation committee. They used the KJV as the base manuscript, so it really is an update of the KJV.

I hope I can expand that box. I'll try to check it out tomorrow. You are immensely helpful. We'll chat more I hope.--Synoptics (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad I could be of help, and the article is off to a great start. Grayfell (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I AM SO SORRY. YOU ARE RIGHT. THE LIST IS IN THE PREFACE. THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT. BUT I DID NOT COPY AND PASTE FROM THE BOOK. I SEE THAT I DID WRITE THE INTRODUCTORY SENTENCES TO THE LIST DIFFERENTLY. I HAD SIMPY PUT THE LIST IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER LIKE IT DID IN THE PREFACE. HOWEVER THE LIST OF SCHOLARS WAS NOT IN THE PREFACE. BUT YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN ABOUT LISTS NOT NORMALLY USED IN WP. YOU ARE SO HELPFUL.--Synoptics (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No big deal. Like I said, I don't think it's a clear-cut copyright violation, but it might have been the reason the article was flagged for deletion. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think I can add back in the full list of scholars on the translation committee since that is NOT in the Preface of the MEV, or should I leave it out? Also, I do not know how to add replies to the discussion you created. All I know how to do is to reply to you here. thank you for tidying up the box you created for the site. Do you think it's okay to add an image of the original 1611 King James Version since that was what was updated and since the image of the MEV is probably copyrighted?--Synoptics (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I tidied up the footnotes, added a few redundant ones and learned how to make the footnote numbers stay the same for redundant footnotes, and added the citation needed. --Synoptics (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Synoptics: Cool, I'll take a look in a sec. I don't think you should add the scholars. It's too trivial. Like I said, Wikipedia articles don't include every single credit for a movie, or every single employee of a notable business, so including everyone who worked on a translation is WP:UNDUE weight. If any of these people are themselves notable (there are articles about them, for example) then maybe, but even then, I would use restraint.

You can respond to a talk page comment by editing the talk page just like you would edit any other page. You should indent your comments by starting a line with a colon (:) to make it easier to tell who's writing. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines may be useful.

I'll take a look at the cover thing in a while. Don't add the KJV image to the infobox. It's just confusing to have a different book there. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope I indented properly this time. How about a public domain image of a generic Bible that says "Holy Bible" on the cover? I could even create that image myself with Microsoft Publisher. I just previewed this page. The first line was indented, but now we're both indenting. I'll work on it. LOL--Synoptics (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Every paragraph needs an indentation.

You can use more than one indentation, if you want.

Also, you don't need to start a new subject line every time you post on a talk page.

Like I said, I'll take a look at the image thing. I have uploaded book covers once or twice before, it gets kind of tricky, but it's better to have nothing rather than a generic image or an image of a different book. I like articles with a lot of images, but they add overhead to mobile users, or users with slow Internet connections, so they should be relevant and informative. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I provided the CN you requested after 2011; the same as the previous and following ones.--Synoptics (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This link? It doesn't actually mention when the OT was translated, though. It may seem kind of nit-picky, but having the reference tag there misrepresents the source by implying it's supported when it isn't. It's a good thing to be aware of. If the date were contested, or were in some way controversial, (which doesn't seem to likely, but I've seen stuff like that happen before) it would have to be removed. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. thank you for catching that. I've come to the conclusion that the only documented date for that is on the MEV website, which is not considered neutral. Should I delete the specific dates for the NT and OT, neither are mentioned at Bible Gateway. Bible Gateway just mentions the years.And will you provide a caption for the image you found? Isn't that copyrighted by the publisher? I'll leave that up to you since you uploaded it. You have more experience at this, I have nil. Please advise.--Synoptics (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, I spoke to soon. You got it under Fair Use. That's great. but I noticed you put "Military Bible Association" where you put the link to the source. That's not the publisher. Military Bible Association owns the copyright to the translation not the artwork.--Synoptics (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, in academic papers, one footnote after the period covers the entire sentence, unless their are more than one fact in one sentence that needs to be documented by a different source. Is this not true on WP? The footnote after the period for the whole sentence with the beginning year, NT completion year and OT completion year are covered by that last footnote isn't it? I deleted the specific dates since Bible Gateway only mentions the years.--Synoptics (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate that you're conscious of not relying on the book's website. It's okay to use a WP:PRIMARY source to fill in non-controversial details. It's a bad habit to over-rely on primary sources, but in this case, I think it would be fine to use the MEV site for the date of completion.

