User talk:Grayfell/Archive 14

Promotional Content
@Grayfall,

Hello, what do you mean by promotional content on the B. Kevin Turner wiki page? Can you please give me some examples? I am new to Wikipedia and would like to learn the right way. Thanks! skyyeee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:B. Kevin Turner where I already explained this, and your own talk page where I already requested that you discuss the issue. Since you have not indicated that you've read your talk page, I will remind you that you must disclose any editing for which you are paid or otherwise compensated, per Wikipedia's terms of service (see WP:PAID). This is not optional. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Resources
Hey Grayfell,

Thanks for the heads up regarding resources. I will keep an eye out to make sure they are legit. I will look for submission guidelines like you did. Also thanks for the tip on overlapping fitness and Medically related wiki entries. Thanks again

--Brose7373 (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Concerning BRD
So concerning this edit. Why exactly did you revert? Content got added to the page, I reverted it as not WP:DUE and rather than discuss it per WP:BRD you just reverted again? WP:Consensus requires that we discuss this and not just edit war each other. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient to revert people. In fact if you look at the talk page, we are talking about it there already. Why don't you join in rather than just revert? -Obsidi (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I, too, know of many pages starting with "WP:"...
 * I did not "revert again". This was the first edit I have made to that page in weeks. The appropriate place to discuss changes to an article is the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Obsidi (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Posting this on my page, after I point out that it's required on the same talk page...
 * D- See me after class. Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginjuice4445 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not edit warring
Please review the edits. You'll find all I'm doing is cleaning up citations and adding no new prose whatsoever. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirects
Looking into it, in October 2016 the page was a redirect to White Supremacy - in August 2017 an editor WP:BOLDly repointed it to White Pride based on a brief conversation between some editors upset that Black Power didn't point to Black Supremacy. I have WP:BOLDly reverted this back to the original redirect destination and added the redirect page to my watch list. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's fine with me. Like I said, it's not that surprising to me, and I don't see a major problem with either. Neither article is a perfect fit for a redirect, but I really don't think yet another article on racist jargon is supported by sources (nor is it worth the hassle, tbh) so I'm not sure what the solution is.
 * I dimly remember that discussion, but they tend to blur together. There is a pretty steady trickle of whining about how "white ___" isn't treated the same as "black ___", which is why some of the talk pages have a FAQ about it. In this specific case, I don't think the redirects are necessarily an extension of that false-balance meme, though. "White power" and "white pride" were both created specifically to exploit their black counterparts, so there is a legitimate parallel, and there is a legitimate similarity. That doesn't mean they should be treated the same, necessarily, but it doesn't seem unreasonable by itself. *shrug*. Grayfell (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Honestly, compared to some of the things I've seen on talk pages, whinging about why white power isn't treated as analogous to black power is minor. Concur a redirect is fine, but I'd rather most of these slogans just point back to white supremacy anyway. After all - that's what they about enforcing. Simonm223 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Isagenix International
Perhaps you might bother to read what references actually say before making false comments. Yahboo (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Read the article's talk page, where I just recently discussed exactly this reference. Assume good faith and use article talk pages. These are not optional. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User has now been reported for edit warring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your edit on MKC!
I couldn't find the right words to describe that scum of a company, so thank you a lot. :] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluorinated (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Spam at McCombs School of Business
Hi Grayfall. I am employed by the McCombs School of Business where I handle the school's institutional dating and rankings. I'm trying hard to include our current external media rankings (U.S. News etc.), objectively and with careful citations, as do all the other major business schools, who also use infoboxes. I'm trying hard not to "promote" the business school or use marketing language of any sort. I don't feel I have "an undisclosed financial stake in promoting" this topic, but am quite literally the school's best expert on this data. Do I simply need to disclose my employer on my user page and all is well? MSBDRMWT (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As an employee, you have a clear conflict of interest and need to read WP:COI and follow its instructions. Since you are paid by the school, you are also a paid editor, and must declare your status as per WP:PAID.  Your best bet is to put the information you want to have included in the article on the article talk page, along with all the references, and then allow another uninvolved and unconflicted editor to evaluate it and add it to the article if they choose to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No,this is unacceptably promotional regardless of how you personally choose to describe it. As was already explained multiple times, you should not be editing the article at all, you should be posting suggestions to the article's talk page. Have you bothered to read any of the links that have been posted on your talk page repeatedly for the past nine years? Did you bother to read the very first sentence of this talk page, telling you to post new comments to the bottom? Are you here to help build an encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not a platform for you to promote your employer, and presenting this information as neutral doesn't actually make it neutral. Further Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, with a strong preference for independent sources. Articles are not based individual expertise. As explained through links posted to your talk page, disclosure is a start. It is not a license for additional promotion. Read the links on your talk page and propose changes on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

[Apologies] Please remove inviul.com from spam list. This is knowledge sharing blog.
Hello,

I am very sorry for this. Please remove inviul.com from the spam list. I will not follow this practice.

I didn't mean to promote it. Rather, I thought to help users. Anyways, I'm sorry.

Apologies.

