Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

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!

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)[reply]

I presume you know he was blocked for 42 hours last night. The page itself is under discretionary sanctions which of course apply to all of us, and he's had 2 DS alerts relevant to the page. I think he has real competence problems (there's a bit of discussion on my talk page) and I don't see him as able to grasp the concepts he's dealing with or our guidelines and policies. Ah, I should ask you if you think I should add a talk page header saying the page is under DS. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I noticed the block right after I reverted. In hindsight maybe I should've waited myself, but I can't fully convince myself this wasn't disruptive enough to be vandalism. I've frequently felt baffled by CM's comments and responses. I can't tell if it's CIR or something else, but I guess it doesn't really matter in the end. I agree with MjolnirPants' assessment, and as for the header: yes. I have AE on my watchlist, so if it comes to that, I may chime in, but I think shorter is sweeter at this stage. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell, Thank you for your comments on the Citations for Daniel P. Sheehan's bio page. However, I wanted to point out that the authors bio page actually does directly state that he is working on a book that is due in the fall of 2016. Here is the quote, "Dan is the author of THE PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE for COUNTERPOINT PRESS of Berkeley, California and will publish his second of three books for COUNTERPOINT PRESS in fall of 2016 entitled: RULERS OF THE REALM." It is the very last line of the author's bio page at: http://danielpsheehan.com/about/biography . I personally feel that this is enough evidence to be able to cite that Daniel Sheehan is working on a book, I have heard him mention the book frequently in his public lectures around the santa cruz area. He also mentions it in the Coast 2 Coast interview that I attempted to link to, which you deleted (fair enough, you need to pay to hear the selection anyway, not a great source). Daniel Sheehan also mentions the book in several discussions with interested fans on his public figure Facebook page. So I personally know that Daniel P. Sheehan is working on a book, he himself has mentioned it many times in Public, on publicly available radio, and in public forums online, and it indisputably says that he is on the bio page of the author's own website (link above). I am going to put the citation back in linking to his bio page, again where he specifically references the forthcoming book in the last line of his bio, please do not delete that source.

In regards to the problem with "Peacock" language I will have a look to tone down the rhetoric, and add more sources to cite Daniel Sheehan's achievements, which are many. NoahX76 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. The source does not, however, mention that the book is about Kennedy, and while it could be argued that it's being implied, sources should directly support attached statements. It's not clear why it's so important that it's being included in the lede, which is generally supposed to summarize important info from the body of the article. With those point in mind, I'm going to adjust it accordingly. If you can find verifiable sources which explain that Rulers of the Realm is about Kennedy, then it likely would belong in the body of the article. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Bastards keep vandalizing Scientology pages, thinking they're being clever. :) Damotclese (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this wasn't that clever, and even the clever stuff gets old very quickly... Well, okay, there have been a very few that have made me laugh, but it's rare, and this sure wasn't one of them. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Pacer not a reliable source when the court itself refers to Pacer in it's online website as a source to get data from ? --http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/ecf/documents/ElectronicPublicAccessFeeSchedule_000.pdf

Engine Gone Loco (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Engine Gone Loco: Hello. It may seem fussy, I know. Pacer is reliable, but it's very, very poor for establishing weight. Lawsuits happen all the time and deciding which ones to include and exclude typically requires independent coverage for context. Court documents are the quintessential WP:PRIMARY sources. Most readers do not have the technical expertise to interpret them or evaluate how significant they are, and it's far too common to see them used to impart a specific POV. For comparison, The Washington State action looks to be well documented, and that's the kind of coverage that very clearly established a lawsuit as being significant and clearly contextualized. Grayfell (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grayfell! I'm reaching out to see if you might be able to help me with the Jarret Myer article. I suggested some improvements several months back and have generally had positive feedback about them, but no one has been able to make any edits. I won't do it myself, because I have a financial COI and prepared the suggestions on Myer's behalf. If you have time, would you be able to take a look and tell me what you think? I realize this may not be quite in your wheelhouse, but since you were so helpful on the Tipper Gore article, I thought I would ask. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grayfell,