Thanks, the image upload form specifically asked me who had the copyright for the book, so I entered Military Bible Association, but you're right, it's probably asking for the copyright to the cover. I've amended it to include Charisma House Publishing. If you are confident that you know who owns the copyright to the image, please go ahead and change it. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources should generally go at the end of sentences, (or paragraphs), but specific details can be cited on a word-by-word basis. It would also be acceptable to place both citations at the end of the sentence, which could be a little confusing, but would look much neater. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, I finally found the right FN for the NT completion year. It's a repeat of FN#2. --Synoptics (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Works for me! Grayfell (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, I take that back. It's not the MEV website that has the dates, it's the preface in the Bible that has the specific dates. Is it okay in this case to site that as the source for exact dates of beginning, NT and OT completion? I'm having to do my own research and am learning where things are.--Synoptics (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. Like I said, for filling in routine details, primary sources are fine. WP:PRIMARY is the policy page that discusses that point. It's a minor point that is significant to the history of the translation, so it's reasonable to use a primary source in this case. Grayfell (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, I added the citation for the prcise dates from the preface of the MEV. There are three citations in a row. I don't know the forumula for making the second and third ref. to the preface the same footnote number as the first at footnote number 5. 5,6, and 7 should all show as #5. Can you please help me on this? If you insert the formula, I will understand it then. Sincerely, Synoptics--Synoptics (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Here is a 'diff' showing the simplest way to consolidate redundant references. This is where Wikipedia editing becomes coding, rather than just writing, so it pays to use a preview button to avoid errors. In this case, since the entire sentence is supported by the ref, I don't think we actually need to cite each date individually, so after making that edit for demonstration purposes, I've removed the redundant refs. I confused myself explaining that, so hope I made it clear enough. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much.--Synoptics (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, is it appropriate to post a photo of the chief editor/author? I found one on a news site http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2014/s14080068.htm --Synoptics (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. Those images must be assumed to be copyrighted, and since the article only tangentially mentions Linzey, it would be hard to make a fair use claim. Wikipedia:Non-free content explains more.

Take the following with a grain of salt, as I'm a little outside of my element here:

Wikipedia tries to be a free content encyclopedia. Sometimes that's impractical, so copyrighted images are used for things like book covers, screen-shots of software, etc., but only when unavoidable. Obviously a book cover is a book cover, and a "free alternative" is usually meaningless, so a fair use argument can be made. If there were an article about Linzey, an images might be included to identify him as the subject of the article, but only if no other image could be made available for some reason. This is common for people who have died, but the only photos available are still under copyright. Since no free-use replacement could reasonably be expected in that situation, fair use arguments are often made.

Since Linzey is alive, and this is not an article about him, options are much more limited. If you can find an image with a compatible copyright license, you could upload it to Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons. You could also find whoever owns the copyright for the photo and ask them to release it. They would need to contact Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team, I think, but I'm not really sure. Regardless, it seems like a lot of work, and again, since he's only mentioned fairly briefly, I'm not sure if the article is really going to benefit all that much from it. If you think he might warrant an article of his own, it would be worth it for that.

By the way, if you are interested in biography articles (WP:BIO), you should be aware that biographies of living people, and any content about living people, are held to much higher standards. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, another user gave me guidance. He said if the chief editor has the photo posed online with the statement required by Wikipedia, then it can be used. I checked the rules by Wikipedia. The chief editor has it posted with the statement, required by Wikipedia, that it is in the public domain. http://www.militarychaplaincy.com/About-Us.html--Synoptics (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You have a good point. Maybe I'll do an article on him, not that the MEV shows he's notable.--Synoptics (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Gross error in last message: I meant, "Now that the MEV shows he's notable." LOL. --Synoptics (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Petralex Hearing Aid

Petralex Hearing Aid is a product, and therefore a7 is not applicable. I think it would need to be done by affd. (It might also be promotional--I'm checking for that aspect) DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

neutrality

Hello. You reverted my edit to hipster sexism on the grounds that it wasn't from a neutral point of view. I made that edit primarily because I felt the original introduction only gave one persepctive. Could you please point out specifically how you believe my edit wasn't neutral? I really feel like there needs to be weight given to both perspectives on this article, and I'm sure we can come up with something that we both feel is neutral. Thank you! 2602:306:3215:6300:3CDD:B144:6D1A:F917 (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think the best place to discuss it is talk:hipster sexism, so that other interested editors are more likely to see it and contribute. I will start a discussion there. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

want to add in the existing kumbh mela article

Hi Grayfell,

I want to add some information in the existing article Kumbh Mela.

Below details need to be inserted under 2015 paragraph of the article.

