User talk:Grayfell

Why do you stalk me?

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)

---

My recent updates that were deleted

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Management by perkele

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

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

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

elton mayo

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

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

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

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

Linux Mint

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

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

Masturbation

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

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

Honest Tea

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

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

Margaret Keane Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Grayfell:

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

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

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

To that note, this sentence needs to be added (very IMPORTANT) (!!!!): "Larry Karaszewski, screenwriter of Big Eyes, was quoted in the Observer stating that Margarete Keane has affected Anime([1]). However, this is not possible as big eyes in Anime dates back to 1917, which was decades before Margarete Keane was ever even conceived. Larry Karaszewski's ignorance in his quotes are duly noted and misguided as he suggests Margarete Keane's affect on Pop Culture be reevaluated based on this inaccurate pretense whilst he is the screenwriter for Big Eyes."

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

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

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

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

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

About the article Phillips Academy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contested PROD now at AfD

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

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

Beintehaa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are invited!

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

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

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

Thanks,

Another Believer

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

Scientology's Sea Org

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

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

Resolution

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

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

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

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

John Upton Jr

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

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

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

Alan Roger Currie article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hitachi

Hi Grayfell.

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

Thank you for keeping Wikipedia clean!

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

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

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

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

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

ANI notice

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

Mark Flood Animations

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

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

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

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

Why are you deleting the important information on the Messiah or madman page?

DeWolf sued Lyle Stuart. The documentation is provided and not disputed. Please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have started a discussion on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What Nevada Court?

Ronald DeWolf page read previously: "DeWolf retracted his negative comments about Hubbard and the Church of Scientology in affidavits submitted to the federal court in New Jersey and Nevada, ..."

Do you know of any Nevada court action ? I don't, but the wording was there somehow. The DeWolf case was filed in New Jersey federal court. There was no case in Nevada that I know. Also, the court documents are DeWolf's own words. They should be as valid as Corydon's own words in his book, shouldn't they? Do we need a "he said that she said that they said that (... etc.)" when the guy is saying it himself ? Slade Farney (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where Nevada came from. This is why reliable sources are so important. It may be counterintuitive, but WP:SECONDARY sources are almost always preferable for several reasons. For one thing, primary sourced court documents can create a lot of weight problems if leaned-on too hard. Trying to include every detail of a legal battle very quickly spirals out of control into WP:UNDUE territory. Obviously not every detail is important, so secondary sources are vital for figuring out what to include and what not to include. If we mention the lawsuit at all (which we should) we should make an effort to explain Corydon's take of it, especially since the book was published anyway and DeWolf's lawsuits were largely unsuccessful. Corydon's book is a grey area as a secondary source on DeWolf, but as long as we make it clear that it's Corydon's interpretation and not Wikipedia's, it seems okay to me. I agree that secondary sources would be better for that, as well, but it doesn't seem nearly as important as the court documents. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you on court documents. However, a "series of sworn statements" is not the same as a sworn statement filed with a federal court. Pleadings are under FRCP 11, which carries fines and sanctions for false statements. A sworn affidavit like the one DeWolf submitted end in the words "under pain and penalty of perjury" which can lead to criminal charges on violation. It's a little stronger than a pinkie swear, eh? And much stronger than the allegiance to truth that Corydon had while writing composing the book. I am not saying we have to put this in the article, but Corydon alleges he learned much of this stuff about LRH while running his Riverside center. But he did not split with the church until there was some kind of business problems with his franchise. What's wrong with this picture? Slade Farney (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this picture, honestly. People often take a long time to leave NRMs. That's a pretty standard, to-be-expected thing. Many former Scientologists have talked about how they did not want to admit to themselves that what they were doing was no longer "true for them". Nobody wants to feel like the fool, and when their self-identity, livelihood and social network are all tied up in something, leaving can be very difficult, even setting aside issues like disconnection.