At Talk:R2-45, there is a discussion about whether it is about shooting people. To me, it seems to be pretty obvious that this is the case, but I'd like an independent POV. --Slashme (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grayfell. Regarding my addition of passage from Alan Black's paper. I am dumbfounded as to why you seem to arbitrarily label this is an "unreliable" source. The same paper has actually been cited at #2 on the same Wikipedia page. Who is to decide that this is unreliable? You mentioned also that this is an SPS. How so? How are you able to determine that this paper is "extremely obscure?" According to whose standards? Please enlighten me as I want to understand what can be used as a reliable source. I believe that my edit on the Dynamics is sound and adds much to the section, and I attest that it should remain. The edits on the lead section are also meant to enrich the section from direct quotes from Scientology text, to further contextualize the information here.Livetoedit1123 (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Black source give no indication that it was ever actually published. The Theta.com source is even worse, as it give no indication who wrote it or when, and it's republished at a Scientology website, but not as a proper article, just as a text-dump. Changes to specific articles should be discussed at those article's talk pages, not here. Also, methodically making trivial edits to non-Scientology articles does very little to assuage WP:SPA concerns; in fact, it does the opposite, as it gives the appearance of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. If this is a concern of yours, consider putting more effort into some of the other topics you edit. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism and Nazism are not right-wing. Nazism itself is left-wing totalitarian/authoritarian. Likewise, fascism is not exclusively right-wing, it is simply a branch of authoritarianism that constitutes oppressive repression of political dissidence, and demagoguery through mass-media propaganda, extreme nationalism, and cult-of-personality tactics. I am honestly willing to debate you about this, because I really don't like seeing masses mislead to believe that a sick and disgusting ideology such as neo-nazism is some sort of poster child for fascist and racist policies that have nothing to do with the right wing. Discrediting by disassociation is a shameful tactic, and this is worsened by the fact that it simply isn't true.

Please respond, because I really want to find a compromise for the neo-nazi page. I don't think misleading curious masses via left-wing bias is the right thing to do.

J-rod916 (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC) With respect, and with peace and intelligence in mind, - J-rod916[reply]

Why are you posting this here and not to the talk page discussion you started? Regardless, your definitions are not widely accepted by reliable sources. As has already been discussed many, many times, neo-Nazis are generally considered part of the extreme right wing. If you don't agree, you need to find reliable sources and continue the discussion at the article's talk page. Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. Grayfell (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grayfell. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Stream Energy logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just hard enough to inspire you to heal that year-old scar on Wikipedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Wikipedia Page

Anuj agarwal name was used twice but why you have removed other two names from key people Please let us know the reason for removing key people name from the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Page. For Anuj Agarwal the reason I understood that it was given before also but deleting other people names also I din't got the reason. Please clarify the reason and also give some suggestions Harman Ahuja (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Harman Ahuja: Wikipedia isn't a directory of employees. The CEO is generally considered acceptable to mention because he or she is the highest ranking executive. The importance of the other positions is not clear, even with the sources you provided. The sources mentioned that they held those positions, but that's not enough to support them as being "key people". The company has thousands of employees, correct? Mentioning those people without explaining why they are encyclopedically important to the company is unduly promotional. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. Additionally, Wikipedia accounts are only supposed to be used by one person. Sharing accounts is strictly forbidden. Do you understand this? Answer please. Grayfell (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: I understood thanx for your response Harman Ahuja (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Craven's profound impact in the field of filmmaking, especially in the Horror genre, is widely accepted across a very wide range of sources familiar with the matter (as reflected by the many sources i provided). Further the commercial successes of his many works and the influence of them, as well as their meaning in popular culture are well documented and can easily be checked. You may pay a close look at all the different sources i provided and see how the additions i made to the article are indeed valid. I understand that you seem to have questioned the objective nature, however my contributions i.e. specifications in the introductory part shall not be mistaken as personal opinion or even favoritism, (which i certainly never intended). So i think my contributions should be restored and are perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia quality standards and do not merely display a subjective point of view, but are much rather a meaningful and objective fact-based addition to the introductory part about Mr. Craven. Greetings from germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.158.131 (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded here: User_talk:84.135.158.131#April_2016. Grayfell (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw that you reverted an edit to Phantasm (film). I agree that it was likely refspam, but what neutrality issue did you notice? I rewrote that text and thought I resolved the issues. I was just going to let it go, personally. I'm too tired of dealing with drama to chastise the user for spamming citations to what looks like his own website. But this particular edit was, in my opinion, a minor improvement to the article, as it went a little more in-depth into something the director had previously discussed in other interviews. It's not a big deal, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were definitely an improvement, and if you want to revert I'm okay with that. My edit was perhaps knee-jerk, and I've looked more closely at the interview. I think agree there is content worth considering, but superficially the screenwriter is basically saying "it took me a while to realize how I was going to write the movie". Which, y'know, so what? I've restored the line about it being a road film, and expanded a bit. I dunno, something about the long-term pattern of SPA editing gets under my skin a bit, but you're right, it's not a big deal. Again, if you want to revert, please do. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand your frustration with the refspam. It's annoying to find it – doubly so when the website is prominently advertised in every edit ("in an interview with MY BLOG, the writer-director said..."). It's tempting to simply revert this stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even clearly realize it until you said it, but that's what's so irritating about this: the web-site name dropping. Much of this content is actually very good, but the way it's added has been kind of lazy and self-serving, so it's very tempting to revert. Oh well. Grayfell (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reversing vandalism here [2] and here [3]. Notice that the offender is posting from open proxies, which in itself is not permitted. Now that this disruption of wikipedia has gotten the attention of a veteran editor like yourself, maybe it will stop, although not likely. Other examples of this users' vandalism are here [4], which resulted in the page being locked, here [5], in which the editor questions a fact no serious editor denies, and here [6], where cited text is altered. I encourage you to verify the last one independently, as I have the book used as a source and know which version if more faithful to the source. 63.143.225.66 (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely something weird going on here. I'll dig deeper when I get a chance, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, this editor has returned. [7] [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.228.170 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking to see what I needed to recreated Delta Epsilon Iota, now it drops in priority to be even with every other redlink in Professional_Fraternity_Association#Former_members. Oh well. :)Naraht (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were enough redlinks at the PFA article that I figured it would be better to stick to existing articles for the navbox. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Epsilon Iota made it seems like it might be sketchy or a scam or something? Briefly searching, all I found was the usual grumbling that could be about any less common honor society but maybe there's something to it. The website doesn't really fill me with confidence, but even big fraternities often have bad sites. Anyway, it's easy enough to put back if it happens. Grayfell (talk)

