User talk:Grayfell

Hello! Please leave new messages at the bottom of the article. Don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Thanks. Grayfell (talk)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Grayfell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Slab City links

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)

• Hmm... looks like his documentaries have received enough coverage to where I'd say that he could pass notability guidelines. If you want you can still take it to AfD, but I think that he'd pass this time around. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

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

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: [1], 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)

Hi, your edits

I am trying to understand your comment "Way too promotional in tone" for Baba Hari Dass; I'm person who recently did updates and included new info. As far as your comment goes, I compare Baba Hari Dass to Vivekananda's article. That article is more acclamatory than my in tone. The difference is that Vivekananda is no longer alive and so after some leader’s death his statue tends to be viewed even more positively than before, gets promoted by default. So, to make it short, if you can give an example of more balanced approach than "way too promotional in tone", I’ll consider changes. Thanks.Pradeepwb (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Pradeepwb. Thank you for editing. I'll try my best to explain it.

It's not always useful to compare two different articles on Wikipedia, for a variety of reasons (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay that explains some of them).

That said, Vivekananda's article has hundreds of sources --most of which are WP:SECONDARY, meaning they were not written by him or his immediate associates. Most of the info you have added is primary, meaning it is from Baba Hari Dass's own writing. This makes it very hard to tell what is WP:DUE weight, and what it not.

In addition, you made a number of statements about Baba Hari Dass that talked about his beliefs and practices in a way that is not from a neutral point of view. For example, you described mauna as being helpful for developing concentration. Yes, it may be helpful, but not everybody agrees on that. Wikipedia article's are not just for people who agree with the content, they are for everybody. Since not everybody believes that mauna (for example) is helpful, Wikipedia should not say so. Instead, we explain say who describes it as being helpful, and we should give a reliable source while we're at it.

One more thing, you have used some WP:PEACOCK words. Saying things like "mastered" "acumen" "rich in ancient lore" "enthralled" etc. These are words that imply something very positive about him, but don't really explain in enough detail.

In summary:

1. WP:SECONDARY Please try to use more sources from people who are not closely associated with Baba Hari Dass
2. WP:NPOV Write for everybody, not just people who share your beliefs
3. WP:PEACOCK Try to use neutral, formal words that clearly explain what you mean

I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

regarding WP:SECONDARY

I'll pay more attention to secondary sources; those could be citations from books, articles, etc; more specifically is it ok to shorten URL for JSTOR citations, or Google Books? Those URLs are cumbersome and long, so might be good idea to use short URL format; but if Google's URL short/URL is blacklisted that wouldn't work. Pradeepwb (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Your Comments On my Page

More update - "They may roughly 2.5% commission on sales they make personally, but are encouraged to recruit more sellers in subsequent "Generations." - This 2.5% is not accurate at all either. It is not stated in the compensation plan anywhere. It needs to be taken out.

The income disclosure statement should be included in a pay-structure page to clarify what all this is. Its not promotion, its clarity about what it actually is!

--

I know you are trying to uphold the standard of wikipedia, but I am deeply troubled by the current article and the reverting of the revisions I made. As it stands the article is completely inaccurate, outdated, and clearly written by people who are against the company. The wikipedia page as it stands now was obviously written by people critical of Young Living and who actually have very little actual experience with the company.

I understand some of your comments, but the page as it stands is confusing people instead of clarifying it.

I made some of these edits with factually incorrect information and you reverted them. For example, there are 2 errors in the following statement:

"The products are sold by independent distributors, who purchase them from the Young Living Farms in Utah and Idaho." - This is NOT true. Independent distributors Do Not, as a general rule, sell products. They help people set up accounts and those people buy the products they want. They CAN sell products, but most of them don't. So this incorrect to have.

The other error is that all the products do not come from farms in Utah or Idaho. This is horrendously outdated. They now have 9 farms that they own and operate themselves, and partner with dozens of other farms. Why did you not leave this information in my edit?

Every single thing in the following passages have a problem with it:

"Various medical claims are made throughout Young Living's marketing materials, extolling the virtues of their product line for the alleviation of a variety of medical symptoms.[citation needed]"

They are a wellness company, I don't see why this statement should be here. There are medically backed scientific evidence for every single one of their claims. This statement makes it seem to come out of thin air.

