User talk:Grayfell

Hello! Please leave new messages at the bottom of this page.

Don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.

Thanks. Grayfell (talk)

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)

---

Dan Price

Grayfell thank you for replying. I don't know how Wikipedia works really but it's become my go to source for reliability and this Dan Price thing of all the people revising and deleting and editing, etc has concerned me. I just want as much accurate and citeabke (reputable sources) on a page as possible. I think,might be wrong, that's Wikipedia's goal to. To have detailed, accurate and objective information. Some info in edits are fluff,but in the fluff is objective info. IMO. I went and looked. Figured how to. That was cool! Other edits remove info that seems super valid. I think all that's true and source-able should be present. In this case, the lawsuit, $70 thing and orher stuff I'm sure seems very worth while in this article. Like if someone who is notable or famous does something that garners international attention in media, that shooukd also be Wikipedia worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.205.50 (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2016‎

Wikipedia's goals is not to have as much accurate info as possible. Wikipedia's does require info to be verifiable, but it also is expressly NOT an indiscriminate collection of information or a platform for advertising, which is a problem here. Much of the recently added sources were grossly misused to paint a flattering portrait way, way outside of context or reality. Having a bunch of brand new accounts an anonymous editors come out of the woodwork to fight to restore this version of the page gives a very bad impression. Grayfell (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit help neutrality for Jan Rezab Bio

Hi. Thank you for your edits and look into my page. Do you think you could look at the page a bit more and give it a more neutral point of view? I generally think there are a lot of things missing from the Czech startup scene on Wikipedia. For example if I look at Avast_Software, the founders like Eduard Kučera, or almost non-existing profile of Ivo_Lukačovič - these are Europe-wide relevant people that are being completely overlooked. For example Credo Venture Partners doesn't even have a profile (and they sold many of their portfolio companies). Happy to help currate some of this (obviously not my stuff) Jan.rezab (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jan.rezab: No, I'm not interested in helping you advertise yourself for free. If you want to write about topics you don't have a conflict of interest with, that would be a pleasant change, but please try harder to be neutral. Take a long look at WP:NPOV, WP:NBIO, and WP:OTHERSTUFF and get back to me if you have any specific questions. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I will try and contribute adding information about a few Czech entrepreneurs that are missing like I just did with Ivo Lukačovič and will try a few others, don't have the time but someone should really look into Czech / Central European entrepreneurs. There are some amazing things being done from Prague and they are being deeply ignored, maybe because of the language, maybe because of the location - but its discrimination that other people with smaller accomplishments that are born in a different country are on Wikipedia but people from a different part of the world are not. Jan.rezab (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This is absolutely true, and is a well known problem in the community (Wikipedia:Systemic bias), but that has nothing to do with you trying to advertise yourself. Bringing that up seems like a distraction, and it seems like you're trying to appeal to emotion by claiming discrimination. You weren't adding content to Lukačovič's page, you've been promoting yourself and your company. That's very, very different. You do understand why that's different, right?

I try do my part to try and remove non-notable Americans when I find them. I've also given the benefit of the doubt to a lot of entries that lacked English-language sources because of this imbalance, but there are millions of articles, and adding more spammy articles isn't fixing the problem, it's just damaging Wikipedia and making it harder to find the people and topics which need real attention. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Revert of Alt-Right NPOV

Where is the talk you mentioned and how can it be NPOV to say that a movement "lacks" an official ideology? That makes it sound like it is deficient. Wouldn't it be be perfectly neutral to simply say that it doesn't have one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutelyaware (talk • contribs) 12:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"Revert driveby tagging. The lead summarizes the body, raise any specific concerns on the article's talk page"

1. What do you mean by "driveby tagging"? Is it what we generally refer to simply as "tagging"? Do you have a problem with the concept of people tagging articles that need attention?

2. I raised specific concerns in my edit summary and with the tags I left. If you have specific reasons to undo my edits, then please specify them, here or on the article's talk page. 5.151.178.168 (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The lead is intended to summarize the body of the article. The notable stories mentioned are discusses, with sources, in the body, so they belong in the lead. Since the issues at Breitbart have already been discussed on the talk page, adding multiple redundant tags the paragraph does not accomplish anything productive, and expecting a brand-new talk page discussion is not productive, either. As for Firing of Shirley Sherrod, see that article's talk page. See also WP:BRD. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As you didn't answer my question, I'll ask it again. What do you mean by "driveby tagging"? Is it what we generally refer to simply as "tagging"? Do you have a problem with the concept of people tagging articles that need attention?5.151.178.168 (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You can ask all you want, but I don't have to answer rude questions. Don't post here again. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

FYSA; this is this banned troll and has been blocked as such. Please feel free to clean up as needed. @MrX: Kuru (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Kuru.- MrX 02:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Grayfell_reported_by_User:24.119.20.133_.28Result:_No_violation.29 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You are edit warring/censoring on the Nazi Gun Control Theory page, again