Regardless, it still seems to me like you're trying to lead this into a refutation of the book's legitimacy, and I keep telling you, this isn't the place for that. DeWolf filed affidavits. Saying in the article that affidavits are more important than what was written in the book is not going happen without sources saying exactly that. It's too much of a value judgement, and it's original research. Grayfell (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying we have to put this in the article ... It's not about me, nor is it about you, ok? Nor am I am trying to weigh the one against the other. I am saying the affidavit should be mentioned with all the key facts. It was not a conversation in a bar. DeWolf filed suit in a federal court of law over the book, and he repudiated all the facts in the book under penalty of perjury. He also said he regretted the Penthouse interview. And I will look for secondary sources. Slade Farney (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Right. It's not about either of us, and for that reason, it's not up to us to decide which facts are the "key facts". This is why we need to be extra cautious around court documents and other unedited primary sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources

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.

This took a turn for the redundant. There are already multiple discussions about this issue repeating the same points over and over, I'm not interested in hosting another.

---

Noticed you wrote on a talk:

BuzzFeed is, like it or not, still considered a reliable source

Wondering if you have tips on how to keep track of this stuff. Does you tend to encounter enough arguments about whether a site is or is not reliable and then just remember their names? Or could Wikipedia have an official list of what is considered reliable for easy consultation for those with bad memories? Ranze (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't a list be nice? If there's such a list, I've never seen it. Sometimes wikiprojects will keep track of sources. WP:Video Games has a list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, for example. I vaguely remember reading about attempts at a master list in the past, but the closest thing to that is probably the search box at WP:RSN, which is often cryptic. That particular BuzzFeed article was already discussed there,[2] and Buzzfeed has been discussed other places at RSN. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist. I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the Buzzfeed article was discussed there. However I don't see any consensus one way or the other about it. Abecedare says there isn't a general concern about BLP due to editorial oversight, however Rhoark describes the Buzzfeed article as character assassination. While the content added may be innocuous we are relying on an article that belongs in a tabloid to source it. And such things can run afoul of BLP from WP:ELBLP. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know all of that, because I also read the discussion. That's not the point, and this isn't another platform for you to make your case about that source. There is also a discussion on BLPN which you obviously already know about, and the previous discussions on the article's talk page, both of which deal with this exact issue. Ranze asked a general question and I tried to explain where I was coming from with some examples. You've already made your case on multiple other pages, trying to twist this discussion into yet another place to debate this one source being used for one article is counterproductive. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2015 (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.

Bodypainting Images

I noticed you changed the image at the bodypainting page. Please note that the 'Phoenix' image that I had put there was only temporarily gone to be repleced with a new version. This new version has the approval of the moderators and is of a much greater significance than the usual garbage images used on the page (only cheap shots of people smeared in some paint, which demeans the art of bodypaintin)). Please keep the quality standard. Elfrieb (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elfrieb: The image has a large, distracting watermark, and has many totally unrelated features, such as photoshopped flames and a costuming. This makes the image a very poor illustration of the concept. This is not about promoting the artform, beautiful though it may sometimes be, this is about clearly explaining what bodypainting is in a neutral way. I strongly advise you to revert your addition to avoid edit warring. The watermarks also make the image appear to be promoting the artist, rather than explaining the artform. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Again, please revert the edit and discuss this on the article's talk page: Talk:Body painting. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. If anything is a "poor illustration of the concept" it is the utter garbage of other images in that article. You consider the image that I used as a promotion of the 'artform', but what else than an artform can you qualify bodypainting. The image tells in a neutral way what this artform can achieve. Concerning the watermark, the admins had no problem withit, but you suddenly have. Elfrieb (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elfrieb: You're confused about something. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are different projects. Commons is a place to host images for a variety of reasons, such as use in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia follows different rules, has a different purpose, and has different administrators than commons. Just because the image is in commons doesn't mean it is the best choice for the article. Grayfell (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your discourse

I can see you are part of a good sourcing-based discussion on AVFM, as it pertains to the SPLC or other documents covering it I hope you have things well in hand, I may be unable to participate in this (or Wikipedia at all) depending on how some sanctions-based disputes end up going. Ranze (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. I hope things work out for the best. Grayfell (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon: Tuesday, May 12 at OHSU

You are invited!