---

Emergency & Medical Services

Near By Hospitals: 1.Apollo Hospitals Nashik(Swami Narayan Nagar,Near Lunge Mangal Karyalay,Next to Tapovan Road,Adgaon Naka,Nashik) Contact Details: 0253-2510350/450/550/750,-Emergency :0253-2510250 Facilities:Cardiology,Neurology,Orthopaedics,Paediatrics,Nephrology,24*7 Emergency and Radiology,ENT,Opthalmology,Dental.

Other Hospitals: 2.Civil Hospitals-Trimbak Road,Opposite Golf Club Ground 3.Special Medical Centre for Kumbh Mela at Tapovan Road.

=

Emergency & Medical Services For Nashik(2015) Near By Hospitals:

1.Apollo Hospitals Nashik Address:Swami Narayan Nagar,Near Lunge Mangal Karyalay,Next to Tapovan Road,Adgaon Naka,Nashik. Contact Details: 0253-2510350/450/550/750,-Emergency :0253-2510250

Facilities:Cardiology,Neurology,Orthopaedics,Paediatrics,Nephrology,24*7 Emergency and Radiology,ENT,Opthalmology,Dental.

Other Hospitals:

2.Civil Hospitals-Trimbak Road,Opposite Golf Club Ground

3.Special Medical Centre for Kumbh Mela at Tapovan Road.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilkumarbehera007 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 January 2015

@Anilkumarbehera007: Hello. I understand your concerns, but Wikipedia is not a reliable platform for providing such info. Please review WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE. Anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. This is useful for research, but is not useful for emergencies. Because addresses and contact information is outside of Wikipedia's scope, such information cannot be kept reliable. Rather than give people possibly false information about important things such as hospitals, it is better to direct them elsewhere for such info. If you know of a reliable source giving such information, it can be linked to on that page. It may, depending, be useful to put that info on other articles, such as Nashik.

One other thing: You may find Wikipedia's sister project Wikivoyage to be of interest. For example: Wikivoyage:Nashik. If you have any more questions, I will be happy to try and answer them. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My recent updates that were deleted

Hello,

Thank you so much for the message. I now completely understand the one update that you deleted on the Consumer Affairs site, to which you left me a message on my talk page. But, I also see (through looking at the page history) for my other additions to the Ambit page where the accolades were taken down without providing me with an understanding of how it violated Wiki. I saw the comment for the works cited to the newsvideos and now understand that possibly news casts available on YouTube are not allowed. My question is this: if it is ok to input criticism of a company into it's wiki page, why not the awards and milestones that it has achieved (from independent sources who were properly cited)? I am dumbfounded as to how one side, but not the other can be properly added and cited. I do believe that it is paramount in Wiki to have a NPOV and I now realize after reading your comment on my Talk page that I could have used better verbiage. Could you please point me in the right direction on how to properly add and cite recognition that a company receives vs criticism? I have combed through several of the neutral POV topics that you have mentioned in others' comments, but I could not find an answer to my question. Thank you in advance for your help. HLong (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. This is not the first time this issue has happened. Every few months someone tries to add the JD Power awards to the article, and this has already been discussed on the article's talk page. To reiterate what I've said before: because JD Power gives out many awards, those awards are not especially noteworthy or informative, they merely serve to make the company look better. As you hopefully already know, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion (WP:NOT). The way to disprove me about the awards is to find reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources discussing these awards. For both JD Power and for the BBB rating, secondary sources almost never exist, and when they do they are usually very trivial passing mentions which fail to establish WP:DUE weight. To clarify, press releases are not considered secondary, and "news" articles that are actually press releases in disguise are a common pitfall. Likewise, JD Power is not a secondary source for info about JD Power awards. Some awards are noteworthy enough that such sources can be assumed to exist, or they are well-established enough that they are informative in their own right (think Academy Awards -everybody knows roughly what it takes to win one). JD Power is not such an institution.

The BBB rating and especially the Direct Selling News silliness likewise require some indication of their greater significance, ideally through reliable secondary sources.

Additionally, if you happen to be an affiliate (or employee) of Ambit, you should disclose that fact to avoid WP:COVERT advertising, and read about having a WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Management by perkele

Sorry you reverted my first and only ever change to wikipedia. You just made wikipedia worse. :(