Every one of those edits was cited, verifiable, and constructive to the article. Every one of those edits is either entirely factual or is an attempt to give the article a more neutral point of view by explaining the views of the theory and those who developed the theory, rather than beginning the article by dismissing the theory that the article is supposed to be about as "preposterous" "counterfactual history". Let's begin the article with an explanation of what the theory is about and the views of those who created the theory before we move on to the rebuttals against the theory and the insults directed against the developers of the theory, shall we? Contributing to an article and then re-posting my contributions again after they have been censored is not edit warring. Removing my contributions in a thinly veiled attempt to keep this article highly biased and devoid of any balanced discussion of the theory that the article is about is edit warring, and that is what you have done today, again, as you have numerous times in the past several weeks. Let the edits stand and present your rebuttals after the theory has been communicated, or you will be reported and possibly banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by WP:DUE weight, and this is a WP:FRINGE theory. The majority of relevant reliable sources dismiss it as wrong, and Wikipedia should reflect those sources. Neutrality does not mean giving equal time to "both sides" of a disagreement, for many reasons. It's very likely from your edit history that your account (Tempus Loquendi) has already been blocked once for edit warring. Since you clearly know how to post to a talk page, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page, as you've repeatedly been asked, rather than make sweeping changes to an established, controversial article. Considering that you already tried to report me without bothering to tell me, I reserve the right to revert any additional comments you make to my talk page. Post to the article's talk page, instead, and please review the talk page's archives (1, 2) first, since these issues have already been discussed multiple times. You should also be aware that Wikipedia has a strict policy of no personal attacks, so saying or insinuating that other editors are sympathetic to Nazi ideology will not go over well. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion input sought

Given your contributions to articles about white nationalism and white nationalists, there is a discussion currently at the talk page on the Nationalism template which may interest you. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've given my thoughts on the issue. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing article on Bhargav Sri Prakash

Hello Grayfell, I noticed that you added an template:advert tag on an article about Bhargav Sri Prakash as I was editing it. I am not sure if my edits inadvertently triggered such an action. I am a pre med student at Stanford University and I have no association with this living person or conflict of interest with this topic. I have attempted to refine the article by removing external links to unreliable sources, as well as adjectives in the body of the content that appear superfluous. Do you have any suggestions for further improvement? I would appreciate your advice. If my edits can serve as adequate refinement and reason to remove the advert tag, please let me know if I may remove it from the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4d01:1100:c5:6b8f:a855:cc33 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2016‎

Hello. Removing links is good, but the article needs much more attention. The wording is far, far too promotional, and includes a number of buzzwords and "peacock words" which make it read more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. Examples include (but are not limited to) "pioneer", "entertaining", "taps in to", "product leader", etc., and that's just from the lead. I think your edit to list of entrepreneurs is what brought my attention to the article, but the article's spammy nature has been there for a while, so you didn't specifically trigger that template. I don't see a compelling indication that you have COI, and I appreciate that you're acting in good faith, but it sure looks like someone, at some point in the article's history, was likely paid or closely involved. Regarding the 'invited speaker' section, that's another good example of why the article is too promotional. Content like that should be supported by WP:SECONDARY sources demonstrating lasting, encyclopedic significance. Merely speaking at an otherwise non-notable conference is not generally noteworthy by itself, and Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for this person to promote himself or his output. Conference mentions like that tend to be a red-flag for promotional issues (especially TEDx, but that's another issue). All of this applies to fooya and FriendsLearn, also. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Got it Grayfell. I can try to remove some of the buzzwords and "peacock words" but since it is beyond my expertise to refine this article further, should I just leave it as it is? I definitely do not want to further mess with an article which was untagged when I first found it! Please do not hesitate to undo my edits, in case you think it is not appropriate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4D01:1100:C5:6B8F:A855:CC33 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed

Hi,

I am trying to know if Buzzfeed can or cannot be used as a "reliable source", especially when it comes to relatively obscure subjects. I've asked the question here, but the subject of controversy has been this (see here). I have no idea is there is any clear and definite policy about the use of this website : since you already debated about this subject I thought you might know. Thanks and best regards, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jean-Jacques Georges: Hello. I have indeed debated on the usability of BuzzFeed a great deal already. Sorry, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS so I don't think there's likely to be a single definite policy. It would be nice if that were possible.

BuzzFeed distinguished between their journalism and their clickbait, AKA "contributor", content. They are not alone: Forbes, Huffington Post, and several other major outlets now do the same thing as a modern application of the older idea of having a journalistic firewall. This practice has apparently been very profitable, but it damages credibility, which makes the "reputation" part of WP:RS a lot more contentious than it otherwise would be. Taking that distinction into account, BuzzFeed's reputation is relatively good among other journalists and analysts. They shared a Peabody and some other noteworthy accolades, for example.