"Users of Young Living's products claim they can be used to treat several health conditions.[3] Some customers have used the products as an unproven treatment for the symptoms of Parkinsons Disease.[4]"

I cited an article that showed evidence for the prevention and reversing of parkinson's disease, and you reversed it. Showing that the above statement was factually incorrect.

"Other sources have been more critical of Young Living's efficacy in medical treatment. A 2001 study published in the Journal of Essential Oil Research, which included the company's founder as an author, failed to find any antimicrobial effect for the majority of 73 tested essential oils.[5] A student at Harvard University noted Young Living for their unsubstantiated claims about the toxicity of sodium lauryl sulfate in a 2000 student paper.[6]"

I am floored that you kept this statement of an incredibly OLD study IN the article, while after I cited many articles to the contrary, you left them out.

I then cited a review article that cited over 100s of articles on the therapeutic potential of essential oils... This article refutes every ridiculous claim on the wikipedia page and has a high value for wikipedia sources being areview article... but you took it out.

The article is: - It is one of the best out there, and it absolutely deserves to be on that page. http://erbeofficinali.org/dati/nacci/studi/gli%20olii%20essenziali%20.pdf

Futhermore, The company has actively participated in conservation efforts, received awards worldwide, and has achieved public endorsement from celebrities and spiritual figures. These same article headlines are on other wikipedia articles - why is all the sudden not allowed on this one?

Why is it that negative and skeptical information is considered "encyclopedic" but these positive phenomena and evidence based defenses of what they are saying is considered "promotion?" That is ridiculous! It is about balance and correct portraying of a company.

I also don't understand why you took out the mission statement. That is also on many other wikipedia entries for companies.

Right now the article is an incredibly lopsided, out of date, and a thoroughly INACCURATE portrayal of the company. It needs massive revision.

I know you were attempting to hold integrity in your revisions, and I would like to hold that high standard, however, right now the article is a mess and doesn't at all portray the company as it actually is today. In my eyes, this is exactly the opposite of what wikipedia is supposed to be about. So please inform me as to how I can help update this, balance the information so it includes true positive things, and clean it up in a good way.

Tpmeli (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Thomas

I didn't remove the mission statement. Perhaps you should take a closer look at the edits I made. If you would like to incrementally change the article, that's a good idea, but your edits mixed too much promotional 'puff' in with the good. To put it bluntly, the overall problems with your edit were severe enough that I felt I needed to revert, rather than try and disentangle the good from the bad.

We agree that there is a lot of improvement that needs to be done to the article. The way to do that is by taking it slow and with a firm understanding how Wikipedia works. I reverted many of your edits because I did not believe they were neutral or consistently sourced. These are core principles Wikipedia.

As for awards, many, many companies donate to charity and receive awards, because of this, we need reliable, secondary sources about those activities to establish WP:DUE weight. As an example, I've seen awards listed on pages that turned out to be self-given. The way we keep that kind of silliness off of a page is by making sure the sources are reliable, and the awards are noteworthy. It's not a matter of if the company has actually received those awards, it's a matter of weight and perspective. I remind you again, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.

The claims you were making about Young Living were way, way too broad. If such revolutionary discoveries have been made about essential oils, they should be mentioned on the article about essential oils first, and they need very, very good sources, which you have not provided. If you do not understand why those sources don't meet WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, I would be happy to break it down for you, but please read-over those pages first.

As for the statement about who actually sells the products, that ties in with the fairly messy definition of multi-level marketing. To someone who is an impartial observer, how, exactly, is "helping someone set up an account" different from acting as a salesperson? The lead is not a good place to go over inventory management or who runs the credit cards. If you would like to rephrase it, by all means do so, but please keep it neutral and concise. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell. Thanks for your time, This clarifies things a bit for me and I can understand what you wrote. In light of keeping things slow, I'd like to address one thing at a time:

The main thing I feel uneasy around is saying that the science is somehow controversial or the review article I cited didn't meet the standards. Did you look at this? http://erbeofficinali.org/dati/nacci/studi/gli%20olii%20essenziali%20.pdf

The article above, which is a wide ranging review citing over 100+ articles itself should show that it is not in any way controversial in the scientific community that terpenoids in essential oils have wide ranging and consistent therapeutic effects. Whether people know about this or not is a distinct matter. Monoterpenoids in essential oils have been researched for their anti-carcinogenic properties since the 1970's.

