User talk:Grayfell/Archive 15

Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Yr.
Wow. I wouldn't have guessed from our article that he holds the views described here:. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh jeez. That's pretty bad. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Council for Social and Economic Studies
Is it notable enough for its own article? Doug Weller talk 14:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

critical theory, frankfurt school, postmodernism
Sorry, but I didn't understand your edit where you removed mention of Frankfurt School from lede of postmodernism article. My understanding is that the Frankfurt School was of central importance in the development of critical theory. For reasons that are not at all clear, the Frankfurt School has only cursory mention in the postmodernism article. Could you explain a bit more? Thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have replied on the article's talk page. To re-emphasize what I said there, stick closer to sources, please. Grayfell (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sbelknap (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

False information on Wikipedia
It is everyone duty to ensure information on wiki is correct, a curate and factual. Incorrectly information should be remove and not be question due to lack of knowledge or information. Tianyl88 (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

On Vikernes
'Interviews are routine, and his personal opinions are not significant without a specific reason.' I could understand that, weren't we writing about his very stance on politics, worldview, and personal beliefs. How is the fact that he holds in high esteem the post-war's chief neo-fascist philosopher (aka Baron Julius Evola) or the cultural 'pessimist' Oswald Spengler alien or in any way disposable to the redaction of the very article? His 'nazprim' rhetoric and talking points are obviously deeply influenced by these readings up to this day. Were you expecting to find the interview in Forbes or Buzzfeed? Regards, Göbbelschen (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It all comes down to sources. His views are only significant because reliable sources explain why they are significant. This is, in general, the same standard across Wikipedia. Sources frequently mention Vikernes's close association with neo-Nazism, so mentioning this seems reasonable. Fortunately, reliable, independent sources are available to help us explain this to readers.
 * Unfortunately, the article is still too reliant on a handful of Vikernes's own writings. The section has a banner mentioning its WP:PRIMARY-source problem, and interviews are part of this. Vikernes eagerly shares his many, many opinions through interviews, blogs, vlogs, music, etc. He's chatty, in other words. Picking a few old comments from one random interview is arbitrary. It doesn't help that he has a habit of contradicting himself, where he will imply one thing, and then imply something very different, often within the same interview. Your ability to find an interview, as a Wikipedia editor, is not enough to support that some piece of information is significant.
 * It's fairly common for articles about musicians to mention their musical influences, even with primary sources. It's far less common to list philosopher's influences based on primary sources, and Vikernes isn't a philosopher. If reliable sources do not explain why Evola or Spengler are significant, than you, as an editor, cannot decide to imply they are significant anyway.
 * Not that it necessarily matters, but for the most part, Evola is not taken seriously by other philosophers. His extremism was convenient to Mussolini for a brief time, but that's not the same thing. The only halfway reliable source I've seen which regards him as legitimate is A. James Gregor, but as a eugenics advocate, he's borderline fringe himself. Evola, like Vikernes, had a prolific output of open-ended commentary on mysticism, power, myth, and "history"... but so what? Are these philosophy, or are they just Barnum statements? Do you see the problem? We still need reliable sources to explain why this matters. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, first and foremost thanks for your elucidation. On Vikernes' article, I must admit that I edited it in a well-intentioned way and only because I had already seen the same paragraph on the spanish wikipedia (namely 'Creencias personales' i.e. 'Personal beliefs'), so I was mostly unaware of how the modus operandi of both wikipedias might differ. Anyways, I get your point. In a more personal light, on Evola's reputation, I wouldn't be so eager to belittle his philosophical importance. Although it is true that he is perceived as an extremist, I think that the redaction of his Wikipedia article is somehow biased and riddled with buzzwords, and his influence has been rising for the last 20 years. He influenced important philosophers such as his own friend Mircea Eliade, the Nouvelle Droite via Alain de Benoist, the so-called Putin's brain Aleksandr Dugin (who has called himself a disciple of Evola), and more recently, especially since his mention by former White House's strategist Steve Bannon, the american 'alt-right' movement, where he has started to gain prominence (Youtube right-wing personality Nick Fuentes mentioned him last week, among others). Maybe the more 'boomer' wing of america's right will eventually be superseded by the more aristocratic and traditionalist, younger one. But that's just my 2 cents- Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Göbbelschen (talk • contribs) 00:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Evola's article has been a battlefield for a while, but the sources I have seen still do not take him seriously in some important regards. There are some exceptions, but he is mostly of interest for three reasons: His historical influence on Fascism; his popularity among new-age mystics, and his popularity among neo-fascists and neo-reactionaries. Sources do not typically treat him as someone who has advanced significant, coherent philosophical ideas. Many good philosophers are so challenging, or inconsistent, that people often disagree on their intentions (Nietzsche, as the obvious example). Evola, however, never reached even that threshold. Good philosophy can and should be refined and challenged, and parts must be rejected or at least refutable. Evola always presented his ideas as intrinsically immune to criticism. It doesn't work this way, and that's not a philosophy, it's just mysticism presented in vaguely philosophical language. I've said it before, but in this respect, Evola's style reminds me more of L. Ron Hubbard than any philosopher I've read.
 * None of this makes him a serious philosopher in the eyes of academia. I suspect he was aware of this himself, at least on some level, which is why he always walked such a fine line between mocking established intellectual institutions, while also constantly name-dropping many people from those institutions to give his ideas heft and credibility. It's a common-enough rhetorical trick, but nobody who's paying close attention should fall for it.
 * Even if the right is superseded by those more reactionary elements, that still won't make Evola a respected philosopher. Mircea Eliade wasn't exactly impartial, was he? Alain de Benoist is... fringe, to put it in simplistic terms, and Aleksandr Dugin is even farther on the fringes. Nick Fuentes (oh.) is a youtuber, and if he starts being cited by academics and philosophers, so be it, but that's a separate issue. If you like Fuentes, you might really, really hate (or like) Oliver Thorn, who also did a video mentioning Evola in a specifically philosophical context. If, per Thorn, Evola is "just" a traditionalist, then he's not saying anything particularly novel... Traditionalism a vague political position, but having a position doesn't make someone a philosopher. So he's not just a follower of traditionalism, is he? Evola chose his "traditions" to align with his extreme, unsubstantiated values and discarded those traditions that inconveniently didn't support these values. This isn't even worth taking seriously, and Thorn sure doesn't. This just means... not much. Polemics are not philosophy, after all, even if they occasionally overlap. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Thought you might like my little sister's Youtube channel too