Alihafshar (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If I hadn't, someone else would've. You're welcome to contribute, but maybe try to understand Wikipedia's philosophy and guidelines a little first? Adding Links to copyrighted Youtube clips is not what Wikipedia is about. Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

elton mayo

Hi Grayfell. ok. so, I've tried talking on the elton mayo topic other person has then ignored it completely. So which dispute resolution area do I put this on? which do you personally suggest?Barniecadd (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Also wondering if other person is also considered as engaing in edit warring, by undoing my work but then refusing to discuss on talk? genuine question? did you tell them to knock it off too?Barniecadd (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted a comment on the talk page as a general statement, and it was not intended as a personal attack. Nobody should edit war. However, right now you're not really in a good position to be pointing fingers, and it almost seems like you're trying to shift blame rather then acknowledging your own behavioral problems. This is why edit warring is bad: because "someone is wrong on the Internet" frustration mounts, it poisons the well, productive editing becomes impossible. My advice is to step back and demonstrate some patience. Right now, your behavior shows none. Content disputes can take a while (sometimes a very long while) to resolve, and it's not supposed to be a contest of will, or a shouting match. Other editors are busy, and have a broad range of topics they like to keep up with. That does not invalidate their viewpoint, so you need to give them time to consider the situation. Much of the changes you have repeatedly made have already been discussed on the talk page, and people's interest in reviewing this yet again is likely limited. Give it some time. Perhaps you can use that time to look at different noticeboards to better understand possible future options, if somehow you cannot find a solution on the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. appreciate your advice & c ur point. Have not pressed undo button again. I'm busy also by the way. looks like u know ur way round this place better than I. In regard to dispute resolution u mentioned, still not sure which I should go to? There are many forums it seems. My comrade on that article though does not wish to play ball it appears! They appear only to be hung up on whether Mayo was a psychologist or was not a psychologist, which frankly I'm not talking about although it clearly seems other persons on that article have hotly disputed with this person. My point is this. What possible reason has my comrade got to place this odd and subjectively referenced section titled "was Mayo a psychologist" smack bang in the middle of this article. Based on the other person, Bromley86, I think they expertly showed my comrade that Mayo actually was based on every reference under the sun! Strange to say the least. My issue is that the article's pretty shabby but can be rectified if I am just allowed to help, but don't want to go back to the fiasco the other day. I'm afraid if I make other changes and add some other research in Australia that Mayo did I will be refused. So my friend, your dispute resolution suggestions are welcomed.Barniecadd (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What you're doing now by making smaller, incremental changes and then waiting for discussions to pan-out is a more productive approach, but proposing those exact changes on the talk page first would be even better. Again, I think patience will be rewarded (or at least not punished). Be ready to pull back from the brink and step away for a while. You may not get to make all the changes you want to make, and if you're really not comfortable with that, starting a blog somewhere else might be more productive. Your talk-page comment seems like you're trying to convince me to take a side in a content dispute, and to be honest, I'm not interested in that. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Linux Mint

I did not aim to advertise anyone, I'm sorry, I just added resource devoted to this operating system. Shvondersin (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Wikipedia has fairly strict guidelines for external links. That website doesn't make it clear who's operating it; no names, no indication of editors, etc. It's also got a lot of ads and questionable trackers, which makes it look like spam. More troubling is that it doesn't make it clear that the "pro" version of Mint hosted there is not an official version. A confused user, or one who doesn't speak English well, could easily download that version without realizing it's not the official version. The "Pro" version gives no sign that it's been reviewed by any independent sources for security or reliability or anything. It also requires registration to download, which the official version of Mint does not. It's all very sketchy. Those are problems that need to be fixed before that website could be linked to by Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Masturbation

hi , I was actually reading your article on masterbation due to my medical history. I came across that u had put a source saying, age and notices u said baby boys laugh while masterbation and girls orgasm which is totally wrong and if u read facts it's all about chemicals during puberty that u actually need to achieve an orgasm so could you put something more accurate like deep pressure sensation , because this can be missed leading thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystalglen16 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 7 February 2015

I have no idea what you're talking about. That isn't "my" article, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I keep an eye on many sexuality related articles to prevent vandalism, but I don't specifically remember writing about that. I think Talk:Masturbation is a better place to discuss this. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Honest Tea

I don't see how "too advertisey" is a legitimate complaint because I added facts about the history of the company. The history of the business is the history of the business not a subjective fairytale of goodness and gumdrops. If history is perceived as advertising that's on you because I added facts jack. MickeyMinnick (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)MickeyMinnick

@MickeyMinnick: Okay. Well, Wikipedia uses a formal tone, and refers to people by their last names in most cases. Adding a WP:PRIMARY-sourced tidbit about how they were "cooked up in thermoses" or the exact number of first bottles is WP:UNDUE weight which adds to the pre-existing problems with the article. It effectivly makes the company look more significant than it is, especially since the article already lacks secondary sources. If you are involved with the company, I would advise you to reviews Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. You should also disclose that fact to avoid any problems with WP:covert advertising. Being too much like advertising is specifically against Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and manual of style: WP:NOTADVERTISING. Take a look if you don't believe me. Grayfell (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Keane Changes

Read the WP:OR page again. If you still disagree with my post, then keep reading it until you do. If there is a "published" source which shows, very clearly, large style eyes that are the same as Margaret's art before she was even born, then that is not OR. That is just logic.