• Tuesday, May 12, 2015: Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon – 1 to 4pm
• Wikipedia Edit-a-thon hosted by OHSU's Center for Women's Health in honor of National Women's Health Week
• Location: Biomedical Information Communications Center (3280 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239)
• This edit-a-thon is intended to address some of these important differences and to generally improve women’s health information in key articles and topics. Areas for improvement have been identified in cooperation with WikiProject Medicine. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please post to the event page.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list.

Brad Mattson article edits

Hi Grayfell,

You did a lot of editing to my article on Brad Mattson recently. You cleaned it up in many places so thank you for that. However, many of the edits you made were a bit hasty and seemed like you went through with the "slash and burn" method of editing, which lost important content. It is understandable since there were many edits made and there is a time factor, but I wanted to let you know I'll be reverting some edits (and improving them where appropriate as you have indicated).

I have already undone one of these edits that highlights my point: The award of top 50 most influential people in the semiconductor magazine. The award is uncommon (e.g., it's not a Time list of the people of the year) and the European Semiconductor Magazine is not around anymore, but it is certainly not "obscure" as at the time it was one of the most popular trade magazines with global readership. Additionally, removing the award lessens the notability impact. By referencing the title of the magazine and the year that it came out, I thought that would meet citation requirements; I have seen this done on other articles that have a lot of traffic. That said, a proper citation is best and fortunately I was able to find one archived from the Internet Archive and it is now linked. Another example I just remembered that I need to go back and undo is you changing the heading of "Applied Materials" to "Applied materials" - it is a proper noun and refers to the name of a company (and a very prominent one at that) and therefore should remain capitalized.

Again, I emphasize the fact that you did a lot of editing that did improve this article and for that you have my thanks. One of the biggest contributions you made was making the article more neutral in tone and you made it more concise. Unfortunately in condensing down the wording, you did cut out many important facts that are evidence to why Brad Mattson meets notability and is deserving of an article. I removed the "advertisement" tag since you removed all the non-neutral language. Speaking of non-neutral language, please don't swear when editing articles - this was my first article and there is no need to be so aggressive. You are an accomplished editor to Wikiepdia and when you are ornery it just puts new people like me off from the whole project. Then again, I guess aggressive editing is not uncommon for angry mastodons.

Thanks again and be well - Slainte12 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You reverted the advertisement note - would you please specify the areas of concern? Slainte12 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hold your horses, I was on a tablet. I'll start a discussion on the article's talk page in a moment. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've explained some of the problems on the article's talk page Talk:Brad Mattson. You have every right to be offended by my use of "hell" and "droppings" in edit summaries, just as I have every right to be offended by your creation of a blatantly promotional article in a collaborative, non-profit project which values neutrality as a core principle. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Vineet's blog

Hey Grayfell,

If i remove my name from the post, will it be considered a valid post ?

Thanks, Vineet Vineetshukla (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ambit Energy Edits

First thank you for the invitation to talk. It is a nice change from your first unreasoned edit of mine[3]. It also nice of you to welcome me to Wikipedia as you "noticed [I]'ve just joined". However you ought to refrain doing this in the future since 1. I have been a member for six years, just one shy of your seven and 2. it comes across as you fancy yourself as an ambassador of Wikipedia but your activity around Ambit Energy and other companies that use the same business model indicate you may not wholly embrace the Wikipedia mission to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content.[4]

You see, when you summarily dismiss a user's sourced and explained edits with not so much as a single character to describe your reasoning it leave to question why you would not reciprocate the other user's academic etiquette. Your second dismissal of my contribution I argue was no better with only a two word explanation from you, "false balance". Yet when an article contains only negative criticisms of its subject it is clearly unbalanced. Your dismissal of all merits of the matter would reveal an intent to present a narrowed and questionable view to the community. This is reinforced by a cursory (I invite you to point me to your activities that would indicate otherwise) review of your edits in other articles of this nature. In total your actions tend to portray you as not a person with pedagogical interests; but rather a person engaged in guerrilla blogging.