We're talking about this article, right? This appears to be from BuzzFeed's journalism side. BuzzFeed sometimes blurs the line more than they should. If it were from a "contributor", like this easily disprovable piece of trash, then it would not be usable at all, especially not for a BLP. Since it's from a reporter and can be assumed to have undergone fact-checking, I don't see a reliability problem using it. As the folks at RSN said, it's a matter of WP:DUE and WP:BLP as much as reliability. Maybe WP:BLPN would be a good place to get more input. Good luck. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello ; thanks for your answer. I have more or less the same impression about Buzzfeed. I'll try to get more advice at WP:BLPN... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Fangusu LTA

After some thought, I have created a WP:LTA page for Fangusu: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Fangusu. The case is not yet approved, but if you have anything to add, please go ahead. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thanks for letting me know. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Psi Upsilon

Good morning, Grayfell - You updated the Psi Upsilon fraternity page with a reversion of some of my edits, replacing and updating a paragraph about the closure of their Cornell chapter. Clearly the paragraph is tidy, well-referenced and informative.

However, I just don't see that the local issue it references ought to be given such weight as to impugn the entire national organization. Some editors, zealous to be first to post, will from time to time note such a chapter closure or a lawsuit on the front page of these various national organizations. That doesn't make it proper, and these are, correctly in my mind, later removed. I think you should cut that paragraph. Now, I did leave a comment hidden in the article to fend off further inclusions, and it's fine you deleted that.

Fraternities nationally are under enormous scrutiny. The actions of one man have killed this chapter. Other student organizations don't face this kind of backlash when a single person or small group errs. Not even sports teams. Schools don't shut down their band, or their soccer team when one of the players is a jerk. The idiot who (allegedly) raped the girl is dumped, sure. But I think we should leave a main article like this clean from most local news, except where a problem is systemic or where other local mention is otherwise noteworthy. Do you agree? Jax MN (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No, of course I don't agree or I wouldn't have restored it, what a silly question. Trying to minimize this by comparing rape to being a "jerk" is appalingly dismissive, and suggests that your neutrality has been compromised. I've heard variations of these arguments before and I don't find them persuasive. I've responded to your comments on the article's talk page, which is the appropriate place to discuss this issue. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Image relocation

Hi Grayfell,

Thanks for your changes on Kripalu Maharaj page. I would like to see the image on right or left of that paragraph. But whenever I uploaded it, it will go down at right side. So, I put the image in the center. Can I upload 2 images at the center of Jagadguru paragraph? Fruityk

@Fruityk: Hello. There are multiple problems going on at that page:

1. The images on that page are acting strange, and I'm not sure why. For some reason, it refuses to show up next to the infobox. I'm curious why, but until it's fixed, the images are just making the page look too messy. They may look better on other screens, but on mine they look very bad, so I have removed them for now.
2. The images you added provided no encyclopedic value. They look very nice, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. They don't have dates, they don't have info on where they were taken, they just show a smiling face. We already have a smiling face at the top of the page. Adding more is promotional. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote anyone or anything. See WP:SOAP.
3. The image you uploaded appears to have been a copyright violation. Wikipedia takes those very seriously. The date you gave suggests it was made just today, but since he died in 2013, that's impossible. If you took that image from the web, it must be considered copyrighted, and cannot be uploaded to Commons.

I hope that answers your questions, and I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Grayfell (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Greyfell,

1. The images you removed are not showing up next to the infobox because they are palced inside a table. That's just the way we want them because are relevant to the section 'Jagadguru'.
2. The images have clear encyclopedic value as the first one is a close up of the face and the other is the snap of the ceremony where the Jagadguru title was bestowed. And if you read the section Jagadguru you will know the date on when the image was taken. I have seen the original black and white image and the one uploaded on wikipedia is a colored reproduction of the same.
3. The images you deleted were uploaded by an official representative of JKP. Don't remove images just based on conjectures (and time-stamps on image files). Let Wikipedia remove the images if its so concerned about copyright violations.

I'm undoing your edits, and I hope you won't mess up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.161.168 (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll I can't promise I won't mess up again, but I'll try to try not to mess up again! Sheesh! Please assume good faith.

Yes, I know that they were placed in a table, but that's not an explanation. Just syaing "we want them" that way doesn't solve the layout issues. As I've repeatedly said, consider how this appears on multiple screens, because it's not going to work like that. Why does the undated but recent flattering closeup of him belong right next to a heavily coloured historical image? There is no obvious connection between the two images, making this a "shoehorn gallery", which is specifically discouraged by the manual of style (WP:IG).