Thanks, Avinash Avinashmishrainviul (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Third party needed
Hello

In this edit you added template. My question is - what third party you expect? In link provided to page of unglobalcompact.org there is info about this presentation. You expect that some other page will provide the same program with the same info? I am asking, because this it makes me curious why for this specific information unglobalcompact.org is not enough. PMG (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello. As part of its core philosophy, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not all information belongs, even if it can be sourced. This source is a routine event listing which fails to demonstrate due weight.
 * A UN Global Compact presentation may sound impressive, but without an outside source, there is no way to tell if it's significant or merely run-of-the-mill. If other sources aren't talking about his appearance, than it was just another gig. For comparison, articles on famous music groups seldom list specific venues, even significant ones, without a very good reason supported by a reliable, third-party source. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, so we should use reliable, independent sources to indicate to readers why a piece of information is encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

episodes list
Hi, I started a discussion involving you here. Your input is welcome. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleoconservatism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Traditionalism and European ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Paleoconservatism check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Paleoconservatism?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Question about protecting MK
Hi Grayfell, thanks for watching the Mary Kay page and monitoring the "not MLM" edits. I don't know much about page protection, but would these consistent unhelpful edits merit semi-protection? (happy to discuss on article talk page if you prefer). With many thanks for your advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . For some strange reason, I like reading about, and talking about, MLM companies, so I'm always willing to offer my under-qualified advice.


 * Looking at the history, it seems like there's a batch of disruptive edits about once a month. That's similar to most big MLM companies. This seems pretty manageable to me, but some MLM articles with similar levels of activity are protected (World Financial Group) so I can see a case being made. WFG has had a more aggressive recent history of edit wars and similar, however, while Mary Kay's public log page is, surprisingly, empty. To me, this suggests it's not really worth protecting yet.


 * Page protection is a trade-off. The article needs a lot of work, and page protection can discourage good-faith new editors... at least, that's the theory. Wikipedia needs more new editors, so it's worth careful consideration. Page protection is also mostly temporary unless there is significant long-term disruption. Protecting the article for a few months probably won't change much.


 * There are several flavors of protection, but the most clear-cut applications are articles with either a lot of attention (Vandalism on Wikipedia for example) or with a specific disruptive behavior associated (sock puppetry, or perhaps something like Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia). While there are a lot of irritating edits for MLM articles, they're usually "drive-by" edits, or they are a single editor on a mission.
 * I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Grayfell, I appreciate your thoughtful response and the context of the other articles to show the spectrum of editing disruption! I understand, and it was good to learn the "drive-by" term! Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag for the Microservices page
[This edit] of the Microservices article by you, introduced the unreliable sources tag. Its not clear to me what was the problem that you were highlighting. I'd like to address them. Could you please clarify your intent? A really paranoid android (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello. I will post a comment about this on the article's talk page. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Seymour Itzkoff
Hello and thanks for your recent message. As far as the COI is concerned, I do not have any financial, familial or professional ties with Itzkoff and I have never met him or spoken to him. I have read most of his books and I think there is still much information to add. Sinuthius (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, I accept that, and have removed the appropriate template from your talk page. The place to discuss specific changes to the article is the article's talk page. You may also want to keep in mind WP:BLPN if you would like additional input for outside editors. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Mankind Quarterly
For the longest time, this has been described in the lead as a "peer-reviewed academic journal". That's not puffery, just as saying that it's printed on paper or published electronically is not puffery, but just a fact. It's peer-reviewed. Probably badly peer-reviewed, by reviewers that other journals will stay clear off, but that's a completely different matter. The same goes for it being an "academic journal". Sure it's crappy pseudoscience, but "academic", like "peer-review" is not a badge of honor but just a description. To get back to the edit warring: I'm afraid you got things backwards. This has been described as a peer-reviewed academic journal for years, until you changed that 2 weeks ago. Your edit has been reverted and challenged. Per WP:BOLD you should stop reverting and take this to the article talk page. I recommend that you self-revert and start a discussion on the article's talk page. This also goes, of course, for. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: I do hope that you are aware of the fact that this article is under discretionary sanctions (see top of the talk page). --Randykitty (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter how long it has been described in the article as such. What matters is whether reliable sources refer to it as such. And bottomline is, I had trouble finding any non-MQ related source which says it's "academic" and/or "peer-reviewed". There was a previous discussion on the subject here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It does matter insofar as WP:BOLD was not followed at an article that is under discretionary sanctions... And we take MQs word for it that it is published quarterly, another NPOV non-puffery description. If there are sourced issues with the journal's peer review, we can add that to the article. That other sources don't use the words peer-review or academic is nothing unusual, I think that goes for 99% of the journals on which we have articles and still we describe them that way. The previous discussion rapidly veered off-topic to discussing how much criticism was in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editathon: The Visibility Project - Saturday, January 19
Make+Think+Code and the Pacific Northwest College of Art are hosting a Wikipedia editathon at the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, January 19 from 10am to 2:30pm. The purpose of the event is to make Wikipedia a more vibrant, representative, inclusive and diverse resource. Please visit Meetup/MakeThinkCode/TheVisibilityProject for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Jay B
Jay Bastille complained about you at Teahouse (and has been smitten by other editors). David notMD (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Jay Bastille has been banned as a sockmaster per Sockpuppet investigations/Jay Bestille. Your engagement with them spurred the SPI filing, so job well done.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I noticed the Teahouse comment, but figured it would be gratuitous to get involved at that point. Something about that sock farm makes me think there's a bit more to the story, but either we'll find out later or we won't so... Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Thoughts On Multilevel Marketing Industry
Thanks for addressing my question about multi-level marketing industries in the Infoboxes. Your thoughts are helpful for future editing. Alweth (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback
Thanks for your note about Company affiliation, did not know and easily fixed by creating user page (i thought it was pretty obvious for most editors writing about enterprises). I have also updated Draft:Sensu Core as per the notes for your review. JS —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Finding it impossible to add content
I am sooo confused at this point about how to create any content on Wikipedia. You said I have to declare affiliation - which I did. The Wikipedia page says remove the message after you fix the problem which I did. More importantly, it seems like you are saying that ALL the content in Wikipedia has to be written by people who have no knowledge about the content if they have any affiliation. If I am a researcher on cancer and write about cancer, then you will delete the content because i am affiliated with an organization of cancer. If I am a biologist who writes about biology you will flag the content because I have an affiliation with a Biology company (how else will anyone ever write about something if they are not affiliated with an organization or school about that subject?)