That said I take it on good faith that you DO embrace the Wikipedia mission, your motivations are inline with the mission, you have no hidden agenda, and your edits thus far are impartial. So, I respectively ask you to explain the removal of my edits in detail so I may better understand how WE can create a complete presentation of the subject that include a concise transparent review of its merits and criticisms.

Best of luck!

Shawnmyers (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)shawnmyers

@Shawnmyers: Okay, first of all, I'm not the one who welcomed you. That was someone else. You have a total of 13 edits to your account, including this one to my talk page, so when some other editor (again, not me) comes along and leaves you a personalized welcome message, maybe you should view it as a nice courtesy, rather then get defensive about it. There's nothing wrong with being inexperienced with something, but please consider that other editors might know what the're doing.

The Wikimedia foundation's mission statement is only tangentially relevant, because Wikipedia is not the same thing as Wikimedia. If you want to know more about Wikipedia the encyclopedia's fundamental principles, take a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars. One of those core principles is neutrality. In practice, one of the ways that is enforced is by requiring reliable, secondary sources for contested content, which brings me to Ambit.

Wikipedia is absolutely not about providing a forum for companies to promote themselves. See WP:GEVAL if you don't understand what I mean by false balance. As I have already explained on the article's talk page the JD Power stuff is not appropriate because it totally lacks a WP:SECONDARY source. JD Power gives out these pseudo-awards like candy at a parade, so include them needs a reliable source that explains why the recognition is significant enough to be WP:DUE weight. Press releases are not secondary, and are rarely reliable. That is why I said take it to talk. I didn't mean discuss it with me personally, I meant discuss it here: Talk:Ambit Energy where I've already made this point. I've also had to explain it multiple times on user talk pages, which is kind of tedious. This is why I insist that any further discussion of this issue should be somewhere other than my talk page.

You also say that I reverted you without any additional comment, but I'm not seeing that in the article's history. Was this a while ago? Is it possible you're again confusing me with another editor? If you are editing while logged out, be very cautious of WP:SOCK. Editing while logged out doesn't exempt you from WP:3RR or other guidelines, and can lead to blocks if it appears to be done deliberately.

As for "guerrilla blogging", my motivations for editing are none of your business, but I will restate that I have no personal experience with Ambit or any other MLM company, good or bad. If I did, that would be a conflict of interest. Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor, and keep your vague accusations to yourself.

Lastly, please do not add refs to talk pages without also adding a reflist template of some sort. It's usually better to just leave them as links. I have edited your comments to that effect without changing the meaning. There is also no need to add your username after your signature. It is included automatically with the timestamp produced by typing four tildes. Use of the Help:preview button is useful for this kind of thing. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pachinko edits

Yeah, I was just having a bit of fun. It definitely wasn't constructive, but I thought it was funny - unfortunately, you wiki editors are so on point I doubt anyone had time to see it. Oh well. Touche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.27.223 (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Them's the breaks. The novelty of even the most clever vandalism wears off pretty quickly after you've seen a few dozen examples. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Automotive Dealership Institute

The page Automotive Dealership Institute was marked as an orphan by Yobot in December 2014. I tried to remedy this by talking about education requirements of the auto industry mentioning Automotive Dealership Institute and another school. It was cited with two news sources Arizona Daily Sun and us Auto News. I stated in the talk space of car dealership my goal. You reverted my edits without explanation. Can you please explain your reasoning for the reverting? More so can you please explain how you I can make Automotive Dealership Institute not an orphan. I know what an orphan article is, so i do not need an explanation. ADI is currently linked to other pages my problem is linking another page to ADI. Which is what i was attempting to do. Thank you