The article above meets all the standards I can see in the WP:RS and WP:MEDRS pages and I remain confused about why it wouldn't be accepted on this page.

I don't understand why it is ok to put that they are making unsubstantiated claims (which actualy have rigorous evidence based support) is allowed, but this article seems off? How is that neutral?

To be seen and understood. I have people coming to me everyday asking about this wikipedia article and it is a complete waste of time for me to spend hours each week dispelling misunderstandings that issue from it. While I would like to take things slow, the article is simply completely misleading and inaccurate and it is sending the wrong message to people consistently enough to warrant either taking it down or cleaning it up more swiftly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpmeli (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well, first of all, if people are coming to you about this article, it's presumably because you're involved in Young Living. If that's the case, please read about having a conflict of interest. This is a serious concern. Past experience and Wikipedia's emphasis on neutrality both lead to a fairly poor view of editors who are involved in commercial activities editing articles about those activities. Have patience, otherwise you may very well be banned from editing. Hopefully it won't come to that, but that's up to you.

Regarding the review article, as I said, the radical claims you added to the article need to be backed up by solid, secondary sources. The review article merely outlines past research, and suggests that more research should be done. At no point does it actually claim that essential oils are proven, valid treatments for Parkinson's Disease! Yes, they may have certain useful properties, but essential oils are not a widely accepted treatment, and their effectiveness is still very much up for debate. This is why directly citing a study is problematic. It's just too easy to find a study, or even a metastudy, that supports a specific POV. If you notice at the top of Essential oil#Pharmacology, there is a banner because this is an ongoing problem. We need more secondary sources to augment the primary sources.

Just as significantly, the review article makes absolutely no mention of Young Living. If this is so significant, why is this not clearly spelled out at essential oil instead of Young Living? This isn't an article about the therapeutic possibilities of essential oils, this is an article about a company that is primarily known for making and selling essential oils. Do you see what I'm getting at? Inserting a bunch of info about essential oils in general (even if it were properly sourced) is promoting the subject without actually providing info about the subject. This is why we use wikilinks, so we don't have to explain how to make a hamburger in every article about a fast-food restaurant. If you cannot find a reliable, secondary source specifically about Young Living, then the content probably should not be in the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am a distributor for Young Living. I have two points to make about this.

First - I do not see this inherently as a problem, but rather as a resource to clarify the absurd misunderstandings that come from people who are not involved in network marketing, young living, or involved in essential oil research regularly and have very little idea of what they are actually talking about.

Both the MLM wikipedia page, the essential oil page, and the Young Living page were littered with misunderstandings that I can only assume came from people that had no experience in those fields and were looking on with an overly inflated skeptical eye.

Commission structures are not easy to understand, and someone simply reading the commission plan without being involved in the business is likely to have no idea what they are looking at, or how to explain it, or what it actually is.

So when I read (and henceforth corrected) in the "multi-level" marketing section that the "maximum" commission that was given was 8%, this was absolutely incorrect and could only have been written by someone who had no idea what they were looking at. I have edited those sections to reflect how the commission structure actually works. This is NOT promotion, it is simply stating facts about how it actually works.

I do not claim complete neutrality. I love the product, the company, and network marketing. if I need to work on my language being more neutral, I am happy to work on that... but it is important to have people on the inside clarify misunderstandings that are promoted by people who are not involved in these fields writing about the,

Secondly, it is clear to me that the current wikipedia was written by people who clearly are biased against the company. The field of essential oils is very competitive, and Young Living is extremely popular and successful. It would be easy for a competitor to put these things in, and that is exactly what I believe has happened.

So if we are going to talk about conflict of interest against correct information, we have to include this negative smearing that is in every single word in the current article.

I personally don't believe in neutrality. We are all biased. However, what we can do is notice this, own it, and move towards objectivity and clarity. To that I am committed, more than my enjoyment and participation in Young Living. I simply want the correct information on this page and I want a balanced account of who and what Young Living, a better appreciation of the thousands of scientifically studies research papers on the therapeutic efficacy of essential oils, and what network marketing really is (no it isn't a pyramid scheme... but I'll clarify that article later). Thanks for taking the time again to journey with me in clarifying all this.