It has been a pleasure talking with you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Schnee (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Gossip
This edit you made swaps two persons as gossip victims. It also changes somewhat-BLP-compliant text to one-sided gossip merely described as "unsubstantiated rumor". Do not consider this as a warning because everyone is to blame for not noticing this for half a year. But you must be more careful in the future. It is reckless to slip such a mistake, especially if it is unsubstantiated gossip about a living person. Unsubstantiated gossip is forbidden on Wikipedia. It just so happens that this exact gossip has been debunked in a separate paragraph in the article. Thanks. w umbolo  ^^^  09:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What? Perhaps you are confused about what that sentence meant. In that context "...repeated as fact.." only means that Loomer acted like it as a fact, not that it was a fact. I do not see how that edit presents Loomer as a victim, so I don't understand what you're talking about. Loomer spread gossip, which I strongly believe Wikipedia should just treat as falsehoods or even just lies, and we should explain that these are wrong. If you agree, and it appears you do, than there is no problem. Grayfell (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit presents Tlaib as the gossip victim when actually Omar was the victim of the false accusation. I strongly agree that gossip should be treated as a lie, even though it may mean someone will be called a liar. w umbolo   ^^^  20:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. This was a simple mistake, which as you say, was apparently easy to overlook. This post, therefor, seems disproportionate, and confusing. For future reference, saying "Do not consider this as a warning" is, in essence, a backdoor warning, and I'm not sure why it would matter. If you had some reason to "give me a warning" over a policy we are both obviously familiar with, you should just give me a warning. If you want to discuss the article, do so on the article's talk page, not here, where you should explain why you removed the content completely instead of fixing the mistake. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Because removing the content completely is fixing the mistake when it is duplicated in another section. w umbolo   ^^^  12:45, 18 May 2019 (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. 160.39.234.40 (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Postmodernism
Hi, Grayfell, I was impressed with some of your recent commentary at Talk:Postmodernism (and perturbed by some of the changes there that required your intervention). If you have time, could you have a look at a couple of discussions at Talk:Postmodernism (here and here)? There's also an issue at Talk:Jean-François Lyotard which I linked at WT:PHILO, since some of these pages are pretty slow-moving otherwise. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Question
Thank you for the Wikipedia guidelines you sent me. Since you sent those guidelines to me, I noticed citations needed in other articles(St. Louis Blues, St. Louis Cardinals, San Francisco 49ers) and added them accordingly. I also noticed the article(Burton Rocks) needed cleanup due to page issues. Using the guidelines, I made several rounds of editorial deletions of extraneous references and material. Is it all right to remove the "page-issue" tag?Wiscbadger (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thank you for helping to clean-up the Burton Rocks article. Before I answer your question, I need to ask you something. Are you new to Wikipedia? By that I mean, is this your first account? Your area of activity, and some of your specific edits, strongly overlap with two other accounts, specifically User:MGR1957 and User:Swort123. Both of those primarily made edits related to Burton Rocks and his father Lawrence Rocks (chemist). Wikipedia generally prohibits multiple accounts to be controlled by a single person, as this is usually considered sock puppetry. This is especially concerning when accounts have a conflict of interest (COI), which appears to be the case here.