I did not delete any images, Wikipedia did based on my suggestion. Images must conform to WP:COPYVIO rules, and conforming to those rules is not optional. Your comments seem to suggest you are very confused about how WIkipedia works. Wikipedia relies (in large part) on volunteers to report violations like that. That's how the site works: it's not a platform for promotion, it's a volunteer encyclopedia, so ignoring an obvious problem defeats the purpose and is disrespectful to the project.

Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy, no matter how well-intentioned, and if you are an official representative of JKP you have a conflict of interest and should not be directly editing the article at all.

As an encyclopedia, false color images are undesirable, and we cannot just take your word for it that it's accurate. Information must be verifiable, which you have failed to address. If you have access to the original black and white image, and have the rights to release it to Wikimedia Commons, you may want to consider that. The false color image is too promotional to be useful. Grayfell (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

1. You are just being obstinate. If you knew that they were placed in a table why did you say, then, that they should come next to the infobox. Either you don't know how tables are formatted or you refuse to admit your fault. Obviously they are going to look different on different screen sizes. Its for the wiki to sort out the problem of formatting not you. And healer heal thy self! You should first assume good faith before asking me to do it.
2. Well, by delete I meant remove from the article. And one of your edits did say 'Removing redundant images'. Who are you to decide what's redundant and what's meaningful? Have you ever been to any of the JKP asharams? Have you ever studied any book on Hindu philosophy? You should first make your qualifications known before making vandalizing edits. Your comments seem to suggest that you are a neophyte as far as philosophy is concerned. You are overly concerning yourself with the technicalities of Wikipedia rather than the subject matter of the article.
3. Kindly explain what do you find overly 'promotional' in the images? They just serve to illustrate the subject matter of the sections. I'm not an official representative of JKP. But the images were uploaded by an official representative. If you have no idea what you are doing you should not be lecturing me on what to edit.
4. If you cannot take my word then you should get up and go out and see for yourself and satisfy you verification urges. Color reproduction of black and white images is a standard technique in photography (AFAIK). I don't know what do you mean by false color image. I cannot just let you ruin the article because you are unconvinced. You have succeeded in proving that you have no idea what you are doing and are just wasting Wikipedia editorial resources..

117.207.186.99 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Saying I'm obstinate and questioning my understanding of basic English are not assuming good faith. You ask me to "kindly explain" something, but you have not been kind at all, and your assumptions about me hinder productive discussion.

Please understand that personal familiarity with a topic is not required, or even desirable, when editing an article. Your statements about making my "qualifications known" fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't verify editors, it verifies content. That's the entire point. Asking us to take your word for it is unacceptable. Read WP:V before going any further. The burden is on you to provide verification. The burden is not on those who challenge unsupported information.

You do not have to be official to have a conflict of interest. If you personally know that the images were uploaded by JKP representatives, that suggests an affiliation with those representatives, which still suggests a possible COI.

What does being in a table have to do with being next to the infobox? Tables can be next to infoboxes, and not all galleries need to be in table. Why are you presenting that as a "gotcha"? I tried to briefly explain some technical issues, but your comments imply that you did not understand my point. Instead of accepting that or asking for clarification, you chose to characterize my statements in a way that supported you opinion of me as being incompetent. Again, that's not assuming good faith.

While colorization may, arguably, be a standard technique in photography, it's a form of special effects. This is a form of artistry, not a pure document. It adds decoration without imparting factual knowledge. Some articles may use paintings or similar for historical events, but this is almost always for events that predate photography, and almost always in articles which discuss an event's artistic influence. If the original black and white photo can be uploaded, that would be far, far better for Wikipedia's purposes. The project isn't particularly interested in making articles pretty, only in making them encylopedic.

The second portrait doesn't provide very much information, and I'm still uncertain of it's copyright pedigree. While it's presumably been uploaded by an official, that's not necessarily good enough. An individual who has authority to release a copyrighted work must do so, not just an organization. Many of the other images uploaded by that account are blatantly promotional, with special effects such as starbursts and similar gimmicks, which is another reason to be cautious. There is also no indication when or where the image was taken, which is very important for providing context. It's a well-taken photo, but it's been overcompressed. It looks like it was expanded beyond its original resolution, which has left artifacts. The ornate watermark is more also more promotional than informative. Any time a flattering photo is added, it's promoting the topic. Sometimes that's okay, but it's still promotional. Articles with many flattering photos are inherently more promotional than articles with none, right? Do you see why I'm concerned that these photos are not improving the article? Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Lowercase title for golfscape

Hi Grayfell,

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

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

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

Since this issue is specific to this one article, I suggest moving this discussion to Talk:Golfscape to facilitate wider consensus, but I oppose such a change for these and other reasons. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Men Going Their Own Way

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

Edit to Peter Marino page

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

@Emikey-34: Hello. Wikipedia has a serious problem with paid editors and promotional editing, so when a new editor adds large quantity of flattering material, experienced editors often check that editor's contributions to and see if it's part of a larger pattern. This information is easily visible for all editors; mine is here, for example: Special:Contributions/Grayfell. I hope it's clear why that happens, and I know it can feel unfair and distressing, but this isn't personal. I do not know who you are, and unless you have a conflict of interest or are using a sock account, I do not have any interest in that at all.