Is there something on my pages that is incorrect, not verifiable by the sources that i have provided, or outright offensive? It is a simple writeup about an open-source software being used by lots of users similar to all the other similar companies in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmith1108 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. I know this is a lot to take in, and Wikipedia doesn't do a great job of explaining all this, unfortunately. There were a lot of complicated policy pages I posted on your talk page, and even worse, they often tend to be vague or inconsistent.
 * It might help to understand why this is so messy. Part of the reason is that this is a volunteer project, and not all of us agree on exactly how to handle this. So why does that matter at all? Well, because COI editing causes a lot of problems in the long run, Wikipedia editor's attitudes have shifted with time from skeptical to cynical. I assume you like to use Wikipedia yourself, so take a look at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. This isn't a policy page, like those that were posted to your talk page, this is just an article about the problem. It includes examples of lawsuits, FTC regulations, PR firms, Scientology, Burger King, hacking, doxxing, and more. COI editing is a mess, so it's not something experienced volunteers take lightly.
 * So when you discuss your own expertise, you're on the right track, but only addressing half of the problem. If I thought you were here to advertise your company, I would've suggested the article be deleted. I didn't, because I believe you are here in good faith, and I do appreciate your efforts to improve the project. That said, I don't think editors with a COI are qualified to act as impartial judges, and from what I've seen, the Wikipedia community mostly shares this position. There is a process, and it takes time. The article isn't even published yet, so the COI template is not a problem worth worrying about yet. If it's still there after the article is published and cleaned-up, I suggest using template:request edit to discuss it on the talk page. I don't think it will be a problem, though. Removing the template now will not increase the speed at which the article is published.
 * I think you must realize there is a difference between writing about your employer, and writing about cancer. Being for or against something is not the same as a conflict of interest. Even for information about cancer, we expect all information to be verifiable, because we don't publish original research. I think you already know this also, because you've added sources for your contributions. We rely on reliable sources, not personal expertise. Expert editors are very important, but not even our Nobel prize winners, of which we have several, get to published original research (usually they have other outlets, so perhaps that's not a great example, but you get what I'm saying).
 * So I sympathize, sincerely. It is confusing, and I don't know the solution to that. With that in mind, the simplest advice I can give you is to work on the draft to the best of your ability, and accept that these things take time and may not turn out to your satisfaction. Sorry, I know that must be frustrating to hear, but hopefully it's helpful anyway.
 * If you have specific questions, let me know. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Oregon State University Black History Month Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Friday, February 8
To commemorate Black History Month, Oregon State University, Wikimedia Nigeria, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, and AfroCROWD are hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon at the Oregon State University Valley Library on Friday, February 8 from 2–5pm. The purpose of the event is to reduce Wikipedia's diversity gap by creating and improving articles about African American culture and history, as well as notable people of African descent and the African diaspora in general. Please visit here for more information. Remote participation is welcome! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you make this edit?
Hi Grayfell, re: - asking because it contains almost the same exact edit summary wording as your edit here a few hours ago ("This article is intended to be a neutral overview of Arora, not a trophy case, and not a place to promote his company") with a similar sort of TNTing on a similar topic a young Indian security specialist. -- Green  C  17:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. No, I did not make that edit. Their first edit summary was an exact copy of one I used a few hours before that, here: . Presumably that editor was copying that summary. Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Didn't think it was you but needed to ask. Both articles are now confirmed user only, too much COI, SOCK, SPA, AFD, etc.. -- Green  C  15:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course, no worries. It is a weird thing. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit
Dear Grayfell,

You recently deleted a handful of key sentences and references on the Mark-recapture Wiki page, justifying them with reference to conflict of interest. Unfortunately I think your actions are misguided, and I hope you will consider correcting them. Your remarks predominately relate to the peer-reviewed journal article "Estimating omissions from searches". First some background, ...

I have become an advocate for Wikipedia, taking great pleasure from knowning that the information I add becomes freely available to everyone. The reference to the footnote in Chapman's 1951 paper is a good example - few people will have read the paper, fewer still will have noticed the footnote. Your actions have taken me aback, and require me to point out some facts.