You wrote: "The review article merely outlines past research, and suggests that more research should be done."

Wikipedia recommends using secondary review articles - Every single review article you will ever read will always review past research and suggest more should be done in areas where further development is exciting. I don't see why your bringing this up is relevant since it is exactly what wikipedia recommends doing.

Re: Parkinson's - I am not claiming it is a treatment for it! I am saying that it isn't true that there is "no substantiation" for the use of essential oils in providing therapeutic action on Parkinson's patients... I was responding to how people tend to interpret this extreme language that "X is unsubstantiated" that it is worthless and not scientifically backed, when this is not the case.

This is really exaggerated legalese and not factually true or scientifically accurate. There are TONS of substantiation and evidence for these these effects, and shouldn't we be able to put "evidence" on a wikipedia page without referring to "proof" - Proof of this stuff won't come for decades. But the evidence is

What I am saying isn't that we can treat anything, that is a medical claim that requires years of clinical trials, etc. What I am saying, and what is uncontroversial is that there is strong evidence-based-research that shows that essential oils have irrefutable, clear, and uncontroversial therapeutic properties which we can take advantage of.

The article even says this in the antioxidant section:

"oils of basil, cinnamon, clove, nutmeg, oregano and thyme have proven radical-scavenging and antioxidant have proven radical-scavenging and antioxidant properties in the DPHH radical assay at room temperature" and then later in that page: "It is clear that essential oils may be considered as potential natural antioxidants."

I am aware the effects in vivo are different than a free radical assay but the in vivo activity of an antioxidant is often correlated with its in vitro activity and so we should intellectually take what we currently know seriously and honor instead of spinning it off as nothing because we haven't completely incontrovertibly proven its efficacy in expensive double blind clinical trials.

The review article suggests that further research is indeed due within several areas, but these mostly involve finding mechanisms, not determining efficacy. We know that essential oils are in general antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal because they all tend to include similar effective constituents (monoterpenoids) that have a broad range similarity of action. That is absolutely not debated in the clinical aromatherapy world.

What is still needed to research are which oils are most effective at what bacteria, viruses, and fungi. So we need to be clear about what is pretty substantiated, and what isn't.

This is true. I myself would like to see more peer reviewed studies of Young Living oils in particular. I agree with your argument that this should be in the essential oil section unless the study is a study involving Young Living.

I am happy to edit ALL of the articles that are massively in need of revision (MLM, essential oils, and this one)! I only have so many hours in the day and its going to take a while!

I appreciate this journey with you and holding my inspiration to clarify in check. I think together, we can clean this up. You can help me notice my bias coming through and simplify what I write to get to the important points, and my insider expertise can help clarify the misunderstandings that are obviously coming from people who don't know the company or the model well enough to write about it.

I understand that it might make it slightly easier to reply, but please do not reformat my comments in the future. Talk pages should be preserved in chronological order to make them readable by uninvolved editors.

It doesn't matter if you, personally, see your COI as an inherent problem, every experienced editor sees it as a red flag. This issue has been debated to death here, and if you stick around and edit outside of this one subject, you'll understand why. Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia is a good article on why this has been a serious problem in the past, but there are many, many dozens and dozens of pages where this issue has been debated. Suffice it to say, WP:NEUTRALity is what we strive for. It's a policy, and an important one, so if you really feel that you cannot be neutral, you're going to have a very hard time here.

This is an important point: Wikipedia does not require personal familiarity with a subject to edit an article about that subject. In fact, it can sometimes be a stumbling block. That is why we rely on WP:SECONDARY sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a blog-hosting platform, if you want a place to discuss your own personal experiences, and to share your personal expertise, there there are better places to do it. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and rejects original research, likewise, your experiences as a distributor for Young Living does not, in any way, over-ride the need for you to be neutral and rely on solid sources. If reliable sources are negative, so be it, the articles should reflect that. If that's going to be a problem, it's your problem, not Wikipedia's.