If I had wrote a sentence that read "dinosaurs existed before computers," that would not be WP:OR either. That would be logic. This is the same exact situation. You seem to have some misconception that WP:OR means you can only plagiarize published sources. That is not the case. In this case, this art style existed before Margaret was even born. That's fact.

I used a valid, published, and even an educational source this time. I also added another specification in the text, since you were so keen on making me research this down to the exact detail.

For the record, based on that research, Margarete Keane was a terrible artist who stole her style from Japanese artists who were drawing large eyes decades before she was even born.

Whether you choose to admit it or not. If you disagree, you just do not understand fine art such as anime.

Please stop undoing my texts now. I do not check wikipedia every day and cannot keep undoing your changes.

Please remember that Margarete Keane page is NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR YOUR HOLLYWOOD MOVIES OR YOUR ART PREFERENCES! Published facts prevail. In this case, I provided the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bliljerk101 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bliljerk101: My Hollywood movies? Wut? If you think that being a terrible artist is an objective opinion that you can put in a Wikipedia article about a living person, you're very confused about how Wikipedia works. You have tried to suggest that an artist is unoriginal without a single source saying that. Did she steal from Anime? I don't know/care, but without a source saying exactly that, you can't put that in an article, it's as simple as that. Read WP:BLP, and WP:SYNTH, and if you still don't understand it, go to a noticeboard or ask a question, but don't just edit war. You don't get to walk away from a contentious edit just because it's inconvenient for you to discuss it. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Grayfell:

This article only became popular once the movie was announced. I definitely believe it has influenced its contents, most-likely in an illegal way. You could easily have been hired by them.

As for your last edit, removing the statement I wrote about her stealing the art: I'm in agreement based on WP:BLP.

The Anime-like statement should remain, as I believe I have w/o a doubt proved it's within Wikipedia's guildelines, and frankly, it is highly relevant to people. See this article to further prove my original point about the confusion with Margaret Keane and anime eyes amongst anime fans Anime forum posts - And not coincidentally, I have found articles by journalists (big surprise) stating that Margarete Keane influenced anime, which is literally impossible given the style originated before she was even birthed. This is why the wikipedia article should clarify that information accurately, as I have done.

To that note, this sentence needs to be added (very IMPORTANT) (!!!!): "Larry Karaszewski, screenwriter of Big Eyes, was quoted in the Observer stating that Margarete Keane has affected Anime([3]). However, this is not possible as big eyes in Anime dates back to 1917, which was decades before Margarete Keane was ever even conceived. Larry Karaszewski's ignorance in his quotes are duly noted and misguided as he suggests Margarete Keane's affect on Pop Culture be reevaluated based on this inaccurate pretense whilst he is the screenwriter for Big Eyes."

@Grayfell: Can you please take this last edit of User:Binksternet up with an admin? He says I will be blocked if I undo the latest edit, but you have seen that the Anime-like statement was correct. I am 99.99% positive he is a freelancer for the movie companies (see his contribution list). Furthermore, he immediately got pissed and reverted my changes in a way that positively influences the screenwriter of the movie.

Grayfell, I showed you the facts already. Allowing these people to forge history is no better than what the Nazi's did in Germany. This seems like a simple problem, it's a big problem, because it goes on too often. We need to stand up to this and contact an admin for dispute reslution. In the meantime, my Anime-like should be returned to the page.

@Bliljerk101: Godwin's law already? Are you being serious? Nobody is threatening genocide, so let's cool it with the Nazi metaphors, okay? Accusations of WP:COI editing should not be made lightly. Do you have a shred of evidence to support that, or is it just because you don't agree with us? Unless you have evidence, comment on edits, not editors. That is a Wikipedia policy, not a suggestion. Wikipedia has a hard-and-fast rule that you cannot revert more than three times.WP:3R No admin is going to ignore this.

If you can find a reliable source specifically discussing this point of confusion, then we may have something, but otherwise this is a dead-end. I agree that the Karaszewski quote shows complete ignorance of anime, but it's undue weight. If the quote were mentioned in the article, which it isn't and shouldn't be, then some sort of qualification would be in order, or at least a link to History of anime or something, but it's not, so why bring it up? This is what I mean by WP:SYNTH: You're trying to prove a point which isn't actually supported by a source. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs.