 * 1) The authors have never been paid for any of their work, it was started as a hobby, completed outside of work, and I think also published without cost.
 * 2) The authors do not work in the field of mark-recapture.
 * 3) To my knowledge, the authors have never modified Wiki pages related to their paid research.
 * 4) As a reader can confirm - the remarks you have removed were purely scientific, concise, fully referenced, and essential for a proper understanding and implementation of a Bayesian mark-recapture estimate.

In contrast, the remaining reference is to a non-peer-reviewed calculation (described by the author as "original research" - I've no reason to doubt this), but appeared after publication of the complete Bayesian analysis described in "Estimating omissions from searches". The former resembles an extra derivation given in the Supplementary Material of the latter; which also provides the essential information for how estimates should be modified under different search conditions, and is the key paper on these estimates.

According to Wikipedia's guidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, I can see no conflict of interest through the edits I have made, regardless of whether I were involved with the articles referred to or not - citations to material written by yourself is explicitly allowed.

Therefore having given your actions consideration, I think them unjustified, and that they have damaged the scientific content and usefulness of the page. I suspect they were taken without full knowledge of the situation and scientific issues discussed. I hope you will discuss with your colleagues if you feel necessary, and amend your actions.

Best wishes, P.R.Picasso (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. I understand that this must be frustrating, and I do think we can resolve this. I think, from your comments, that you may not fully understand the problem, so we should clarify that first. There are multiple problems here, and we would need to address all of them in order to restore the content:
 * Citing your own work is a conflict of interest in that you are suggesting that your own work is vitally significant to understanding a topic. You are correct that it is permissible to do so, but per WP:SELFCITE this needs to be handled carefully. Since most of your edits have been to emphasize a single academic's work, this is a sign that your goals are not entirely anodyne, even if your intentions are good. While you imply that you are this person, you do not directly state it. This is fine (we are not interested in "outing" anyone), but your behavior is, to be blunt, similar to spamming. Please try and see this from an outside volunteer's perspective. How do we know that this is important, and is the person who wrote it qualified to say that it's so important that it must be included? As an extension of Wikipedia's policies against original research, we generally rely on impartial editors to decide which perspectives should be included and which should not. The person who wrote a source is not an impartial judge of that source, obviously.
 * An additional problem, which also must be addressed, is that many of your additions were not written in an encyclopedic tone. Saying things are "important" and "essential", as you did here, is inappropriate, as this is a form of editorializing. Further, some of your additions conflate both COI and editorializing problems. This edit twice says that something "has been suggested" but it doesn't indicate to the readers that you are the one who's "suggesting" it. This is both a conflict-of-interest problem, and also unsupported attribution. These are just examples, but this isn't a comprehensive explanation of all of the problems with these edits. I recommend that you look carefully at Manual of Style/Words to watch as a starting point for understanding why this style of writing isn't appropriate.
 * Hopefully this explains why I've reverted your edits. I am not an admin, I am just a regular editor, like you. In this sense, we are both peers in the Wikipedia community. If you would like additional input, one options to post to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. There, other uninvolved editors will see this and can help evaluate if my actions were appropriate.
 * Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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! See: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Alweth (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What was that for?
The source is right here, it leads to the link of the video that is still available, though the deceased man was not included there.

(Okay, I actually DO NOT KNOW how to make any reliable sources, all I got was... from YouTube video links. How do I do that?)

ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)ROBLOXGamingDavid


 * The video was just reposted by a random account. It wasn't on Logan Paul's account, and we don't know exactly how or why they changed the video. Also, that person doesn't own the copyright to the video, which makes it a copyright violation. Wikipedia articles should not link to copyright violations on Youtube (per WP:COPYVIO and WP:YOUTUBE).
 * Please look at Reliable sources. After you've looked at that, you may want to also look at Help:Referencing for beginners. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can just remove the references and keep the text. Also, I know how and why. It's because he done this to avoid breaking the rules for YouTube Community Guidelines and he edited it out on editing softwares or something. You didn't read the sentences, have you?


 * ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)ROBL0XGamingDavid


 * I read the sentences. Pretty much everything is "still available online" for people who bother to look, but Wikipedia article's shouldn't encourage people to go looking for trashy illegal uploads.  If you think this belongs, find a reliable source explaining it. Info on Wikipedia should be verifiable, which means that you have to point to a source. Otherwise it's original research, which doesn't belong. The place to talk about this is now Talk:Logan Paul, not here. Grayfell (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Rebab
Hello Acehood21 (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted dead link from Pontiac Firebird page.
Hi, I found a dead link on the External Links from Pontiac Firebird wiki page and deleted it, I hope it was correct, and I did not check off minor edit, because I doubt it is minor. Please let me know if that was correct. Thanks You!CarIndustryFan (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano
Thanks. Edit conflicted on my self-undo. Meters (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No worries. I almost did the same thing. Grayfell (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't believe how fast you were to catch that. Meters (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think. It was just a fluke, really. Grayfell (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, it was just a complement on your quick undo of my bad edit. It's rare for me to make a bone-headed edit (or the more usual misclick due to slow screen updates) like that and not catch it myself before someone else sees it.Meters (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hear you. That's a minor embarrassment I know all to well. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry on BLP noticeboard
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.79.14 (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)  CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked Tsumikiria⧸  🌹🌉 21:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, what fun. As I said at BLPN, this is a WP:DUCK, and User talk:50.107.81.26 explains it all. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Now this is founded. Aggressively removing any hint of sockpuppetery in other users' comments is surely a way to flag themselves. I wonder what kind of trick they'll bring up next time. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