 * Both sock puppetry and conflict-of-interest editing are serious problems for the project, and the timing of your account creation and your focus on these two relatively obscure biographies seem like an odd coincidence, so it's important to be very clear about this.


 * If you have created multiple accounts due to an error, or a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies, that's not the end of the world, but you should be transparent about this. Please understand that only one of your accounts should be editing any topic. (There are exceptions, but these do not appear to apply here). If you are financially compensated in any way for editing Wikipedia, you must disclose this, per Paid-contribution disclosure


 * If neither of these things apply to you, the place to discuss this is the article's talk pages. While the article is much improved, and again thank you for that, there are still subtle issues with undue weight, but the place to go into that would be the article's talk page. Please have patience. If you do not have a COI, and there is no response in a few more days, you can remove the template. I would also encourage you to take a look at WP:WTW as this comes up a lot in these situations. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes, this is my only account as I was taken to the subject circuitously as a midwest sports fan hyperlinked to Paul DeJong. I saw the page issue tag and tried to help as you mentioned. When I come across the citations needed in articles I enjoy I'll try to help as I've done. Per your suggestions I placed undue weight issue question in the article talk page. I'll definitely have patience and thanks again for guidance.Wiscbadger (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

CNN/MSNBC
Why would you revert my edit describing MSNBC as left-leaning? That is accurate. The article itself discusses MSNBC's liberal/progressive stance in detail, and MSNBC prides itself as being the anti-Fox News. There was no need to revert. JohnTopShelf (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The place to discuss this would be the article's talk page. At a glance I can see that this has already been discussed there multiple times. Your personal opinion that this is a defining trait that needs to be in the very first sentence is not relevant to how Wikipedia builds neutral articles. Again, I am not interested in discussing this here, only on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop
Regarding this edit: you've been reverted by multiple other people for making similar edits to articles about living people. You must be aware by now that content like this is not regarded as acceptable, so please stop adding it. 2600:1004:B128:2F01:4101:50A0:48AA:C0EC (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Do not post on my talk page again until you have created an account. It takes literally seconds. It is not reasonable for you to monopolize and manipulate these discussions by avoiding accountability. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
Dear Grayfell, I hereby would like to inform you that I am reporting you at arbitration enforcement. Here is a link to the report I have submitted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Grayfell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinuthius (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thank you! I appreciate that. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yield_management
Well I apologise for that, not trying to be disruptive. The orphan warning on Eatigo page states 'Please introduce links to this page from related articles' So I was looking for a related article for it, to which Yield management seemed to fit. Should I make another edit, add back restaurants section but without mentioning (or linking) to any specific platform? Seems relevant to the page as other industries are listed there too. Maxjpeters (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)maxjpeters


 * Sorry, didn't realise that was not the correct way to list similar companies, I was following the same section here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chope&oldid=896949762 . Maxjpeters (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)maxjpeters