Regardless of your intention, I stand by my claim that the content you added to Peter Marino was far too promotional. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and phrases like "internationally acclaimed", "luxury concepts", "engaging a dialogue between art and architecture", "iconic names from the worlds of fashion, art and society," and so forth, are flattering without being particularly informative. The purpose of the article is to provide an overview, not to promote or name-drop. Things like that are fine for a press release, but absolutely unacceptable for an encyclopedia article. Writing like that makes it read more like a PR packet, which is a violation of one of Wikipedia's core principles. WP:WTW may also help explain why this is such a red flag. Beyond that, the level of detail must be proportional to reliable sources. Passing mentions are not good enough. Press releases are also not good enough. You also introduced content that wasn't supported by the attached sources, such as his work with Bulgari. This is a strong sign that you were not approaching the article neutrally.

Awards are especially easy to abuse for PR purposes, so as a general guideline, awards which are not themselves notable, meaning they already have a Wikipedia article, should include reliable, independent sources and provide context about what the award is and why it's noteworthy. If there are other architects with such lists, and I'm sure there are, unfortunately, let me know and I will be happy to help clean them up. Wikipedia is always a work in progress, so existing content is not always a valid precedent.

Horton Plaza Park also includes a large number of peacock words and other vague-but-pleasant details which do not match Wikipedia's style or goals.

I hope that is somewhat enlightening. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell:Those phrases you quoted accurately describe the work Peter Marino does. He designs buildings for major fashion houses - are you saying Dior, Valentino, Yves Saint Laurent, etc. are not iconic fashion designers? I think the fashion industry would disagree with you. He is known in the architectural world as bridging the gap between art and architecture and working with luxury fashion clients, so how else would this be stated? This information is very much informative and the article would not be accurately descriptive of his work without it. Also note there are not any press releases in the citations so I don't know where you got that from. Most of the articles cited are entirely about Peter Marino himself and are not "passing mentions". The mention of his work with Bulgari I will accept as not appearing in that citation, a small mistake. I can easily find another reference to support it however.

Wikipedia doesn't use WP:PEACOCK words to describe people. They should not be described as "iconic" because that doesn't actually mean anything substantial, and Marino's page would not be the proper place to describe them that way if it did. "Bridging the gap" is a aesthetic opinion, not an incontrovertible fact, and it's an especially poor metaphor to use for an architect. Any such assessment must be clearly attributed as an opinion by a reliable source, not stated as a plain fact in Wikipedia's voice. Marino has doubtlessly said many things about himself, but Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality require secondary sources to summarize opinions (or controversial details) in most cases. Some (but not all) of the content you added may re-added with changes, but the promotional tone was flatly unacceptable. If you want to include the specific details, please do so neutrally. I reverted your edits in multiple steps so that I could leave an explanation for my actions. Editing Wikipedia means getting reverted sometimes. If you are not interested in collaborating, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, I went back over the Education and Career section and made changes to remove any promotional language. Could you possibly look this over and tell me if it is objective enough? Then also, what is the best way to go about reinstating the corrected sections to the article? Do I make a new edit entirely or can I make changes when "undo"ing your reverts? Thanks.

Marino earned a degree from Cornell University’s College of Architecture, Art and Planning. http://www.surfacemag.com/peter-marino/ Marino began his architectural career working for Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, George Nelson, and I.M. Pei / Cossutta + Ponte. https://www.businessoffashion.com/community/people/peter-marino In 1978, Andy Warhol hired him to do a renovation project for his townhouse on the Upper East Side of Manhattan http://www.surfacemag.com/peter-marino/ and then the new Factory at 860 Broadway. http://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-scoops/peter-marino-book-signing-dior-store-london-10442622/ That led to commissions from Yves Saint Laurent and Pierre Berge, Gianni and Marella Agnelli, and Giorgio Armani. http://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/architect-peter-marino-article In 1985 http://wwd.com/eye/people/peter-marino-fashion-s-go-to-guy-3561494/, Marino was hired by Barneys New York to design the new women’s store concept http://www.surfacemag.com/peter-marino/ and 17 freestanding Barneys stores worldwide between 1986 and 1991. http://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/peter-marino-creating-and-collecting-art-article It was while planning Barneys that Marino met many of the fashion designers whom he would eventually design shops for, including Calvin Klein, Donna Karan, Giorgio Armani, Ermenegildo Zegna, Fendi, Chanel, Dior, Louis Vuitton, and Loewe. http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG10077044/Peter-Marino-the-flagship-fashion-man.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emikey-34 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