T Robinson revert
I agree re controversial. So why use it? I wonder if you made the mistake that I made - concentrated on removing one controversial only to inadvertently insert it elsewhere. Or am I missing something? Jacksoncowes (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * For future reference, this is about this edit. Downplaying "far right" while effectively replacing it with "controversial" was the specific problem, but the place to discuss changes to the article would be the article's talk page. This was already mentioned in the edit summary you reverted, so please discuss at Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist) if you want to follow up on this. Grayfell (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Gab_(social_network)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gab_(social_network). Grayfell, since you're one of the main contributors of the page, I believe this RfC is highly relevant to your interest. You may participate whenever you have time. Thanks. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

SomaFM edits
Hello Grayfell. I find it troubling now that two times in a row, quite clearly relevant historical information has been removed from what was a kind effort to document historical information on what in my and from what I can gather, many others' opinion constitutes a relatively extraordinary piece of open internet history. This site is likely under financial strain and will at some point be at risk of closing. If this occurs, historical information here is of enormous value. Equally, if the Internet Archive ever comes under threat, this resource might form a valuable backup source in the future. Multilateration and distribution is of definite value here. As I have said before, my overall impression of Wikipedia at the moment is one of immaturity and unprofessionalism. These qualities really endanger the future of the site as an open, stable platform, beyond the financial and legal strain. Please take a moment to consider to think, and perhaps you may realize that if the site gains a reputation for arrogance and rejection, the decline in number of new, and active contributors is likely to accelerate once again as it did in the late 2000s. The web today is a very different place than in 2008, and the environment might not be as forgiving as it was then. I came here merely to help better document a nonprofit website/service that is of historical importance to myself and many others, and that is increasingly rare in today's landscape. It would seem in keeping with Wikipedia's founding spirit to help document a similar site which may at some point encounter difficulties. For my effort and time, not only have my references, but in fact all references to the site's current and historical channel offerings been removed. Instead of simply removing people's work, perhaps you might consider the merits of being constructive and helping instead. If SomaFM, and/or the Internet Archive were to one day disappear, one could be sure that the amount of effort required to actually recompile the information would be enormous. One would think that Wikipedia would have an interest in trying to help prevent such situations.

It seems as though other contributors encountered similar issues a decade ago, and gave up. I hope my efforts perhaps were not entirely wasted, and that someone might see the value in some of the information. As for me, I will keep a copy of my contribution locally as a PDF and a physical printed copy. At least with physical books documenting this kind of thing, they don't get retroactively edited while the books sit on shelves by people who don't seem to care or have very much knowledge about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somafmlistener (talk • contribs) 06:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Take a look at what the article looks like right now. The info is still there, and will remain in the article's history until it doesn't. Maybe that will be soon, maybe not. As you've noticed, Wikipedia isn't a great place to store information over the long term. In fact, it never was the right place to store info. It was always a gamble, and that's not a good quality for an archive. To put it another way, Wikipedia has never been the place to publish original research. This is a policy of the site, and has been for almost two decades. I have already tried to explain some of this both on your talk page, and the article's talk page (Talk:SomaFM). The problems will need to be fixed, because being a collaborative project means that sometimes the project doesn't work the way we want it to. If you want me to be constructive and help you, you need to help me as well. You can start by reading the posts I've already added to talk pages, and by finding reliable sources. Again, I strongly recommend taking a look at No original research, a page which is now old enough to vote and buy cigarettes.
 * Take a look at that and then, if you have any more questions, you can ask me, or perhaps post to the Wikipedia teahouse. Grayfell (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It would seem strange to require third party sources when discussing the channel offerings of a radio or media service. I have trouble to think of a better source to cite than the site themselves regarding services they currently offer, and to use the web archive to show what they offered in the past. If you yourself could offer some ideas of relevant sources for a resolution, instead of saying that it is all on the original contributor to solve the situation if they wish the information they offered to remain, it would be most appreciated. Yes, Wikipedia would seem to be a poor archive. However, Wikipedia claims it is an encyclopedia. For centuries upon centuries, physical encyclopedias and similar have played vital roles for historians and researchers trying to piece together a previously known past. Again, this would seem something that Wikipedia editors might be humble enough to consider for a moment. Some day Wikipedia itself might come under threat, control or become property of a large player in the internet space today. Moderation, and humility in all things. Also, I find it hard to consider links to web archive copies of SomaFM's site in the early 2000s "original research". By that token again a lot of Wikipedia itself falls under that category. I don't even want to think about how Wikipedia deals with the page describing Wikipedia itself, and how controversial edits and violent disputes are there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somafmlistener (talk • contribs) 07:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Before we go any further, you've responded both here, and at your own talk page, but I can tell from my watchlist that you've said slightly different things in both places. Obviously this is going to get very confusing very quickly. Where do you want me to respond? Here, or your own talk page?
 * Additionally, you should sign every post (see Help:signature) It may seem overly-fussy, but it really does make things easier for experienced editors. You also don't need to use ping when posting on my talk page, since I am already notified of such posts. Grayfell (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is fine. Somafmlistener (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will respond to your comments here.
 * I agree that humility is important, so is it humble to imply that we haven't "considered it for a moment"? I think that's actually pretty rude, and I can assure I have have thought about this, and I am confident so have many other editors. Not only have we thought about it, we've tried to deal with it. These are not simple problems. Wikipedia isn't a physical encyclopedia, and it's not designed to be. This is an unfortunate limitation of the project, and I have no idea what it's going to mean for the future. If you have a solution to these deep, existential problems Wikipedia faces, by all means, propose them. Wikipedia editors, myself included, do have an arrogance problem, but I don't think veiled insults are much help, here.
 * You comments suggest some familiarity with Wikipedia, but your account is brand new, so I'm going to assume you're relatively new to editing also. If your interested in the philosophy of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, a good starting point is Five pillars, but throwing an alphabet soup of additional acronyms at you probably isn't what either of us wants. I could go into my thinking on these issue, but if you're not interested in the specific points I raised on the article's talk page, perhaps you're willing to trust instead that the guidelines and policies in place are there for a reason. The gist of it is that Wikipedia is always changing, and the dirty work of editing Wikipedia is actual editing. This means we have to figure out what to include and what to leave out. We do this by consensus, which doesn't ignore all the thousands of editors who've built consensus on prior policies and guidelines.
 * The article on Wikipedia is a flawed comparison. For one thing, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source on Wikipedia. For another, "Wikipedia" has so many sources about it, there are standalone articles about them. SomaFM doesn't have these resources, obviously.
 * If you want to discuss specific issues with the article, that talk page is a much better place, because this will help form consensus, and will make the discussion much easier for others to find, whenever it may come up. Grayfell (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