 * Hello. First, do you have a conflict of interest? Specifically, are you compensated for editing Wikipedia? If so, you must disclose this per Paid-contribution disclosure. This is not optional. Please carefully review the information about this I posted to your talk page. You may also find Plain and simple conflict of interest guide helpful.
 * As for listing other competitors, those other articles are a mess. Linking a bunch of questionable, spammy articles together isn't really helping the project, right? Another part of the problem is that your selection was arbitrary. Why are those particular websites listed, and not the many similar websites which may or may not have articles? A single link to List of websites about food and drink would be appropriate, as this would consolidate all of this in one place. This also helps keep down more blatant link spam, since it makes for fewer articles to keep track of.
 * I request that you hold-off on adding Eatigo to any articles until that article's deletion discussion has been resolved. That's a request, not a demand. The nature of some of your edits seems far too promotional to me, but if a reliable, neutral source mention this company in some specific context, and you do not have a conflict of interest, you could add it with context to another article. Otherwise this is premature. The article's orphan status will not make any difference on whether or not it survives. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Yes, I'm employee of Eatigo and was asked to edit the wiki page as some of the content was incorrect. (although not employed just to edit wiki). As the page already had warnings about sounding like an advertisement and lacking sources, I re-wrote the content using only facts that I cited from mostly news websites I found. So I should disclose this on the talk page on the Article?

For the list of competitors, I listed the ones I found who had page on Wiki. Didn't realise this wasn't correct, I was just following another entry as a template and presumed the entry was of the correct format. All makes sense what you have said though, thanks for explaining. Maxjpeters (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)maxjpeters

Owen Benjamin
Hello. Can you please explain why my portion on Owen Benjamin was removed? Is a YouTube video of him and quoting him not sufficient?

TruthBuster21223 (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. This is regarding this edit.
 * To simplify, the youtube video is probably not sufficient. This is a bit complicated, but in most cases we need a specific reason to highlight someone's comments. The reason should be indicated by reliable sources. Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources, also. So are any reliable, independent sources discussing his views on radiation or evolution?
 * Benjamin has said many unusual things. Since Wikipedia is not a platform for him to share his views, and we are also not a platform for us, as Wikipedia users, to share our views on Benjamin, we need to use restraint. If you know of reliable sources for these comments, I would like to see them. We would then use those sources to explain his views, and it might be appropriate to fill in details based on the individual videos. WP:ABOUTSELF explains background on this particular situation.
 * Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bone head
Please disregard the warning that I left on your user talk page just earlier, and please accept my sincere apologies for bothering you. I realized that you only reverted the article twice and stopped after that, so I don't consider that "edit warring territory" and the warning doesn't apply to you. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Nah, no worries. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you for the advice, however you will also have to leave your personal view out of your editing/ removals. I cite multiple sources, even sources that critique each other just to have a balanced perspective and remain as neutral as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy3o2 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:POINT. Comparing Ben Shapiro to Barack Obama is silly, because they are notable for very different reasons, and sources have covered them both very, very differently. We judge content in context, and use WP:CONSENSUS. The burden is on you to gain consensus for the changes you want to make. The place to discuss specific changes to an article is the article's talk page, so that other editors can see and participate. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not know about the talk page on each entry. I appreciate you letting me know about that and I will go that route from now on. Dy3o2 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I think its unfair of you to remove my section on euphemisms from the NPR page. They are clearly using specific language to take a non-neutral stance on the topic of abortion. I don't blame them for having a stance, but I think its fair game to point it out, especially in the Euphemism section. Dy3o2 (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Seriously? How many times do we have to have this discussion? Please read WP:BRD. The place to discuss this would be the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Well that was... amusing?
I enjoyed that spot of vandalism you cleaned up, thank you much! to wit
 * However, after the election of Donald Trump in 2016, left wing terror groups experienced a revival, with the FBI designated domestic terror group Antifa (a knockoff of the group who fought the brown shirts in Nazi Germany)kicking off riots in the fallout after Trumps inauguration. This group has since been extreme active, with multiple decentralised cells across the country attempting to acquire military styled weapons, and shutting down peaceful debates or talks by those whom they ideologically disagree with. Antifa is noted to be largely made up of university educated white middle class citizens. While active in the west, there is almost no university worldwide that does not play host to Antifa cells.