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nerdypunkkid: I have responded to your comments on those talk pages. Restated, the article itself, and your attempt to link it from another article, are excessively promotional, undue weight, and relied on very weak sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits - draft page

Think you made some mistakes on Draft edits :

"previous Clients & Investments:" all look valid to me. The reason company wasn't mentioned as you state appears to be that the citation (Telecompaper source) was confirming that the investment was since sold to another entity. Previous citations showed the relationship ( Individual and company are synonymous given nature of the company Interim & outsourced resources)

Intelius is used as a source in many places e.g Matt_Shaheen 194.112.11.172 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Please take a look at WP:UGC. Intelius should absolutely not be used as a source, especially in articles about living people (WP:BLP). I will remove it from Shaheen's article right after I this. The fact that it is used or misused in other places is irrelevant.

If a source indicated a need to explain that the company was later purchased, then the Telecompaper blurb might barely suffice as a source, but merely having invested in a company is not worth mentioning without much, much better sources.

The major problem with the current draft is that it lacks any reliable WP:SECONDARY sources indicating significance. If the future article is going to be about McKendry as a person, then it needs to be rewritten (again, in a way that is compliant with BLP). If it's about his company, it needs to have independent sources that actually talk about the company. The draft has a Wikipedia:Bombardment problem with many, many extremely flimsy sources, I would prefer to hold it to proper standards now to prevent it from being a waste of time later through WP:AFD or similar.

Rather than entirely routine listings and mostly empty profiles, if you're interested in getting the article in the mainspace, you should look for news articles (NOT press releases) or academic commentary. Again, please take a careful look at WP:RS to learn more about that. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK understand but then there a lot of articles that need deleted or citations removed / replaced 194.112.11.164 (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It did explain that - it was in brackets in the text 194.112.11.164 (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't think thats correct - seemed fine as is given the context 194.112.11.164 (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense - I do have not enough knowledge on the topic or processes to comment or edit further. Just felt that by removing and not adding better content that you made it worse 194.112.11.164 (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not break up someone else's comments like that. Wikipedia isn't built for that kind of threaded discussion, and it destroys readability (especially if there are more than two people involved). Your edit essentially removed my signature from some of my comments, which is a violation of WP:TPG. If you must reply to a specific item, you can use Template:tq, but consider writing a response as a single item, instead.

Yes, there are many sources on Wikipedia which need to be removed or replaced. Adding more bad sources because it's convenient is the wrong solution to this problem.

You say it "seems fine" but I'm pointing to specific policies that tell you that is mistaken. If you need more, please see the reason comments by the editors who rejected the draft, as this directly supports what I'm saying. It's not Wikipedia's function to promote this consulting company, which was the only purpose the draft served. Letting Wikipedia devolve further into free advertising would make it much, much worse than allowing the draft to go by with such pathetic sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Boxful

Hi Grayfell, Thanks for your comments for the Boxful page, please review the content again, see if you are happy with it.

And wish you a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallowkwok (talk • contribs) 04:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Hallowkwok.

I've cleaned up the article, but it's still very thinly sourced. You should find more reliable sources soon. Blogs and press releases are not suitable for establishing notability (WP:GNG). If you are associated with Boxful, please read about having a conflict of interest: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If that applies to you, you should disclose your connection to avoid covert advertising, which unethical, and is against Wikipedia's policies and goals, (and is also illegal in many countries, as explained here: WP:COVERT). Thank you.

F.Y.I., Grayfell, 360 Total Security reports https://www.boxful.com/en/ as a Phishing Website, warning that, "Exchanging sensitive or confidential information with this site could put you at risk of identity theft and/or financial fraud. We strongly discourage visiting this page." - 173.21.216.98 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll take a look at it when I get a chance. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

want to know about link deletion

Hi Grayfell, I added 2 links 1st was wrong url so I added new one .plz let me know why it was not approved and what can I do next Starjain (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Starjain: Hello. Several of your edits broke other links. Please use the preview button (Help:Show preview), and make sure that your edits serve a positive purpose in the article.