QuisLex
Greyfell, thanks for reaching out.

I’m very glad that you portray yourself on your talk page as not an angry mastodon. Neither am I, so I believe we can agree to discuss this matter in civilized fashion. Let me tell you something about myself first. It’s a lengthy explanation, but it’s necessary to show you my experience as a Wikipedia editor and what I feel needs to be changed.

I have edited many pages as a labor of love, particularly articles about films and filmmakers, which in my experience are executed very, very badly on Wikipedia. I performed many edits to polish and complete the article on Satyajit Ray’s masterpiece Pather Panchali and to nominate it successfully as a Today’s Featured Article, where it appeared in August 2015.

I virtually created from scratch the article about one of Yasujiro Ozu’s masterpieces, Late Spring, which became the most comprehensive source for English-language scholarship on this famous film anywhere on the Internet. The information in my article has been paraphrased, and sometimes copied outright, by many online articles about the movie. This article (https://film.avclub.com/yasujiro-ozu-s-quietly-staggering-late-spring-returns-i-1798186831), for example, is strongly influenced by my Wikipedia article as it originally appeared.

Alas, several editors who apparently had never seen the film in question, nor even read about it, eviscerated the article, making huge deletions, in one case removing an entire section. Another editor, bless him, tried to reinstate these deleted parts, with the correct comment “lots of relevant info was removed without consensus,” but his edit was unfortunately reversed. Ironically, because of these unjustified deletions, certain statements which, in the original version, had appeared with appropriate citations included, now appeared unsupported, and thus the article has since been given an “original research” tag!

It’s an odd situation when an editor with a great deal of specialized knowledge in a topic – who has done so much research and writing for a particular article and has included citations for every fact mentioned and every claim asserted – is undone by editors with no knowledge of the topic, who come in and make sweeping, unjustified changes. It makes editing Wikipedia very not-fun... and discourages talented people from contributing to the encyclopedia.

This is my very long way of saying that I welcome editors who are collaborative and constructive, but I’m less than happy with editors who are destructive.

I want to thank you for pointing out that I need to reveal the fact that I’m being compensated. I will add this information to the article’s talk page.

When I was approached by my client, representing the organization QuisLex, to edit their page for compensation, I thought “why not”? Obviously you disagree, but if all information in an article is properly sourced, it shouldn’t matter whether an editor has been paid or is working for free.

I didn’t find anything negative about this particular company, except for the odd fact that many legal firms had at first felt threatened by QuisLex, because they initially saw the company as a competitor, a fact that I duly noted in the text you deleted. Believe me, if I had found additional criticisms about QuisLex on the Internet, I would have gladly included them and sourced them, and then informed the client, if they had any objections, that I needed to include the criticisms to maintain NPOV.

However, I was recently approached by a client to represent a company that has had many legal claims and other public complaints against it. I was appalled by this company and immediately turned the client down. I refuse to edit the Wikipedia page of a company that I believe may be fraudulent or otherwise unsavory.

You wrote that the use of the phrase “award-winning” in the first sentence of the original article was a case of WP:PEACOCK. I have consulted that particular Wikipedia template, and I don’t believe this to be true, because in the original text you deleted, immediately after the phrase “award-winning,” I included a reference to an article that specifically mentioned awards won by QuisLex. In other words, the claim “award-winning” was not “puffery,” but verifiable fact. However, out of consideration for your views, if the sentence has to you the appearance of WP:PEACOCK – even though I believe it does not – I will delete the use of the phrase “award winning” from that sentence when I re-create the article.