 * Self styled “Anarcho-Communists”, this terror group actually bears remarkable similarities to those their namesakes fought against. They shut down discourse, and react with violence and many times maliciously to arguments they cannot win. This group has recently been tied to various left wing media organisations, which may explain the gradual decent into promoting “wrongthink” principles such as censorship & social media de-platforming by pundits such as Vox and Buzzfeed.


 * Mainstream media outlets have continually brushed over atrocities committed by “such good people” as put by CNN (such as the battering of a Bernie Sanders supporter by a member of Antifa, later revealed to be a UCLA ethics professor, or the casual racism used to describe black conservatives i.e. Uncle Tom that the terrorists disagree with)which begs the question of why left wing extremism goes largely unreported. For the defence of Capitalism, Marxists have planned to infiltrate media & corporate bodies since the 50’s, (re: 45 Goals of Modern Communism presented to the US Congress in 1963) and as Social Justice extremism was the go-to for marxists who failed the economic argument aspect of their takeovers, perhaps extreme political correctness will be the modern communists unifying wave, prior to the attempting of an authoritarian takeover. It seems groups like Antifa have already begun the process of destabilisation, and the media seems to be a wilful assistant.

Thank you for removing that imbecile's vandalism. What's fascinating about these Trump far right wing extremists is their abject inability to spell correctly even when their web browser offers them the opportunity to correct their home-schooled, Fox "News" educations, coupled to the profound mental difficulties manifested by c0nsp1raz7 lunacy, all while embracing Vladimir Putin's attacks against the United States -- Putin, the KGB guy, the actual Communist. :) Glad to see such vandalism cleaned up promptly least allllll the Howeler Monkeys over-run Wikipedia and turn it in to Conservapedia. :) SoftwareThing (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yet more nude photos
Hi there. Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit for the nude photography section, i want to edite the whole nude photography section and i'v just started, why you reverted, thanks and please fix my work because i don't know how to revert it again, and this image was photographed by me I own the copyrights Nudebodyart (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As you've noticed, there are already many photos of nudes on different Wikipedia pages. Adding multiple copies of the same photo does not help readers understand the topic.
 * Also, adding multiple copies of the same photo which you took is a form of spamming. You are telling readers that your artwork has encyclopedic significance, but you are not explaining why it is significant. You are not a neutral party, and readers do not know who added the images. This is a form of self-promotion, which is not acceptable. As the photographer, you have a conflict of interest, so please read Conflict of interest carefully.
 * If you feel that these photos add to the article in some way, propose their addition on the individual article's talk pages. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, I didn't mean to add many copies, i THINK am realy stupid using these tools, the whole story i searched the topic nude photography, the problem it seems there are many pages with same name (NUDE PHOTOGRAPHY) but different content , i only want to add it to that one below, don't know which one it's!!< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_photography

And as for the conflict of interest, I don't wanna tell people that my art is anything of anything, im too old, a prof of art!, and I even didnt mention my name, how people then will know that my art is good or whatever, and moreover, i wanted to upload other very intersting photos but the problem of COPYRIGHTS, SO I HAD TO UPLOAD ONLY A WORK OF MINE, IT'S YOUR RULES! STUDENTS OF ART NEED SOURCES OF (SURREAL NUDE PHOTOGRAPHY) Nudebodyart (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yup, there are a lot of articles on nudity and nude photography. Every article has it's own talk page. As I said, the place to propose this would be be the the article's talk pages. My rules? No, it's the project's rules. Everyone on Wikipedia knows that copyright is a pain in the ass, but we cannot ignore it. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Grayfell right i have many great photos for great photographers and i cangt upload them, that copyrights making wikipedia quite poor in the term of amount of good images by well known photographers, thats why i didnt upload any work bu others, but wikipedia should find a solution for that copyright thing, i m sure many artists dont mine at all !! As for the talk pages now i noticed that there r many, with the help of a friend i reverted the main article only in the main page called nude photography, please check it Mr Grateful and fix anything you may see wrong, because i find it quite difficult using that HTML tool. and thank you again for your great work my friend and have a great life Nudebodyart (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As I said, the place to propose this would be be the the article's talk pages. Since you figured out how to post on my page, I think you can figure out how to post to Talk:Nude photography, as well. It has the same basic setup. You should not post your own work, you should allow a neutral editor to do so. You should also explain why it is encyclopedically significant. Saying that students need sources isn't helpful. Why do students need your artwork in particular? Do not explain here, explain there, on the article's page. Grayfell (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