As for the forum post: An anonymous person mentions that they heard that Keane's work was listed as an origin for anime style eyes. Forums are not reliable sources, specifically because they are full of junk like that. Please find a reliable source that actually talks about this. Further discussion should be held at Talk:Margaret Keane, since another editor is now involved. If you're absolutely confident that this should involve an admin, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the place to find one. I think you should hold-off and read WP:BOOMERANG first, though. Grayfell (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

About the article Phillips Academy

Hi Grayfell, thank you for your edits to Phillips Academy.

However, it seems to me that you are overzealous at enforcing your personal understanding of WP:OR and the necessary qualifications of a reliable source. If Boardingschoolreview is indeed not a reliable source, as you suggested here, then you should remove all of the hundreds of instances where Wikipedia cites it, listed here.

I am also troubled by your understanding of WP:DUE. According to the policy page itself, the due/undue weight is about viewpoints of different people, not about descriptions of places. For example, in this edit, your removal of lines such as "four large dining rooms along with three smaller rooms" describing the dining hall does not relate to WP:DUE at all.

I don't understand what the problem with WP having detailed (and at the same time sourced and neutral) descriptions of a school's facilities is. Your edit summaries, such as "Wikipedia is not a place to publish recruitment brochures. Find secondary source for this to establish WP:DUE weight," do not assume good faith, and I don't know who you are referring to. The content has been there for many years, and it certainly is not part of any available Phillips Academy recruitment brochures that I can find.

Many information that you deleted cite at least one source. Admittedly, it is often a primary source, but factual descriptions like the number of rooms and the facilities present are almost never lied about on any legitimate school's official website. Moreover, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia with no sources at all. I am sure that articles such as file size, Timeline of the Mongol Empire, and the others listed here should not be blanked and deleted from Wikipedia simply because they do not cite a source.

I hope that you will reply here with more explanations for your edits. Thank you, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 02:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Tony Tan 98:. I understand I may seem overzealous. I don't really see it that way, but that's hardly surprising, it it?

The information removed was not entirely neutral, which was only part of the problem. It contained a great deal of very specific info that falls outside of WP:NOT. I have no reason to believe the school (or it's more enthusiastic alumni) would lie about these details. Actually, they presumably have a motivation to spread such info. The problem is not the info's verifiability, it's the value it gives to the article. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, and not all accurate information belongs in an encyclopedia article. If the layout of the school's dinning hall is of encyclopedic significance to understanding the school, then it should be possible to support that with secondary sources. Otherwise, it's promoting the school by giving undue weight to minor details. Are some students' loyalties to specific dining rooms really important to understanding the school, or is it something the people involved with the school connect with and would like to share for personal reasons? The only way to know is with secondary sources.

Here's a more extreme example of what I'm talking about: a couple years ago I trying to clean up another school article (which was later deleted). This article included meticulously sourced paragraphs about how the teachers would go to training conferences in the area, and that the school would occasionally close during bad weather conditions, and details of the real estate agreements with the city, and hundreds of kilobytes of similar details which applied to the lion's share of schools on Earth. By painting such a lengthy and vivid picture, it was implying that these details were significant to understanding the school, and that the school was special for doing these things, when they were absolutely not, and they were entirely routine. My point is that there is a limit to how much this primary-sourced info is informative. Beyond that it's flattering the school simply by being mentioned. It also makes the article harder to parse for meaningful info. From an outside perspective, mentioning the number of dining rooms seems like it's past that limit to me. I'm not really seeing how it's substantially different from mentioning that the school has closed during some blizzards, and that the teachers are all trained and certified by the state. The school and its alumni should host these details on their own sites.

As for specifics, boardingschoolreview.com is (as I understand it) not a reliable secondary source. It merely rehosts information provided by the schools. The fact that is is used (and abused) by other articles is, bluntly, beside the point. The fact that the article has been stable for several years is also irrelevant. Similarly, If you would like to contest any info in file size or whatever, you are free to do so, and that can be discussed on the appropriate talk page. Those templates exist to invite people to add more sources, not to defend the inclusion of unsourced info.

I removed a lot from the article because it was either unsourced, poorly sourced, or undue weight as per my understanding of the guideline. Hopefully that explains where I'm coming from. I apologize for being rude in my edit summaries, and I appreciate your willingness to discuss this in a civil manner. I recognize that you are being a lot more civil than I was. Thank you for that. Grayfell (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Thank you very much for your very timely and detailed response. I think I understand your edits now. You are right; not everything has encyclopedic significance and some details without adequate secondary sources need to be removed. Happy editing, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Contested PROD now at AfD

Ahmad road allahabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which you PRODed, was contested by 117.199.154.142 (talk · contribs), so I nominated if for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad road allahabad. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for letting me know. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Beintehaa