Not really a scam I think, but I'm going to have to look again. The fact that they actually became part of PFA means that *someone* there evaluated them as "Not a Scam". And I'm not sure that the "previously part of PFA" (or PPA/PIC) list at the PFA article is complete. Maybe separating out PIC and PFA articles would help, but I don't think so. I think I'm just going to have to write them all. (And given that the youngest of the groups with redlinks other than DEI was founded in 1944, it really is out of place).Naraht (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. That it was even a concern does, at least, support that it's premature to include in the navbox until there is a sourced article we can point to. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should like you to kindly remove your unfounded Speedy Deletion tag from the page I created. There is not enough evidence on your part to suggest that it has no place on Wikipedia, and plenty of support to suggest it does. Delete your tag and move on to something else. Thank you kindly. WalkOn75 (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can let an admin decide the fate of the article. There are solid reasons to believe this is an act of WP:SOCK puppetry to avoid scrutiny, which has happened many times before with this article. The usable sources have already been discussed at the past AFDs, while several of the new sources used do not mention Flood at all. This fits the past pattern of WP:BOMBARDMENT. In addition, the article is very similar to past versions, suggesting copy/paste. This is pretty quacking. If Mark Flood is really noteworthy enough for an article, someone else will have to write it. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WalkOn75 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reasons to believe this sock puppetry. Kindly provide examples of which sources have been used before. If it is similar to past versions, it is most likely as there is only so many ways you can word a biography. Provide solid proof that Mark Flood is not noteworthy of an article, as he quite clearly is already. WalkOn75 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, my edits to the Peckerwood article simply reorganized the content within the article - into two distinct sections: the street gang and the terminology. I will let someone else do the terminology section of the page. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "unsourced" because the everything inside the template can be found in the sources throughout the article. I will go back and source whats in the template Everything in my contribution to that page is justified in relation to the content of the article. The rest of the article is about terminology that seems to lack better sources so I will proceed with writing the street gang section and when I have found sources on the term itself i will make that its own section. My old account is retired and my edits were technically not edit warring and were completely justified. You reverted the page back to the way it looked when it sourced articles from neo-nazi blogs which was actually counter-productive. QubixQdotta (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell, I hope this message finds you in good health and spirits.

I'd like to discuss my changes to the "Fundamental attribution error" article. More specifically, my addition of an example that I believe parsimoniously illustrates the principles of the fundamental attribution error. The revision numbers that pertain to this discussion are 692480676 & 669274882 and the revisions that removed these additions.

I appreciate your invitation to discuss this example. I believe a discussion will improve the article's validity and likely improve my understanding of the fundamental attribution error. In the spirit of cooperation and learning, I'd like to ask a few questions about my example and the fundamental attribution error that I hope will begin our discussion. In the interest of precision, my questions only apply to my example and not the examples which were removed along with it.

Concerning feedback: "All of these examples are overly complex and unsourced..." What constitutes a valid source for examples of the fundamental attribution error? What value would such a source add to the article? What degree of complexity is acceptable for these examples? How is example complexity measured?

Please remember, I'm only interested in adding my example to the article. I believe more than one example is helpful. I have no interest in removing or changing any other examples or other information in the article at this time.