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

History of Marketing: Deleted Content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Wikipedia, Bacteria (A Featured Page)

• Certain genera of gram-positive bacteria, such as Bacillus, Clostridium, Sporohalobacter, Anaerobacter, and Heliobacterium, can form highly resistant, dormant structures called endospores.[76] In almost all cases, one endospore is formed and this is not a reproductive process, although Anaerobacter can make up to seven endospores in a single cell.[77] Endospores have a central core of cytoplasm containing DNA and ribosomes surrounded by a cortex layer and protected by an impermeable and rigid coat. Dipicolinic acid is a chemical compound that composes 5% to 15% of the dry weight of bacterial spores. It is implicated as responsible for the heat resistance of the endospore.

• Bacteria are further divided into lithotrophs that use inorganic electron donors and organotrophs that use organic compounds as electron donors. Chemotrophic organisms use the respective electron donors for energy conservation (by aerobic/anaerobic respiration or fermentation) and biosynthetic reactions (e.g., carbon dioxide fixation), whereas phototrophic organisms use them only for biosynthetic purposes. Respiratory organisms use chemical compounds as a source of energy by taking electrons from the reduced substrate and transferring them to a terminal electron acceptor in a redox reaction. This reaction releases energy that can be used to synthesise ATP and drive metabolism. In aerobic organisms, oxygen is used as the electron acceptor. In anaerobic organisms other inorganic compounds, such as nitrate, sulfate or carbon dioxide are used as electron acceptors. This leads to the ecologically important processes of denitrification, sulfate reduction, and acetogenesis, respectively.

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

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

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

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

As I said, I think Wikipedia's policies and guidelines agree with me. That was my point, not that the content should be "censored". Wikipedia is a collaborative process based on many policies, guidelines, a sprawling manual of style, and sometimes unwritten conventions. It's messy and arcane, which is unfortunate but unavoidable. WP:BRD is an essay that's often cited by the community, and it underscores the common-sense idea that in most cases the burden is on the one providing the content to support it. The place to discuss this would be the article's talk page.

If you think that "Endospores have a central core of cytoplasm..." is self-evident along the lines of WP:BLUESKY I don't know what more to say. Even if something is self-evident, an article still needs to provide a reason to mention it based on verifiable content. The neolithic existence of marketing is not self-evident, and would only make sense if we accept a very broad definition of the term. Even then it runs against the anthropology of economics, and the myth of primitive barter economics, and other issues in messy ways which are controversial and far, far outside the scope of the article. If you introduced it to ease the reader into the topic, that's a good goal, but it's just not that simple. A tag is a courtesy, but not a requirement. Some content simply doesn't belong without a source.

If you really think I have an "agenda", take it up with a noticeboard or something, because speculating about my motives without any concrete accusations or evidence is inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@BronHiggs: I'm sorry to hear that. I can live with being called heavy handed, but it was not my intention to stop you from editing. My intention was to prevent you from adding contributions that I felt would later have to be removed or seriously altered. As frustrating as this is, it would be much worse the more time had been spent, right? I hope you will keep contributing.

Most of my editing lately has been articles about extremist politics, while I've also worked hard to remove covert spam and paid editing. Both of these areas have serious, persistent problems that get personal very quickly. You mentioned being tired of games... well, my patience is even thinner than usual, and perhaps that rubbed off on this article, for which I apologize.

There are a lot of problems with marketing articles on Wikipedia, and they could definitely use more attention from knowledgeable editors. That said, sources are absolutely vital. While it's sometimes a major hassle, it's the defining hassle of Wikipedia, and it's a big part of why Wikipedia keeps getting cited by college kids and overworked textbook editors. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Donald Gary Young

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

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

Sockpuppet investigation

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

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

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

Supply Side Economics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

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

---

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

@Madsalty: Hello. I'm not really sure I understand what you are asking. Supply-side economics and the Laffer curve are controversial to put it mildly, but there are some reputable economists who support them. Supply-side economists have built walled-garden for themselves, so it's better to summarize based on independent sources, but that's kind of subjective. Citing papers by sympathetic economists isn't a conflict of interest. Just advocating something isn't a conflict. If you wrote the paper and were adding it to the article, or the author of the paper was paying you to add it to Wikipedia, that would be a conflict of interest. The important thing to keep in mind is due weight. Opinions should be presented in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. It's also much better if the sources summarizing these positions are WP:SECONDARY. If not that, they should at least be from recognized experts like Krugman, in which case it should be attributed to that expert.