Hi Grayfell, thankyou for contributing to editing Beintehaa Wikipedia. But if you can't complete the story and are leaving it halfway hanging and that too with almost only sidelined twists, then why do you even try. I doubt you have seen the show also because you have zero content knowledge on it. If someone who hasn't seen the show will read the plot you have written they will get a different impression on Beintehaa. So don't ok. No hard feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaya eternal love (talk • contribs) 13:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to change the current plot summary, you have to do it in a way that is both concise and neutral. Your plot summary was way, way too long for a Wikipedia article, and was full of non-neutral language. No hard feelings at all, but several editors have been trying to tell you something, maybe you should slow down and listen. Take a look at some of the info on your talk page before trying to edit again, please. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision I made on Multilevel Marketing page that you undid on 3/1/15

I was still in the process of making revisions to this section. I was working on one more minor edit, then the next step was providing validation and sources – which were too extensive to add to a short Edit summary! Can you please try to contain your zeal to negate any edit I make to this page for at least a few minutes? Mwave (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mwave: Mentioning that you are planning on including sources in the edit summary would be a good way to avoid that problem in the future. Otherwise, how would anyone know? Most edits such as yours do not get sourced after the fact. You might also consider using a WP:Sandbox or alternately using the Help:Show preview to build your changes incrementally. Wikipedia relies on WP:V, so it's important to include reliable, secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I do sincerely appreciate your suggestions, and will consider them moving forward. But can you please acknowledge mine as well? That is, when you see someone has just made four consecutive edits to the same section, each one minutes apart, it might be premature to begin undoing them for lack of sourcing literally within one minute of the fourth one.

I'm reluctant to work on these edits further at this point until I know if you are finished undoing them. I also noticed you have so far only undone the one that's the least practical to "source". I know "representative" is a far more common synonym for "distributor" than is "dealer" and "franchisee/franchise owner" the same way I know "four bagger" and "long ball" are far more common synonyms for "home run" than "dinger" or "moon shot". I've heard and read how people alternatively refer to "distributor" literally thousands of times a year, for the last 25 years. How would you suggest I "source" this? And for that matter, why was/is there no requirement that the prevalence of any other alternative term be sourced? Mwave (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mwave: It can take some practice to know how to strike a balance between making too many very minor edits, and making massive, difficult to parse large edits. What it comes down to is this: You should include reliable sources in your edits. If you are making changes based on experience, and then looking for sources after the fact, you're probably going to have this problem again. If editors disagree about details, the way to settle that disagreement is with citations. Articles should reflect the consensus found in reliable sources. If you are making changes which are not supported by reliable sources, I and other editors have the right to revert them if we feel they are not appropriate.

Because of past experiences editing in general, business articles specifically, and MLM especially, I know that it's very common for people to want to edit based on personal experience or overheard scuttlebutt. That's not the way to make a good article, and it wastes the time of everyone involved. I would like to add a source for every point in the article but that's not always practical. However, if you are editing without adding sources, your are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and I want to stop that before it gets out of hand. If we can't find any reliable sources that discuss the terminology used, then the whole section should be tagged, rewritten, or removed completely.

One more thing. I notice that your edit summary mentioned a term was more common 'today'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and takes a long view, so articles should not only reflect recent usage. I hope that clears things up. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Portland Oregon (March 7, 2015)

You are invited!

• Saturday, March 7: Art+Feminism – noon to 5pm

  Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library (Mark Building, 2nd Floor; 1219 SW Park Avenue). Art+Feminism is a campaign to improve coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia. No Wikipedia editing experience necessary; as needed throughout the event, tutoring will be provided for Wikipedia newcomers. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Scientology's Sea Org

I noticed and agree with your revert on David Miscavige. While organized with pseudo ranks, they're hardly a military organization. You might be interested to know that some time ago someone added the War portal to the Sea Org article which doesn't fit either. I'd fix that, but I can't touch the article. AndroidCat (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me, so I removed it. Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolution

I have opened a dispute resolution here Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, Myrvin (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to give it a shot. Grayfell (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

John Upton Jr

Hi Greyfell…not sure what to say to you about your comments in re my edit of the posts about my brother John Upton Jr. If his brother is not a reliable source of his childhood and accomplishments…who is ? Also someone quoted me incorrectly…if I'm not the best source of what I have said…who is ? In addition, his muderer has been tried , convicted and sentenced. I'm concerned your comments…they are specious and your intentTallflyinrascal (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have moved this comment to the bottom of the page, per talk page guidelines.