Let me also add in perfect candor that the “conflict of interest” rule you cited doesn’t make any sense to me, because it appears to contradict the dictionary definition of COI, including Wikipedia’s own definition of it:

''“A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party.”''

The sense of the above passage is clear: for conflict of interest to occur, there must be (at least) three parties involved. Let’s call them A, B and C. In this case, I am A, and my client is B. But who on earth is C? To whom is my “duty owed”?

Is it the Wikipedia Foundation? I have never been hired by the Wikipedia Foundation, I’m not being paid by it, and I sure didn’t become a Wikipedia editor to help the foundation. Is it the “Wikipedia community”? What is that exactly? I have a purely voluntary – not legal or contractual – obligation to serve Wikipedia’s readers. The way I do that is by creating complete, accurate and well-sourced Wikipedia articles. And that’s exactly what I was doing with the QuisLex article from which you erased all my changes. So I’m involved in no conflict of interest with the Wikipedia community, and I think most readers of the encyclopedia would agree with that. But if you disagree, please explain to me how conflict of interest applies in this case.

The rules say that paid editors are strongly discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia. It doesn’t say that they are forbidden from doing so. I suspect that that wording is included because to forbid editors from making edits to an article for which they are being paid by a client would constitute restraint of trade. Certainly, I would claim restraint of trade if I were thus prevented from editing this article.

I would like to invite you to help me rebuild the QuisLex Wikipedia article. Particularly, if you happen to find any negative articles about QuisLex, by all means let me know, since to help maintain NPOV, I will gladly include references to those negative articles in the text.

Yours truly,

Dylanexpert (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh dear.
 * I tried to make my post to your talk page short and sweet, and this is what I get in response?
 * I started to write a lengthier response, but decided against it. Since your speculation about restraint of trade carries an implied legal threat, I will instead post to the conflict of interest noticeboard. Please review No legal threats.
 * I will, however, remind you that, per WP:DISCLOSE, you should disclose every article for which you have been compensated for editing, and you should do so on your user page. You should do this before you edit. Because this is a common issue, multiple templates are available to help you with this. I recommend Template:Paid. You also need to explain who is paying you. Is it QuisLex directly, or is this through some other company, or a freelance service? This needs to be explained as part of your disclosure.
 * The noticeboard would be the proper place to explain your activity, not here. Please be more succinct, also. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Link for convenience: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

PNCA Art+Feminism Wikipedia Editathon, Saturday, March 9
The Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) is hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon in the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, March 9 from 10am – 2:30pm. This is a free community event designed to teach people to add and edit information about cis and transgender women and nonbinary folks to Wikipedia. We'll have training sessions, artist talks, snacks, free childcare, and plenty of exciting energy and collaboration! You're welcome to drop in any time during the event. Participants are encouraged to bring their own laptops and charging cables, though if you are not able, computer stations will be available. Please visit this link for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Oregon Jewish Museum, Thursday, March 7
The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education, in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host the 2nd Annual International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Thursday, March 7 from 4 to 8 pm. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter 18 Jewish women artists into the canon. Support will be provided by an experienced local Wikipedian who will be on site to teach and guide the process. This edit-a-thon will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participants will have an opportunity to select an artist/s ahead of time or on site.

Please visit this link and the meetup page for more information. Thanks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft still waiting for review
Hi - the draft on Sensu Draft:Sensu Core is still waiting for review. Do ALL articles written by all authors take this long for review? If there are some corrections to be made to any pages in Wikipedia will it again take 8 weeks for review? Just curious how much the policies for creating new pages has changed since I dont remember going through so much editorial review when I had created pages in the past on software topics. jS (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not all articles take this long, but some take even longer. These articles need the attention of volunteers who are familiar with Wikipedia, familiar with the topic, and patient enough to look through all cited sources. Take a random look at some of the articles in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/6 weeks ago to see some of the older ones. As a random example that jumps out at me, look at Draft:Cold Gas Thruster. At a glance, it looks like a good article, but I am honestly not knowledgeable enough about the topic to review this article fairly. Are you? If so, please do! For many articles, including yours, the reviewing editor also needs to be somewhat familiar with WP:COI and Spam issues.  This makes things more complicated, and frustrating, for everyone involved, so it should be no surprise that volunteers are scarce.
 * As the AFC notice says, "drafts are reviewed in no specific order". Glancing at your contributions, I see you've returned to Wikipedia after about ten years of inactivity, and have since then mainly focused in this one topic, which is also your employer. If you're here to build an encyclopedia, than please do so. In the meantime, have patience. Grayfell (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

question regarding edit you undid
I was wondering what you're referring to by "old trolling" Is there some about that teen with FADS I'm not in the loop of? I was thinking that that image would be useful as another example as people would be more likely to see an older person with FADS than a baby with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redactedfox (talk • contribs) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The image was added by a troll account who re-uploaded it multiple times under different names and used it for harassment and jokes. That account also created sock puppets, but it wasn't worth following up on. It's pretty weird that you managed to find and link to that version of the article from several years ago, which only existed for less than ten minutes. If you're here to volunteer to build an encyclopedia, do it. If your here for jokes and stale memes, go elsewhere. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for context, I was unaware of that image's purpose. I was looking in history to make sure that I wasn't uploading a image that was used before and changed, I saw that one and looked that it was removed with no reason, that's why I suggested about it, sorry for any troubles. Redactedfox (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding "disruptive" edits
You recently reverted some changes I made and sent me a message suggesting that my changes were "disruptive." That's confusing to me. I'm wondering why you reverted the changes, and why you think my changes were disruptive.