I reverted your edit because linking hard GDP numbers to supply-side economics must be done by sources. Saying that it was "put to the test" is somewhat ambiguous, and would need to be more clearly explained, economists, even those who are sympathetic to supply-side, agree there were other factors than just taxes, so attributing successes or failures needs to be explicitly done by sources, and likely with attribution. Peter Ferrara's position would have to be presented as his opinion with clear attribution, and the lead is not the place to do that, at least not without discussion on the talk page first. Additionally, Forbes give almost no editorial oversight to articles published by "contributors", making it a poor choice for something that's placed as being of prime importance to the topic. (Forbes has become a borderline blog-hosting service, at this point). If Ferrara's point is lead-worthy, it should be found somewhere more reliable. If it can't be found, it doesn't belong.

I would suggest starting a proposal at Talk:Supply-side economics so that more editors can chime in. Grayfell (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: You answered my questions perfectly. I have a better understanding on what's required. Thanks for the reply and your time. I appreciate it. (User talk:Madsalty) 06:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Madsalty, this is a question you should bring up on the article's talk page. In terms of substance, part of that edit is synthesis - the part about the continuous growth between 1984 and 1990 based on BEA stats (and I think you might be looking at nominal GDP anyway) and it's also original research. The other parts are not really about supply side economics - a fiscal stimulus, even if carried out via tax cuts is a demand side policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services. In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply. <--- Supply-Side Economics by Arthur B. Laffer (GDP) in the U.S. was 3.4 percent per year, and 3.8 percent per year during the 1983-1989 Reagan expansion alone. <-- From the papers I cited. When you do the math it's about 4% annually. Reagan proposed a phased 30% tax cut for the first three years of his Presidency. The bulk of the cut would be concentrated at the upper income levels. The economic theory behind the wisdom of such a plan was called supply-side or trickle-down economics. <---Reaganomics: supply side economics in action by Bruce Bartlett.

If you guys want to leave the page as is, fine.. But if you read it, it's not even remotely balance, Should just be called criticism of Supply Side Economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madsalty (talk • contribs) 04:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

If anywhere, this should be posted to the article's talk page instead. Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi Greyfell

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

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

@Multimrnk: Hello. Thanks for starting a talk-page discussion. There are a couple of overlapping issues. Is Websitesetup.org reputable? Maybe, but I don't think it is by Wikipedia's standards. It might be a perfectly fine resource for some, but it looks like a one-man site without any editorial oversight or the "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" required by Wikipedia's guidelines. It's basically Robert Mening's blog, right? So who is Robert Mening? See WP:SPS for how blogs relate to Wikipedia's policies.

The part you added a source for was a very promotional claim which would've needed to be rewritten based on much, much better sources. The article had a lot of what are known as WP:WEASELs and WP:PEACOCKs, although I previously removed most of them. I guess I missed that one. I've removed that line and adjusted the paragraph to be less promotional. A source is definitely better than no source, but the problem ran a bit deeper than just the source. The page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and WP:SOAP would be my recommended reading for that, if you're curious.

If you have any more questions, let me know, but I'm not going to be able to answer for the next few hours. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Edits to page on Graphology

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

A Different Drum - Revision History

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

@Opticon98: Hello. I can see why that might be irritating or distressing, but stalking is not what's going on here. I use the Help:Watchlist feature to keep track of articles I'm interested in, which is a very common practice and is a feature that's available to all registered editors. The watchlist allows me to see when articles I'm interested in have been changed or updated. Since your earlier edits to that page introduced some unexplained issues, such as removing template:infobox record label and template:for with this edit, I have been checking that page when I see it on my watchlist to make sure the changes are okay. As far as I know that's the only article we've both edited, right? I sometimes glance at other editors' actions through their user contributions page (which every editor has), but only follow up if there is some specific sign that there's a problem, such as spam or vandalism, which is not the case here. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Greyfell: I can assure you that I am anything but a vandal. I'm a really nice girl. You just don't know me yet. I've been on Wikipedia for many years but lost access to my previous account due to my ex-husband, and his malicious ways. I have more than 25 years invested in the Synthpop scene globally, and have personally met many of the bands on A Different Drum, Synthphony Records, Section 44 Records, KMA Records, Ninthwave Records, Metropolis Records, and many other of the labels. I've attended many concerts and festivals since the early 90's, and contributed to much of the content here through my experiences and knowledge. You'll be seeing me around. Cheers! Opticon98 (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

SMART HDD Standard Censored?

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

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

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

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

Best way to cover DC cannabis topic? Your input requested

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

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

Your approach to the Reader page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@WikiBalandina: No, I did not use another account (that would be against the rules), and I did not ask the other editor to revert your changes, that was their own call.

The message I left on your talk page was a boilerplate warning about edit warring. I wanted you to understand Wikipedia's "bright line" about three reverts in 24 hours. I warned you about that so that you can keep contributing, because if you continued as you were without understanding that, you very likely would get blocked. If that's a threat, it's a threat the same way a speed-limit sign is a threat: it applies to everyone, and now it's on you to follow it. Not explaining that would be doing you a disservice, would it not?