Have a great day. Kd7jhd (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What have I added that is wrong? All I have done is added references to existing materials on the GI page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Soapboxing comments were about USANA Health Sciences, which someone at your IP has been aggressively attempting to whitewash for several days now.

The edits to Glycemic index were sourced to the main gisymbol.com page (which doesn't discuss the symbol and is a primary source) and totalwellbeingdiet.com, which appears to be pure spam. That IP was already reverted once before by you, so continuing to add the material without discussion is WP:EDITWARRING. The existing description did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for neutral coverage of medical information, per WP:MEDRS, so I've removed it. If you want to re-add it, please include reliable source and consider rephrasing it so that it doesn't subtly endorse the use of the symbol through WP:PEACOCK words or similar. Grayfell (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read all that very closely at all, sorry, but I get the impression you are very confused about how Wikipedia works. Again you repeat your intentions to forward this info to Usana, as if Usana should even be involved. This suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, which is not for advertising, and has strict guidelines around conflict of interest editing for just his reason. Wikipedia's policies forbid undisclosed paid editing, and it's unethical as well. If you are an affiliate of Usana, you should carefully consider how you're spending your time here. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, won't do it. You win. WriterWithNoName (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)::[reply]

Carry on my autocratic nemesis. Why not use your magical powers to suspend my account? WriterWithNoName (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WriterWithNoName: Wow, okay. I'm not trying to battle you on this. The content you added looked like it was trying to promote Caroline Keenan-Wiseman, because it included some WP:PEACOCK phrases and needed better sources. If you want to write a free-standing article, go ahead, but you should take a look at WP:NBIO first. Even though it's very popular, IMDB is a problem, because it's so often wrong, and often gets content from users or from Wikipedia, which leads to circular references. I recommend starting with a draft first, rather than adding links to a subsection that would have to be changed later when the article is published. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cited imdb.com only for her birthdate. I'm not trying to promote anybody. I remember her from like 15 years ago. I fully expected my handful of content to be rejected, which is why I won't waste time on a free standing wiki. You win bro. WriterWithNoName (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the only "puffery" was in her being "emmy nominated" which is what makes her notable. Nevermind, I'm glad I didn't put that much effort into this. WriterWithNoName (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WriterWithNoName: Citing someone's resume for their "Red Carpet clients" is definitely promotional, and there were other problems as well. If you immediately start insulting me for challenging your edits, and you expect your own content to be rejected, than you're not really contributing in good faith. Are you just here to pick a fight, or what? Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I've been to this dance before. WriterWithNoName (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well that... explains it? The snide insults also added to the experience, so thanks for that. I hope you find whatever battleground you're looking for, but please try looking somewhere else next time. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not looking for any battle. I have several thousand good faith edits. WriterWithNoName (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit count says otherwise, but who cares? Why does that even matter? Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I promise to not work on that article again. WriterWithNoName (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want you never to edit that article, what I want is to be able to discuss edits without the dripping sarcasm and being called an "autocratic nemesis". Have we ever even interacted before? The way to resolve a conflict like this is Bold, Revert, Discuss, not "boldly edit, revert a couple of times, than insult the other editor and quit". Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're an admin, I am not. I've dealt with the Wikipedia Autocracy under an old account. This discussion was over before it began. I'm taking a break. I'll open a new account if I ever come back. WriterWithNoName (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, and I have no desire to be one. I hope that if you do come back you'll hold-off on the insults, because you're making the situation much, much harder than it needs to be. Grayfell (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not going to contribute anytime soon. WriterWithNoName (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Saw the user that opened the previous thread opened another one on ANI and didn't notify you this time. The new thread can be found here. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At least this time it's shorter. Grayfell (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting talk page. Doug Weller talk 06:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have been a user for a while, I am new on guidelines and what to do in terms of editing controversial subjects. I appreciate that you helped me out on the Rising Sun Flag page. Woo1693 (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Help me}} Hi Grayfell, you reached out to me a while ago and said you could help approve a draft. Can you let me know the best way to get that draft to you? Thanks! Chemical Defect (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at user's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am puzzled as to why you have reverted the changes that I made to the entry on Cuteness. We have recently published a peer-reviewed article on the state-of-the-art on the science of cuteness ^[1]. I spent time adding some of this new authoritative information to Wikipedia to make sure the entry is at least partly up-to-date. This was my first pass but much remains to be done to make sure that the entry is scientifically correct.

Please let me know on what scientific grounds you have decided to revert the proposed changes.