The article is on Sad Puppies. That's obviously a topic that's going to be controversial. But Wikipedia's 2nd pillar is, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." The article formerly said it was: 1) unsuccessful, 2) anti-diversity, and 3) that it's founder, Larry Correia, had created Sad Puppies to get one of his books to win a Hugo award.

The first 2 are not neutral. They're subjective, and they're biased. They cite to an editorial from The Atlantic, which argues that Sad Puppies was unsuccessful and anti-diversity.

The 3rd point appears to be completely made up. Correia has given several explanations why he created Sad Puppies, but none of them involved Corriea saying he did it so his book could win a Hugo.

So I deleted those 3 sections. They were reverted back, with the comment that "they might be sourced and biased, but that doesn't make them incorrect." Well, only the first 2 are "sourced," but they're also subjective. For every cite that you can provide saying that Sad Puppies was unsuccessful and anti-diversity, I can find sources saying the opposite. That makes it inherently subjective, and not neutral.

So I reverted them back. And they were reverted back. So I deleted them again. At which point you stepped in, changed it back to being non-neutral, and warned me that I may lose my posting privileges.

Why? It seems like I'm the one making changes consistent with Wikipedia's mission. Why was I warned, and why did you revert the changes so that the article is not neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattymillhouse (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for creating an account. Since multiple editors have reverted your changes, The place to discuss this is the article's talk page (Talk:Sad Puppies), not here. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nazi symbol
How is me editing something on the Black Sun topic to the truth vandalism? Whether you got my other message or not, if you knew anything about the Black Sun you would know it's an Occultic symbol that I hold personally, and I don't appreciate you being do quick to designate it a neo-Nazi symbol just by what you see on TV. And I don't also know what gives you the right to suggest that I'll be banned for challenging you either. You're not special. Let people who know about this stuff make the appropriate corrections. MrKvlt (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * New posts go at the bottom. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. If you don't like that your symbol is overwhelmingly associated with neo-Nazis, your dispute is with the mass-shooter and about 80 years of Nazis, so get in line. Regardless, again, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not your personal beliefs or experiences. Grayfell (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Great REplacement
I created a correct and appropriate page for this topic. You are being incorrect in deleting it. There is nothing wrong with this page it is NOT any form of incorrect action on my part.Patriotmouse (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect for many reasons. Discuss at Talk:The Great Replacement conspiracy theory. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring Complaint
You just uploaded a complaint to my Talk Page about edit warring. This after my repeated calls for users to resolve the dispute on the Talk Page before further editing went unheeded by you. I suggest you take your own advice and join me in reverting the spurt of aggressive editing until consensus is acheived.SamSamuel11 (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Calling for other people to discuss the changes, while also edit warring to preserve your own preferred version, is a transparent attempt at filibustering. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Identity Evropa. Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

More specific, please?
Regarding this edit you undid: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Pool&oldid=889665153#Career You said it was not neutral enough? Please be specific. I'm confused because I thought I was being extraordinarily neutral. Please tell me specifically what is the problem and I will try to fix it.Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure. It was not neutral for several reasons:
 * The line about "massive attention, overwhelmingly positive," was not directly supported by the source, which was a relatively weak summary of the review, and which didn't say anything at all about the interview's lasting encyclopedic significance. Even if your personal opinion was correct, it is not appropriate to introduce it into an article as a plain fact in Wikipedia's voice.
 * More alarmingly, the bit about "left of center" was attached to a source which didn't even mention Pool at all, making it pure editorializing. The place to document Twitter's status as a "town square" would be the article for Twitter, and would have to be supported by much more substantial sources. Changes to the Pool article need to summarize what reliable sources say about Pool. Adding what you personally know to be true about Pool, even if supported by convenient sources to bolster Pool's opinion, is still WP:OR.
 * Pool's ostensible political position is controversial (as a look at the article's history of vandalism will show) but that's not important unless it's explained directly by sources. In other words, him describing himself as a "social liberal" is only relevant to Twitter, or censorship, or Dorsey, to the extent it is directly supported by reliable, independent sources.
 * The place to discuss this further would be Talk:Tim Pool. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Error on Carl Benjamin page
The following is about this edit you made on Carl Benjamin page It was unclear what Benjamin's comments referred to; Phillips had not mocked male suicide and believes it to be a serious issue.

This is not true, it is actually clear what Carl´s comments reffered to, and she did laugh, here is the VIDEO where she does this and that Carl is reffering to:



You just cited a webpage of a leftwing publication talking about the issue and not directly the video clip, when it is widely aviable, why do this?, if you see the video clip you can see it is very clear, and that she did laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicorene4 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed on the article's talk page in tedious detail. Don't bother posting anything about this here again. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Repeating yourself over and over again is just pestering. Knock it off. Grayfell (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)