The link you added was not a reliable source (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), it was just a website that was selling stuff. That's why it looked like spam. Wikipedia article's should not include spam links. Take a look at the welcome message on your talk page to learn more. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Regarding the Liz Prince page, in my opinion you do not need to disclose a potential conflict of interest merely for being "an old acquaintance", unless she asked you to edit the page on her behalf. There was probably no need to rely on the talk page either. It's routine for editors to edit in topics they have some kind of connection to, though they tend to have some bias, as does everyone.

I think it would be better as an article on the book, which appears to be the subject of the sources, as oppose to the author. However the AFD is looking like it will result in a keep anyway if you prefer to keep it on her. CorporateM (Talk) 20:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to give it proper consideration, and certainly don't take it personally.

I understand what your saying, and I have edited similarly COI-ish articles in the past with little hesitation. My edits to a number of multi-level marketing companies and colleges fraternities have repeatedly lead to a slew of very angry SPAs accusing me of being a shill for a rival, or of having an ax to grind, even though I truly have no connection to either of those topics. Between this and recent familiarity with "Fiverr" editors and similar, I wanted to tackle this from a different perspective, but I agree that I have been overcautious in this instance and may have ended up being inadvertently pointy.

It's been very informative, however. Having followed her career for years, I had taken her notability for granted, so this has given me some much needed perspective on how hard it must be for new editors to write an article. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's the thing; I have a good 50 or so disclosed COIs and editors often use my COI disclosure as a means to attack my contributions, even on pages where I do not have a COI. They will claim I am trying to give my fellow PR buddies a boost, that I'm trying to attack the competition, or whatever nonsense they come up with. However, in almost all cases, they would find some means to attack me, because they are just mean people (bullies) that will resort to any tactic to achieve the desired content outcome. You can disclose or not disclose, or do whatever you want, and there will still be bullies on the internet. Anyways, next time feel free to ping me and I will provide some outside perspective from a completely un-involved editor, though I may disagree with you, being that I don't know the particulars. It's unfortunate that it's needed, but thick skin is the mantra around here. The best of us learn that those that attack other editors merely discredit themselves anyway and often lose the argument as a result. CorporateM (Talk) 21:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I admit I don't have the thickest skin out there, but at this point shilling is far, far down on the list of terrible things I've been accused of, and by now most of it has turned into a source of amusement more than anything else. (I've got some great stories...) COI is still a complicated subject though. I assume that when I'm called a shill or similar, they are really saying "I can't imagine why anyone would edit without an agenda". I'm not worried about trying to convince them they are wrong. Being less than open about my position would make them right, though, and it would also make me a hypocrite. As I said, I misjudged what was useful or needed for that particular article, but it's better that I erred on the cautious side for something like that, and I can now feel comfortable being a little less uptight in the future. Grayfell (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Tipper Gore

Hi Grayfell! I'm checking to see if you've had time to take another look at Tipper Gore. I understand if not. I'm also happy to reach out to another editor if you're busy, just let me know! Thanks, Heatherer (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Heatherer: Hello. Yes, sorry about that. I will take a look at it soon. Later today or tomorrow. Grayfell (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Bella

Thanks for your input. Could I just clarify that you did base your decision off the other sources including the web archives of the website for the film and the web archive of the news article about the film and the director? They were in the middle of the page and if you did miss them I'll go back and organize the sources for reviewers. Thanks.FauXnetiX (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I considered the sources about the film. The film's site is WP:PRIMARY, promotional, and predates the TV series. The Buffalo News one also predates the series, and is an archive of an archive of a local news story, which is a red flag that this is undue and bordering on WP:OR. Both are of limited value, and using those sources in this case would be WP:SYNTH, as well as having other problems. Any further discussion of those sources should be held at the article's talk page, not here.