Wikipedia is a place to present information from reliable source. This doesn't mean reliable people this mostly means information that has been published or in some way made available outside of Wikipedia, and has been fact-checked or reviewed by an editor. Please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before going any further. Articles must use outside sources. You are, of course, and expert on your brother and your own experiences, but Wikipedia has no way of verifying any of that. This is why I emphasize that Wikipedia is about verifiability (WP:V). Additionally, much of what you wrote was to honor your brother's memory. That is a noble goal, but this is simply not a good place for that. Wikipedia articles should present information from a neutral point of view. I know this sounds harsh, but if you try to work with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the article can be improved, otherwise the added content will be removed. If not by me, then by someone else. Again, if you have any additional questions, let me know. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Alan Roger Currie article

Why have you included the "reads like an advertisement" tag on the Alan Roger Currie article? At least two previous editors told me that my article was fine as is. What is the motivation behind your tag additions? Chicago Smooth (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Instead of worrying about my motivations, worry about the content of the article. The article reads like an advertisement. It contains large amounts of extremely trivial info which is clearly written to promote, rather than providing a clear, encyclopedic overview of Currie. The sources are very poor, and rely on primary biographies released by Currie himself, WP:COPYVIO video clips of obscure TV appearances, and WP:ELPEREN IMDB profiles. Regardless of what other editors have told you, no article is protected from future editing. Your editing history is simply too focused on this one person and his works for me to accept your past claims that you do not have a conflict of interest, so please use the article's talk page to make your case, instead of editing the article directly. That is the place to continue this discussion, not here. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You are a more experienced editor than me, so I will acknowledge that many of your edits are probably appropriate. My desire would be for you to edit the article in such a manner that you could validly remove the "this reads like an advertisement" tag (or some other editor can remove it). It is not my wish to have this article read like a promotional advertisement. Thank you. Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I am attempting to do just that. As I said on the article's talk page, the best way to work towards that goal is to present reliable, secondary sources. Press releases are very limited in their usefulness, and often if a thing can only be sources to a press release, it's not worth mentioning at all. News articles, or books published with editorial oversight, are preferable. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have a dispute with one of your recent edits; There is a difference between "internet radio" and a simple "podcast." The BlogTalkRadio Internet Radio Network actually combines BOTH. A podcast episode is one in which audio that is pre-recorded and possibly edited is uploaded to a website or server for listeners to listen to at a later date; An Internet radio episode is one that is streamed live similar to Broadcast Radio and satellite radio. Again, BlogTalkRadio has the capability for BOTH formats. Currie's show, Upfront & Straightforward is a program that streams live and then later transitions into an archived podcast; Currie's other show, The Erotic Conversationalist is a pre-recorded podcast program. I wanted to make note of this. Thank you. Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Never mind! I see you "undid" that edit. Thank you very much. Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hitachi

Hi Grayfell.

I disagree with your removal of an external link in the Hitachi Magic Wand page. You said the link "seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia" which I do not agree with or understand. The Hitachi Magic Wand page talks about the iconic Wand Massager and its multiple uses including its use as a sex toy. The page also goes on to talk about Wand Attachments, and describes them in detail, with their purposes and uses, thus the reason why I saw fit to have an external page for said attachments, so anyone who wants to know or see what the article is describing, can have a more visual idea. As far as the "inappropriate for an encyclopedia", I highly doubt the external link is more "inappropriate" than the articles on Dildo, Double penetration dildo, Artificial vagina, and Sex machine, to just name a few. :)

Thank you for keeping Wikipedia clean!

174.89.81.162 (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Courtney

Please review WP:EL. The link was for a shopping website, and was indistinguishable from spam. If you would like to add pictures, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Images, but since that site is using commercial availability as its only criteria for inclusion, it is not acceptable. The mentioned articles have all been deemed encyclopedicly significant. If you think otherwise, discuss the issue there. Adding a shopping link isn't going to address whatever problem you might have with those links. Grayfell (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I dont have problem with the articles, it just sounded like you had a problem. Anyway no worries, I totally get what you are saying now :)

174.89.81.162 (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Courtney

Cool, glad we could work that out. Grayfell (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Mark Flood Animations

Do you think that G4: Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion would apply in the case of the above deletion discussion? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Good question. I wouldn't object to that at all, but my understanding is that G4 requires articles to be much closer to each other than this. Is that correct? The article has been rewritten and greatly streamlined. A lot of the personal trivia has been removed. I don't remember the info about the company being a 'statutory firm', or the World Wide Web series, in the previous versions, but it was a while ago. Other than that I don't see anything in this version that wasn't in the old ones. Grayfell (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the answers, but just thought I would bring it up. Not committed one way or the other. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I considered it when I noticed it, but since it's changed somewhat, I went with AFD since there's no rush. Looking at it again, the Evening Times interview is also new, and that looks like the only source even close to substantial. The article's certainly improved from when it was first created, but there's still not enough there. Grayfell (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10