There is no meaningful difference between saying that something is a treatment, and suggesting that it has therapeutic effect. If you don't understand this, you should avoid editing articles about medicine at all. We're not a clinical journal, we are a general audience encyclopedia. Wikipedia cannot provide medical advice. WP:MEDICAL. Leave recommendations to professionals. If something has antioxidant properties, we say that and nothing else. We do not, ever synthesis that to imply that a substance has medical applications beyond what sources explicitly state.

That's all beyond the problems that arise from the advice itself. The science is not settled on the benefits of ingesting antioxidants, and in fact, it may be counterproductive.[2] I'm not saying this should be in the article either way, but it highlights why making any sort of health claim needs very clear, direct, secondary sources. Saying "a study says x, which is also shown to affect y, therefore it prevents z" is not just bad for the article, it's abysmally bad science.

Clinical aromatherapy is a small niche that is not yet accepted practice. Aromatherapy makes this clear. These studies are far from resounding endorsements, and should not be treated as such. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

We've given alot time to this today. I thank you for that. Let's look at one thing before I go to bed.

You keep undoing my edit about the study. I am really astounded that you don't see how ridiculous the original statement is. So let's look at it in detail.

Original: "Other sources have been more critical of Young Living's efficacy in medical treatment. A 2001 study published in the Journal of Essential Oil Research, which included the company's founder as an author, failed to find any antimicrobial effect for the majority of 73 tested essential oils"

Astounding Problem 1. "Other Sources" - This is not an other source! It is a study published BY GARY YOUNG - the founder of young living HIMSELF et al. Why would this article be portrayed as an outside critical source! Are you kidding me!

Ridiculous Problem 2: "Critical" - Why would an article written by the founder of a company be critical of itself. More nonsense.

Misleading Problem 3: "Failed to find any antimicrobial effect..." - This is incredibly misleading. It portrays the study as signifying that the majority of essential oils don't have antimicrobial effects in general, when in fact the point of the study was to find out WHICH ones have antimicrobial effect against A SPECIFIC strain of bacteria. If you were looking for gold and found it you wouldn't say you "failed to find gold" everywhere else. You'd say what you found and where you found it.

Misleading Problem 4: No actual numbers are written. Just a misleading interpretation.

Misleading Problem 5: The study is not about the antimicrobial potential of essential oils in general. It is about which ones kill a specific bacteria: streptococcus pneumoniae. This is not indicated in any way by the original description.

Misleading Problem 6: the conclusion of the study actually conflicts with the emphasis of the wikipedia comment. The abstract ends: " Essential oils that induce lysis in S. pneumoniae may have potential as an alternative treatment for infections caused by drug resistant pneumococci."

This is the exact OPPOSITE of what the comment seems to portray.

Here is my edit "A 2001 study published in the Journal of Essential Oil Research, which included the company's founder as an author, found potent antimicrobial effect for 3 essential oils, and moderate antimicrobial effect for 15 oils on Streptococcus pneumoniae."

So the original statement is factually incorrect, doesn't have any numbers, is overgeneralizing a claim, and is misleading enough to warrant us actually questioning if the person who wrote it has any understanding of what they were doing... and... somehow, my edit was revoked?

I hope to goodness that NOW you can see how much MORE neutral and factually correct my edit is than the original.

What I have been trying to say is that that whole article has been filled with BS as bad as this.

I'm sure everyone has had bad experiences with C.O.I and that it is important to monitor, but can you really tell me that my edits today have not contributed to clarifying real absolute nonsense that doesn't deserve to be written anywhere, let alone in the world's most famous encyclopedia.

I still hold a vision of us enhancing each others strengths to improve the article. You know the "wiki deal" and seem to make my verbose writing much simpler and clearer. I'm new at wiki editing and just felt frustrated and appalled at this insanity on this page and wanted to do something about it. I'm assuming I know a ton more about Young Living and network marketing than you believe that with your wikipedia experience and my experience with the company and network marketing that we are vastly improving this article.

I thank you for that and hope to continue making this better and better.