MLKringelbach (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MLKringelbach: Hello. I did not revert on scientific grounds so much as encyclopedic, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE grounds. There are several related problems here. The first is that this is a general-audience encyclopedia, and information needs to be presented at the level of the topic. Deep scientific info can be added to cuteness, but it needs to be summarized in a way that matches the rest of the article, and the only neutral way to do that is with secondary sources. Wikipedia strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources in general, actually, for many reasons. In the edits to orgasm I reverted, you gave a high degree of prominence to your studies and no others, but did not actually include any content from those summaries. You only mentioned that they exist. Wikipedia isn't a place for promotion, even by expert editors, so this was flatly unacceptable. This content did not provide the reader with any new insight into the topic.

Your edits to cuteness mentioned your findings, but again, were not supported by independent sources. Saying things like "...it was proposed that..." is a form of WP:WEASEL wording, as you, yourself are the one doing the proposing and you give no indication that anyone else supports you in that. In order to prevent this kind of thing from being over-stated, you should present an independent source commenting about this study, not the study itself. While this really isn't a medical article exactly, reviewing WP:MEDRS may be helpful here. Hopefully that's helpful, and I am happy to answer more questions when I get the chance. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell Many thanks for your clarification. Both proposed changes to the cuteness and orgasm entries use primarily authoritative review articles which would seem to fall under the Wikipedia definition of WP:SECONDARY sources (according to the Wikipedia entry). With regards to the orgasm entry, I considered providing more information concerning the brain networks involved in the pleasure cycle but in the end I felt that the general reader would be better served being referenced to the best existing reviews. I would have thought that my co-authorship on these reviews would speak to my expertise in the field rather than a form of self-promotion. Amongst other things, this expertise led me to remove the factually incorrect information "while there is no change or increased metabolic activity in the limbic (i.e., "bordering") areas of the brain.[7]". With regards to the cuteness entry, again my suggested changes are based on a review, i.e. a secondary source which carefully reviews and synthesizes the existing data. I would be happy to rephrase the proposed changes in line with your suggestions but it remains my considered opinion as an expert editor that both entries are in need of more balanced, factually correct information. Many thanks again for taking the time to ensure that Wikipedia remains a reliable source of information. MLKringelbach (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MLKringelbach: If the only articles you are citing are ones you contributed to yourself, you are likely confused about Wikipedia's purpose. This often comes as a shock to new editors, especially those with an academic background, but your personal expertise is a mixed blessing and doesn't give your edits any privilege. Don't misunderstand me, as an expert, your contributions are vitally important and appreciated, but there are many pitfalls that come with this. As I'm sure you've noticed, Wikipedia isn't an academic journal, it's something else. The project has its own set of guidelines, manual of style, culture, politics, etc., and it is unfortunately common for experts to ignore this side of things. This essay: Wikipedia:Expert editors, may help explain this if you would like to know more.

One very basic issue is that the project doesn't attempt to verify that you are who you say you are, and for good reason. I accept your username is an acknowledgment that you are Morten L. Kringlebach, but that is, technically, just a courtesy. It doesn't matter who you are, your edits still need to be objective and neutral. When an editor heavily focuses on adding one author as a reference, such as him or herself, this is a big red flag that the edits need to be handled carefully. Good faith or not, your edits were functionally indistinguishable from a type of self-promotion which plagues this site. The review article you cited should be presented neutrally. If that cannot be done, consider adding it as a further reading link. Just saying that it exists but nothing else is not a positive change to the article. In other words, while the review articles are usable to summarize information on the topic, they are not specifically worth promoting by themselves.

The example you gave of your study of non-humans was equally promotional. If research is ongoing, why give that as the only example? If this is the best example, you will need an independent source explaining why it is the best example.

As for the specific changes regarding the limbic, well, I'm not the one who reverted that change, but I can take a wild guess why she did. That statement is cited to doi:10.1002/hbm.20733. If you don't agree with that source, that's reasonable, but the place to discuss that would be Talk:Orgasm. It's fairly easy to find studies which, when encyclopedically summarize, contradict each other. It's an old problem. This is why experienced editors are, honestly, less than enthusiastic about picking sides when content is changed in this way. No, it's not ideal, but it's a tough position to be in. I've seen arguments by academics on Wikipedia play games by trying to claim superiority because of impact factor and similar. Wikipedia editors' patience runs pretty thin at that point, and reverting to the status quo is the most practical option. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grayfell, Respectfully, my edit is the R of WP:BRD. I would also suggest, that essay aside, that the "limbo" status should be that contentious material is not included until there is a consensus for it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You removed content which has been in the article for over a year. Three editors have now restored that content. The burden is on you to build consensus for the proposed change, that's what BRD means. Since respect is clearly very important to you, I hope you will respect Wikipedia by working towards consensus rather than edit warring. The article's talk page and multiple noticeboards have now been roped into this minor issue, so I don't think this is the proper place to continue this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the reply above. I note that I have not further reverted the restoration, and concur that the processes at the article Talk page and noticeboards should be allowed to proceed. I am confident that we will be able to reach a consensus which satisfies the concerns all round. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Grayfell I am an intern at Joel Osteen Ministries and part of my job for the summer is updating the Wikipedia page. I've done quite a bit of research in order to properly cite all of my updates but they've been taken down. I understand if part of what I was saying with the book pages sound promotional, but I was citing the paragraph description from the website itself for the books. Furthermore, an entry said the newest book was his book from 4 years ago and so I changed that and it got reverted. It's kind of important for my job that these edits can stick, especially if the citations are all there.

Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertMWorsham: Hello. Thanks for being honest about your conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, and the project has very specific guidelines about paid editing, which you absolutely must disclose. Saying that he published "eight number 1 National Bestsellers" is not neutral, because most readers would assume that means The New York Times Best Seller list, not the Christian Book Expo list, which tells the reader nothing beyond promotional puffery. Likewise, using Osteen's website to add large swathes of promotional copy to the article is not acceptable. If you would like to update the bibliography section, WP:PRIMARY sources would be acceptable, but promotional information about the books don't belong in this or any article. If you can find reliable, independent sources about these books, consider making a suggestion on the article's talk page: Talk:Joel Osteen. I will also leave a template message about editing with a conflict of interest, I strongly suggest you carefully look it over before going any further. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, appreciate you forwarding this information my way. I will definitely keep this in mind moving forward! And for full disclosure, I'm an unpaid intern using this to fulfill my college credit for an internship so not sure if that affects the paid-contribution disclosure.

Thanks again, RobertMWorsham (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertMWorsham: "Paid" is just shorthand here. The site's Terms of Use use the term "compensation". Now, I ain't no big city lawyer, but I'm pretty sure college credit is a form of compensation. Grayfell (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: I figured it could have been a more loose definition like such, which is why I said I was unsure if it affected the paid-contribution disclosure or not. I wasn't trying to get around the rules or anything. Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I didn't think you were, but I wanted to make sure this was clear. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grayfell. This session is my first time doing any of this Talk stuff. I am basically new at discussion of edits and at having edits reverted, et al. Thanx for moving my Oryx and Crake Talk item to the bottom. I didn't know it was supposed to go there. Now I do.

Regarding this ongoing sequence of immediate reversions on my Oryx and Crake edit, I don't really get what's going on or why. I made clearly substantive improvements to the current very non-optimal Plot summary text. How is it they are immediately negated without any substantive discussion, first by Flyer22... and now by you? Do you have any substantive argument or points against my undone edits. Are substantive new edits normally or by default reverted?? Is the policy rather to Talk page discuss first, prior to making any edits? I ask in all earnestness and Wiki-innocence. I contributed my edits in good faith and with great care. Their reception, or rather unexplained peremptory rejection, is quite dismaying as I currently understand it.

That they are substantive and improvements is hardly a close judgement call, as anyone with book in hand recently read will attest. I wrote flyer22... the detailed reasons for my edits, which also were stated on the Talk page which you moved to the bottom.

I would much appreciate it if you could fill me in on these things, as one Wiki lover to another. Thanks ! Tommster1 (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Tommster1[reply]

@Tommster1: Hello, Tommster1.

First, and I'm sorry if this is fussy, but please hold-off on the fancy formatting. Starting a paragraph with a space marks the paragraph as being a different type of formatting. Wikipedia's software is relatively old, and it has a lot of features that might have made sense once but are now just in the way. The same goes for dashes and multiple signatures- the quality of your writing is all we care about here. Use the preview button (Help:Show preview) and make sure your edits don't appear too out-of-place. This may seem pedantic, but when it's hard to read your comments, a lot of people won't bother, and then they won't bother to respond.

As for the edits, as I said in response to your comments at Talk:Oryx and Crake, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. That means that no matter how confident you are in your edits, you don't automatically get the final say. You should be bold and make edits you think improve the project, but don't be too surprised if someone else disagrees. One concept used to help prevent edit warring is WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. When you make a change and it's reverted, the burden is on you to start a discussion, civilly, on the article's talk page to try and build consensus. This means you need to show patience and give the other editor a chance to respond. Wikipedia favors the status quo, in part because if you simply restore your edits without discussion, it degrades into an edit war. Editing should not be an endurance contest to see who can revert the most. Likewise it's not a shouting match, nor a place for filibustering. Make your case by explaining your edits.