Listing an archived movie promotion site along with Daily Stormer and Reaxxion articles as examples of reliable coverage will pretty quickly demonstrate to experienced editors what's going on here. This might save some time, but I don't think it will have the outcome you're looking for. Grayfell (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Amway

The change from multi-level marketing to "direct-selling" was vandalism, or at least contrary to years of consensus. The change to pyramid scheme was inadequately sourced, but not vandalism. Please keep don't accuse people of vandalism without cause. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

However, I would have returned it to the status quo if I had properly noticed it. If I reverted the vandalism to "pyramid scheme", I apologize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I overlooked that another editor restored "pyramid scheme". I should have looked a little closer, and I would have phrased my summary differently if I had. I think that the original edit, by a single-edit IP,[5] was borderline vandalism. I think that whoever made that edit likely realized it was going to be controversial. "Pyramid scheme" has criminal connotations. It's often applied to Amway, so it's hardly surprising, but it is a contentious label that has big NPOV problems when misused. I don't think the two IPs that changed it from pyramid scheme to direct selling were vandals, exactly. I think those were probably good faith editors who chose an unfortunately euphemistic and misleading term which is common among MLM companies. Regardless, we both agree the previous wording was better. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hardcore Gamer and it source

Hi, I been working on the term of "Hardcore Gamer." There not a lot of sources on it and journalism for the gaming community is getting worse everyday, so it hard trying to get a definition for "Hardcore Gamer" without going toward youtube, blog, and forum since a majority of gamers who would be consider as hardcore will be there. Game Journalist are terrible source and are basically the enemy for a majority of the gamer community since they misrepresent them, so I want to used the youtube, blog, and forum as my source for what is consider as hardcore gamer. I am also still new to all the editing, but I am currently asking for opinion to see if anyone else would know what a Hardcore Gamer is while figuring out how to reference and citing. Gamer504 (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gamer504: Ah, this is about ethics in video games journalism is it? Well, I don't know what to tell you. Wikipedia has guidelines for reliable sources, and does not use blogs, youtube videos, or forum posts for things like this. Sources don't have to be journalists, but they does have to published by be people who are recognized experts. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games has a lot of good advice and resources, so that's one place to check. Sociologists and other social scientists study groups of people and what they call themselves, so checking scientific journals might also be useful. My suggestion would be to find sources first and then add content based on those sources second. Don't write what you personally know to be true and then try to find sources to back it up. Sometimes that's okay, but for this it's going to be much, much harder, and it means that you are not writing from a neutral point of view. Please be careful when asking for advice or help that you're not WP:CANVASSING or WP:MEAT-puppeteering. Asking for advice is a good thing, but asking others who already agree with you to edit the article is a problem. That can lead to being banned and the article getting protected so that nobody can edit it. Just something to keep in mind. I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Grayfell:I completely understand. I will try to be careful. I'm still trying to work this out in a objective point of view. The term hardcore gamer was made by the gamer community. I don't believe there is anyone out there who is an expert on this field since it conflict with a majority of the gaming community, and even they don't share the same definition. People made fun of the term and others wear the label proudly. So it difficult to pin point what a Hardcore gamer is. Gamer504 (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I Need an Editor to Read my Draft Article in my Sandbox

Hi, This is my first article and it is not ready for publishing yet as I need an editor to look at it first and if it is ready to publish give me tips on improving the Content's format as they do not have the section and subsections titles (I don't know how to format them in.)

Panama is a small country of only 3.5 million people and has only one English language newspaper (The Visitor since 1994) which is a great source for articles. Also, few Panama law firms publish articles explaining the laws in English, so I have few options for citing sources. Also, only one news service translates Spanish newspapers into English (Central America Data), but it contains all the major news stories from he Panama newspapers.