I accept that people are going to complain about me on my talk page when they don't agree with what I've done, just like I accept that very few are going to notice when I do something they agree with. What, exactly, does any of that prove? By the way, the editor who left those comments you quote has made many, many edits since then, and has been very active in adding reliable sources to many different articles.

I understand that you want to contribute based on your expertise, but as I've been trying to explain, it's just not that simple. You are not the first person to be frustrated by this, but it's so fundamental to the project that it's not negotiable. Let me explain that another way, because it's very important. We do not ask you to prove who you are. There are rules about paid editing and sock-puppetry, but for the most part, Wikipedia tries very hard to preserve the privacy of individual editors. Outing another editor is forbidden, in fact. That protection of anonymity means we cannot take your word for it, because that would require us to know who you are. That is why we need, need, NEED reliable sources instead of personal familiarity. Does that address some of your confusion? If so, please tell me how I can explain this more clearly in the future, because it's a recurring problem.

So, for that and other reasons, your edits weren't going to work, and multiple other editors seem to agree with me. What, exactly should I have done differently? It was as you left it for months until another editor cleaned it up, again. You reverted without addressing the problems. Remember that you have no basis at all for making assumptions about our individual knowledge or personal history. What, exactly, should the other editor have done differently? Does her assessment not count? I tried to discuss this with you in multiple forums months ago, and all I got for my trouble is veiled insults and edit warring. Now a third editor has reverted. What, exactly, should they have done differently?

As I said above, I can live with being called heavy handed. So can you live with working with other editors, and can you agree to be civil about it (which is required by Wikipedia's policies)? Are you willing to work with the three editors who have reverted your changes? If not, you're going to have a hard time here regardless of my attitude or behavior. Grayfell (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@WikiBalandina: I have moved your comments to the appropriate section, per talk page guidelines.

Obviously we are both coming from very different places here, but I am certainly NOT removing any "possible" positive statement. I am trying not to judge content exclusively by how positive or negative it is, but instead based on encyclopedic significance as determined by the reliability of sources.

Wikipedia's guidelines say that leads should summarize the basic details (founding date and location, etc) and major points raised by the article, as determined by sources and consensus determined on the article's talk page. All of this should be sourced (either in the lead, or in the body). If there are no sources and the content is challenged, it's removed. That's just how this works.

So, with that in mind, is Husni the only reliable independent source you know of? You've made your position on his interview with Theodore very clear, but I still do not think that the flattering quote from the intro is appropriate. Content from the interview could be used for either non-controversial details (which it already is), or maybe for attributed comments from Husni or Theodore in response to other, reliably sourced content such as the plagiarism accusations. Husni's blog is a blog, even if he is an expert, and it would need to be weighed accordingly.

As another editor has mentioned on your talk page, if being a B-cert company is significant to the article, then it should be possible to find a reliable, independent sources commenting on it. If it's not, then I do not think it belongs in the article, no matter how rare or common it may be, or how notable other companies who have received it are.

Being sued for libel is only material to the extent which it is discussed by reliable sources, (which seems like it's inviting the Streisand effect, but that's a digression). If this mere graduate student journalist was convicted of libel, or the publications issued a retraction, then that would belong in the article, and we could discuss, on the article's talk page, how best to present that information. Has that happened? Do you know of any reliable sources at all which support that?

I sincerely do not mean this as any sort of threat, but having the article deleted is another option. If you do not like the plagiarism accusation being so prominent, and you cannot find any substantial, independent sources which discuss the paper in general to offset it, then you can propose that the article be deleted based on a lack of notability. I kind of doubt it would survive the discussion, but I'm not interested in trying to get it deleted just to prove a point. If you want more info on that process, let me know. Otherwise, there's not much more to be said without going around in more circles. Grayfell (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of First World privilege for deletion

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

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

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Article about Sheila Sri Prakash

I have no ties to this living person. I am a tenured Professor of Architecture and Sustainability at the NUS (National University of Singapore). It is my opinion that the article about Sheila Sri Prakash is adequately backed by the numerous inline citations, references and reputable institutions that she serves, not the least of which include the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Furthermore, as a woman who entered this field in the 1970s from Asia, she is undeniably a trailblazer, social innovator and pioneer. Would you clarify your credentials/extent of expertise, to comment on the field of architecture and disclose any ties to the topic of this post, along with any conflict of interest with any others, as it appears that you are repeatedly trying to undermine the reputation of this living person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.14.185.67 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Julius Evola

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

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

Andrew Orlowski photo

Seriously you need a better photo.

Especially when yours is stolen from fucking flickr and cropped.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/farber/153592927