Your edits seemed reasonable at a glance, but they also suggested a mild editorial bias. As Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, analysis of works should be verifiable and attributable. If you can find a reliable source which discusses the plot's details, that would be very helpful. Otherwise, plot summaries should be matter-of-fact (maybe even to the point of being a bit dull) because Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. Plot summaries are notoriously tricky for this reasons, and you should not presume that what's obvious to you is obvious to anyone else. An extreme example of this issue is Finnegans Wake, which famously brings English majors to tears/blows/both, but that's a digression. Anyway, the place to discuss specific issues would be the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer you an invite to read my posting on the Talk:White_pride#Striving_for_consensus before making any reversions. You have not addressed anything I said in the post, and there is clearly still a dispute

--Chiefmartinez (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiefmartinez: Are you joking? Did you read my response, which I posted a few seconds after I reverted you? Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no I did not. I stand corrected about that. --Chiefmartinez (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I think we can agree that the place to continue this is the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with any of your edits to this page. All the other UK independent school's old notable alumni articles have the same type of title: "List of Old Etonians/Wellingtonians/Harrovian" etc...

Furthermore, the edition of the category: Lists of English people by school affiliation is needless. As it can be seen, every article belonging to that category is also in the style "Salopians/Carthusians/Brightonians" and not "Worth School Alumni".

Lastly, the edition of The following is a list of some notable Old Worthians, being former pupils of Worth School in the United Kingdom is not needed either in my opinion, as it is quite clear and similar to other old boys from different schools articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreiterAdam45z (talk • contribs) 12:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CreiterAdam45z: Hello. Yes, I see now that I was mistaken about the list article's name. Sorry for that, and thank you for changing it back. I think it's worth looking into changing them all to match other countries' schools, as it looks like England is alone in this idiosyncracy, but that is a discussion for another place. As for the changes to the lead of the list, similarity was not my reason, MOS:LEAD was. Far too often school articles drift into the verbose and the promotional, because the are understandably often edited by people with a WP:COI. To help keep them on neutral footing, I think we should stick to a brief, factual lead, and WP:NPOV trumps consistency. If you still disagree, the article's talk page is the appropriate place to discuss this. Thanks, Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: I couldn't agree more with what you say regarding England's idiosyncrasy and the fact that it would be better to change every article of this type's name to just "List of people educated at ---- School". Nevertheless, and given that most of these school alumni lists are still in the form "Old ---" I would hold myself to changing anything unless all of them are to be changed. Many thanks!--CreiterAdam45z (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You hasty and disrespectful revert to the above article caused the loss of 3 useful changes. The edit consisted in removing the loaded, premature, loud, and uncited adjective 'unscientific', moving a sentence from a second paragraph to the first paragraph, and correcting the order of the authors cited. For more information, see my notes on the article's talk page. ARosa (talk)

@ARosa:Please look closer before making accusations of being hasty. I preserved the order changes, as you can see from this diff. You have already been reverted on this point once before, so the talk page is the proper place to take this, rather than edit war. See WP:BRD for more. The article's talk page is the proper place for this. You should also start a new talk page discussion, as the one you have commented on is over a year old. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell:If one looks at the recent history of the article, your edit might be the one that appears like an attempt at an edit war: I removed the adjective. An editor reverted my edit without comment or discussion. I wrote to him or her, and re-arranged the first paragraph to eliminate doubt that this is not a widely accepted hypothesis, while avoiding wording that the talk page documents as more inflammatory than illuminating. You re-added the word and in the process made the intro 100+ characters wordier. I suspect the circular and loud tone of the introductory paragraph is why the article is tagged for clean up. I'm sure that somebody with much more patience and understanding will eventually do a much better job of fixing the alarmist hand-waving that dismisses scientist like Sagan and charlatans all in the same stroke. I do see now you did not revert all 3 changes I had made.

You started a discussion on another user's talk page, but then repeated the substance of the edit without follow up on it. Both of your recent edits were focused on removing the pseudoscience label from the lead, which is a contentious change that should be discussed beforehand. The template requesting cleanup is asking for more sources. Your edit removed a source, so it was obviously not addressing that problem. As the article makes clear, Sagan made it clear he thought the hypothesis was unlikely and unproven, and had disapproval for later writers who treated it otherwise. Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grayfell - I am confused as to why you deleted my edits on the UW page citing it was "trivial". The page currently refers to a 2014 customer satisfaction survey from comparison site USwitch which, according to their own website [9], "has commercial agreements in place with some suppliers across all our services". Moreover, in their latest information (21 June 2016) about UW, USwitch say "Utility Warehouse had less than 150 responses in our independent YouGov survey, so we can't show a customer service rating. This is not necessarily an indication of poor performance" [10].