If you somehow don't agree with this then let's take it up with a third party besides you and me. I am very confident that this edit is superior and that leaving the original is propagating absolute nonsense that should be stopped immediately. So please let me know where you stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpmeli (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I take Wikipedia seriously, and for that reason, I am not interested in helping you promote your business here. Your caviler dismissal of my concerns about your COI doesn't fill me with confidence. As I said, you should not be relying on your expertise alone, and your assumptions about my knowledge about MLM are a distraction, at best. This is not the first time that someone has assumed that, because I'm opposed to advertising on Wikipedia, I must be ignorant about how MLMs work. That is not the case, but let's pretend that it is: Is this company so esoteric and complicated that I need to be enrolled as a distributor in order to understand the business model well enough to write a three paragraph description for Wikipedia? If so, we shouldn't write about it at all, because personal experience is not a reliable source.

The study was simply not a big deal. Between giving the misleading impression that its findings were significant, (which would certainly require much, much better sources) or giving the arguably misleading impression that they didn't find anything worthy of note, I would prefer the latter, and I think Wikipedia's policies agree with me on that. The third option, removing the study entirely, has risen to the top of the heap as my new favorite. Let's just do that. Once again, lacking secondary sources, it should be removed. Grayfell (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic! I have no desire for you or anyone to promote any business here or advertise. I have no idea why you keep thinking that is what I want. I stated throughout my conversations that my sole intention is to clean up the absurd mess that the article was, not to promote anything.

I am not dismissing COI as unimportant. I am inviting you to reconsider the claim that because someone works with a company that they can't contribute objective information. Obviously COI has contributed to huge problems to wikipedia and you seem sensitive to that. Good, you should be, it protects the integrity of what is here.

But it would be nice to have some acknowledgement of how my contributions have led to correcting misinformation and adding to the vast overall improvement of the article. In its current form, the only thing that I see that needs an update is the doTerra / YL settlement, which I am struggling to find good sources for.

I also do not mean to make personal statements about your knowledge. However, people with knowledge, expertise, or training in a particular field are typically the ones who write entries on it.

It is common sense to me to assume that someone working in an industry would probably know more about it than someone who doesn't. When I read the MLM section and saw that everything from the percentages to the kinds of bonuses were factually incorrect, I concluded that it must have been written by someone who didn't understand it. Can't you tell a wikipedia newbie like me by the errors we make? Well the same is true for MLM compensation plans.

There are common newbie errors that seasoned people simply don't make. And unless people were involved in it, it isn't likely they understand it. The same could be said of a chemist. I would trust an article written on chemistry more by a chemist than someone reading a book about it but with no chemistry experience themselves.

You say that personal experience is not a reliable source. It isn't experience we are talking about here, it is understanding that comes from experience. Unless wikipedia has an explicit policy about this - I fail to see how the amount of time it takes to understand something correctly has any relevance as to whether it should be posted or not.

You claim I am dismissing the relevance of COI, which is not true, I am trying to reverse the negative smearing-infused COI that was everywhere in the article. That has been my main intention from the start, to clean up and provide more neutral language around what was written here. I made the common newbie errors and I appreciate your patience with me as I learn.

Lastly, around the study above - I am concerned that the absurd self-contradicting nature of the statement above was not acknowledged by you. I agree that the study was not a big deal, and don't mind it being removed... But that statement was an absolute mess, and it would be nice to be acknowledged in pointing out all of these errors and contributing to improving the standards of the article.

For me wikipedia is exciting because of the collaboration it makes possible between many different parties and people with different areas of expertise. I remain proud of our contributions...especially since I don't imagine our dialog has been easy or pleasurable for you but I am happy we stuck it through and cleaned up this article.

Sincerely, Tpmeli (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)tpmeli

One of the core ideas behind Wikipedia is verifiability (WP:V). If you cannot point to other, outside sources in order to explain something, it cannot be verified, and only very rarely belongs in an article. Accuracy is important, but the way we get there is with sources, not original research, not personal opinions, and not synthesizing multiple sources to form a new conclusion.

Drawing from that, your personal experience selling these products is only really valuable to Wikipedia because it means you may be familiar with less common sources. This is a good thing, but it runs right up against your conflict of interest, and the sources are mainly going to be primary, anyway, and only of limited value. Just because something can be verified, doesn't mean it belongs in the article. Besides, Wikipedia has neither the resources, nor the inclination to establish that you are who you say you are.

I don't see the statement about the study as being all that absurd. As I said on the article's talk page, it was a trivial study that made some trivial findings. Overstating the significance of the wording is counterproductive.