I am probably the most proficient author publishing articles about Panama laws and real estate in English and I only included the most relevant and kept them down to 9% of the total citations. If that is too much, I need guidance on quantities.

One last thing, one Panama law firm (Panama Offshore Legal Services) publishes more articles than all the other Panama lawyers combined and I used to work for them, but left them over 6 years ago and haven't done any more work for them since. But, I have cited some of their informative articles.

I will appreciate anyone who takes the time to read and critique this draft which is in my sandbox.

Steven Rich in Panama (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Okay, well, there's a lot going on, and it's clear you have been working hard on the draft, so forgive me if I overlook a few things. To be blunt, it looks like you've been doing this the hard way, and you're going to have to scrap a lot of the work you've done. You should probably take a look at Wikipedia:Tutorial. Because there's a lot here, I'm going to give you a list:

• Have you used Wikipedia as a reader very much? Take a look at a good article and see if it looks similar. Here are some examples: Slate industry in Wales, Petroleum industry in Iran, and Economic history of Argentina. These have been recognized as exemplary articles, and it may be useful for comparison. It's helpful to see how the articles are divided into paragraphs and sections, how they use wikilinks, pictures, and so on. It doesn't have to be held to that standard, but it may highlight some of the problems your draft article has.
• Many of the sources you use will have to go. Statements cited to sources like wikitravel (currently source #65) should be removed, as that is not a WP:RS. As another example among many, Ref. #74 is to a site called Global Property Guide, but the article is anonymous, and their about page doesn't list any editors or show any awards or other indicators of community trust. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. If you have any doubts about a specific source being used for a specific item, you can ask for community advice at WP:RSN, but use the search there first to see if it's already been discussed. Find reliable sources first, and then add content from them second. Adding what you personally know to be true and then trying to find a source leads to frustration.
• The article isn't neutral. It's very positive about investing in Panama real estate, or retiring to Panama, or similar, which is outside of the scope of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or promotion, and it is not a how-to guide, per WP:NOT. What about local issues? 25% of Panama's population lives in national poverty, but no mention of how real estate issues effect them? Many of the current sources are very weak or are only being used for vaguely promotional content. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia. There are far too many minor statements here, and overall context suffers for it, creating a very upbeat view of a complicated subject.
• The sandbox has no wikilinks, which leads to redundancy with other articles. Rather than explain about the politics and economics of Panama, article's should wikilink. Economy of Panama, Politics of Panama, etc.
• Section titles should be useful. Instead of "Third section" with Panama Investments Security underneath it, just title the section "Investment security". You can also create subsection headers, as well. See MOS:HEADINGS. Use sentence case, not title case. (I.E. Do Not Capitalize Ever Initial Like This)
• Sources do not actually have to be in English. It's preferable, and it's always good to include a translation if available, but per WP:NONENG, other languages can be used. Likewise, offline sources can also be used, but convenience is appreciated, and the more difficulties tied to the source, the more likely it is to be challenged or removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability explains all this.
• Not every source needs its own sentence.
• As you probably know, WP:SELFCITING is allowable, but it's also a conflict of interest (WP:COI). As long as the sources are vital to the article it's okay. Are they vital, and are you impartial enough to make that call?

Like I said, there is a lot going on here, and I'm sure I may have missed something. The biggest issues I see is that the article is not neutral. This needs to be addressed before going any further. If you have any additional questions, let me know. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Russ Ramsey

Hi Grayfell! An article I submitted through AfC was accepted, but had a orphan tag placed on it. I found a couple places where the article can be easily connected, but I'm having trouble finding anyone to make the edits. Here's the Talk page note explaining where the article can be linked. If you have just a few minutes, would you be able to do it? Sorry to bother you with something so simple, I just really don't want to make any edits myself. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I've responded on the talk page, but put simply, the proposed changes need better sources, so you were smart not to make that edit yourself. Good luck. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)