Bearing in mind what USwitch are now saying, my aim was to update the page with the latest customer satisfaction survey results from Which? which is regarded as the largest UK consumer body [11].

I have looked at Wikipedia's various content guidelines and policies and can not understand what is "trivial" about my addition when the older customer survey reference remains. I am also unclear why you removed a recent Which? survey in favour of what appears to be a now defunct USwitch survey . Are you saying I should have deleted the older USwitch entry and substituted the latest Which? survey?

Please could I ask you for some guidance and to point me at the policies you are relying on?

I look forward to receiving your guidance please and thanks in advance for your help. Reponline101 (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reportonline101[reply]

@Reportonline101: Hello. The content was too promotional. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Honestly, the older USwitch results look too promotional to me, also, and I'm not sure why it's still there, but at least it has the benefit of WP:SECONDARY coverage from a brief mention in an article in The Guardian. Forgive me for being terse, but multi-level marketing article tend to get slammed with a disproportionately large number of promotional edits, so quality sources are the bare minimum needed for such information. Things like positive reviews and listicles are too often leaned-on to create a flattering impression of a company or service beyond WP:DUE weight. Your username also suggests you may have a conflict of interest, which is another red flag that this content is not being added for entirely neutral reasons. If that's the case you should read about that here:WP:COI. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the input which is much appreciated. I still believe that the page needs updating so, following your helpful guidelines I have made a change which is supported by "the benefit of WP:SECONDARY ". Bearing in mind the USwitch results which remain, I would struggle to understand why my change would be unacceptable.

I am interested in your comment regarding my user name - I can not see that it is restricted but would be grateful for your input if you believe that it is. However I would like to confirm that there is NO conflict of interest regarding my edit. I do not work for nor provide services to UW and I am not connected in any way with any business or person who does. My aim is to try and help provide Wikipedia accurate and current information with as little bias as possible. I look forward to your continued input and thanks for your help. Reponline101 (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reponline101[reply]

@Reportonline101: Glad to here you say you don't have a conflict. The word "rep" is very often used by salespeople, especially independent salespeople such as MLM associates. The rest of your username is otherwise a bit generic, which is a common characteristic of spammers. This is more of an impression than a scientific claim, but it comes from experience dealing with promotional content on Wikipedia. That and the promotional content you've been adding are why I am concerned you have a conflict of interest.

As for sources, they have to be reliable, and positive claims should be represented in proportion to their significance. Neither source you used appears to me to be reliable. One of the criteria for reliability is a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking". This is, among other things, specifically to limit the kind of content you are attempting to add, since it sounds very impressive, but is ephemeral and only thinly supported upon closer look. From their website, the Institute of Customer Service is a trade group which doesn't give much impression of editorial oversight. Although I don't suppose they are being deceptive, there's no obvious way to tell from the sources you've provided, and my own search turned up little. Press releases are poor for establishing due weight, because they are never independent. A Spokesman Said is even less usable, and their about page makes it clear that they are pushing a commercial service. It's an odd service, but it's still not a review site or similar, and gives not indications of reliability.

This all might be worth working around if the content you were adding seemed all that encyclopedically relevant, but it doesn't. It just seems like PR tidbits to me. This isn't an outlet for consumer reviews or advocacy. Many editors try to use it that way, and this sometimes slips through the cracks, but that's not a valid excuse to ignore it this time.

As a very simplistic rule of thumb, stick to journalists and academics. If a person is notable enough to have their own article, then consider quoting their opinion with attribution. If it's at all controversial (and PR is controversial) opinions must be supported by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Yoga Day was celebrated at various institutions of Ryan Group. Students were called in early in the morning for Yoga practice and were given training and information on Yoga. Students meditated and practiced yoga before attending classes.source

The Yoga Institute, Santacruz held a special Yoga training program for students of Ryan International School Kandivali. Students practiced Yoga before beginning their regular day.

Ramadan was celebrated by the students of Ryan School, UAE by distributing eatables to workers in the school.source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepshah1 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me this? These are minor details with flimsy sources. Schools do things like this often, but they aren't encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you have made/reverted recent edits to the 9GAG article regarding some statements that have been repeatedly added/removed from the article. I have started a discussion on the talk page about this and invite you to join us.

Sunmist3 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Wow, we faced some bad times together, but we eventually stopped a category vandal, who is a sockpuppet of Cow cleaner 5000! DSCrowned(talk) 07:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of boarding schools in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Joseph's (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 me 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.