The article still needs a large amount of work. There are a lot of gaps. There is nothing about the history of the company, or Gary Young's past, such as his paralysis from a logging accident and recovery, past arrests for unlawful practice of medicine, the clinic in Mexico,[3] etc. The corporate history issues I raised on the talk page are also unanswered. How many distributors are there? How many active distributors are there? What percent make a profit? The article was almost deleted for lack of sources. If you feel that the only thing the article needs is filling in some details about an unflattering lawsuit, then your perspective may be skewed. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Greyfell,

Your first 2 paragraphs I am completely on the same page with you. They were written neutrally and were informative.

However, your last paragraph lost me - why would you assume I thought the only edits the page needed was what I changed? Why do you continue to assert my perception may be skewed because of an assumption you are making and not what I actually think?

I feel truly exhausted with these accusations simply because of my position as a YL distributor. My sole intention is to improve something and contribute to clarity, balance, and neutrality, and what I am getting back from people is all this alarmism around COI. I was recently called a "sock puppet" by Christopher Lolito... Is this really what this community is about?

If I knew that it was going to be this much work and effort to clarify a few misunderstandings and facts, I would have suggested the page simply be deleted and never got involved. I'm close to giving up contributing further and just letting the misinformation on these pages continue further.

To be seen - My first priority was correcting the misinformation on the page. That being mostly done, YES the article does need massive updating and revision, but it is much less urgent to me. It would be fine to have the history in, but let's keep it balanced for god's sake - not 40 things about the company & Gary's mistakes and nothing about their accomplishments and achievements.

I don't understand why we assume that something negative a company does is considered more "newsworthy" than something positive. And anything positive is considered "advertising" or marketing... Without both, how can anyone have a balanced perception of what is? Aren't we redupicating the errors of mass media with its emphasis on negative news everywhere?

You ask for futher information - Two things.

1. I know if I made these edits I would be accused of promoting the company, so I don't see it as my place to make them. I can point you to where you might find that information but I'm exhausted with being accused when I am purely trying to help.

2. I don't know how anyone can find the information you are asking about in secondary sources. They are only available on the company page (the YL income disclosure statement says how much money they make - google it). I saw a recent post that YL is close to 2 million distributors but I have yet to confirm this with a source and wouldn't take the number seriously until I do.

Seeing how my position as a YL distributor seems to delegitimate me in advance - If I continue to edit wikipedia pages, I'm going to suggest edits in the talk pages rather than making them myself so there is more inclusion about the edits.

As for feedback for wikipedia - If the community was going to be this up in arms about COI, then wikipedia should REQUIRE people who are involved in a company to post on the talk page and suggesting edits instead of being able to make edits themselves without knowing the barrage of accusations that are likely to follow.

It seems my position as a YL distributor is making it difficult for me to contribute in the way I'd hoped and I'm exhausted with trying to explain myself to correct blatant lies and errors.

You have been mostly kind and patient Greyfell, but this community seems burdened by paranoia that I really don't have time to deal with. I'm going to let this air out a bit and revisit it when I have more emotional energy. Right now, after Christopher's comment and your last paragraph, I am sincerely drained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpmeli (talk • contribs) 17:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You specifically said that in it's current form, the only thing that needs updating is the info about the doTerra lawsuit. I was attempting to point out why statements like that indicate that your COI may be clouding your judgement.

YL's accomplishments are newsworthy to the degree they are covered by independent news sources. If you can find positive coverage in reliable sources, great.

Confining your edits to the talk page is a good idea. It's clear you are frustrated by the process, but you can't say I didn't warn you this would happen. You can call us 'paranoid', but consider instead that perhaps our experiences have given us a perspective that you lack. Grayfell (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah I understand your statement then. By "needs" I meant - "needs to be updated right now because it is old or inaccurate." I did not mean to imply the article didn't need further updating.

News sources, got it.

You did warn me, and I absolutely believe you do have a perspective I lack... I also think there is room for all of us to grow in how we respond to each other.

Lastly, I think wikipedia needs to require training in editing before they let people edit. I think it would solve alot of these issues.

Thanks again for your generous time. Tpmeli (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)tpmeli