— I see, SO CAN YOU PLEASE DO THAT TALK PAGE THING INSTEAD OF ME, I'M NOT ABLE TO DO IT RIGHT AS I SEE, I FEEL STUPID, SO SAD, CAN YOU PLEASE DO IT FOR ME AND I'LL BE VERY GRATEFUL, THANKS FOR HELPING ME. Nudebodyart (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No. You will have to figure it out yourself. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And actually the user name "NudeBodyArt" is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines as it is self-promotional. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop this
Stop removing Illumination movies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.87.176.115 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Log in to your account and discuss this on the article's talk page: Talk:Illumination (company). There is already a section for this. Three editors have all explained why we don't think this belongs without much better sources, so that's the place to talk about this. Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Tati Westbrook
Regarding this edit I was the one who added the trip to Lancome in Paris. I am of the opinion Westbrook is notable. The article was up for deletion. I knew this fact would look impressive to the brain trust which was voting. It is not a false fact and arguably it is still notable for a YouTuber to get such an invite. Plenty of 20-year-old models get invited, I'm sure, but how many 30+ women with a YouTube channel? I think it is very few. So, I have no regrets about adding it, it was legit and sourced. On the other hand, I don't care if it is removed. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that this routine promotional junket was notable was not actually established by that source. The source, flattering and flimsy as it was, did not indicate how it was encyclopedically significant. It seems you are saying that you know this, but you added it anyway to lead other editors to a certain conclusion. That's unfortunate. This, and the "brain trust" comment, suggests this wasn't about improving the article, but was instead about naked manipulation to get votes.
 * If you treat other editors as obstacles, the best-case scenario is that you make the whole thing a lot harder than it needs to be and alienate editors who would otherwise agree with you. Worst case scenario is you get blocked for WP:POINT. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that it is a "routine promotional junket" is not established by anything except your opinion. Westbrook said, "For someone that started out filming makeup videos in my bedroom, that feels pretty epic." So, at least to her, this marked a career milestone for her ... an acceptance by the industry about which she made videos. Keep in mind, this was 2016 when she had 1 million subscribers, not the 10 million she has today. If you thought my choice of "revealed" instead of "said" was not encyclopedic or the inclusion of the quote was puffery, fine.
 * As far as the 'brain trust' comment, it was reflective of editors who look at a page which is nominated for deletion and because there aren't enough sources, vote 'delete', disregarding WP:GNG even though the nomination was on notability grounds. You must have noticed this phenomenon in your time on Wikipedia. It is easier to improve the article than argue with them, especially because improving the article can persuade people who haven't voted yet. It is not manipulation to improve the article, whether or not I knew that's what other editors would be looking for. I stand by the inclusion but ultimately, I don't care enough about what does or does not go into the article as long as it is accurate.
 * WP:POINT does not apply here because I did not do anything disruptive. I didn't start nominating similar articles for deletion or any of the other examples. I did nothing to discredit policy or guidelines. What I did do was provide reliable sources to an article to support my assertion that the article is about a notable subject.
 * Frankly, you should probably reign in your accusations and save them for cases where it is actually merited. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the relevant paragraph from the source:
 * Well, I’m going to Paris in a couple weeks with Lancôme. For someone that started out filming makeup videos in my bedroom, that feels pretty epic. Beyond that, I have a notebook filled with content ideas and ways to improve my channel. I really feel like I’m just getting started.
 * The interview contains dozens of paragraphs, most of which are equally trivial. This was the last one, so there is no follow up or further comment about Paris or Lancome from either the interviewer or Westbrook.
 * Westbrook's two-sentence comment about a future trip from a softball interview says nothing about why this is significant. Do any reliable sources mention this trip? Did it even happen? I am not interested in your personal speculation on how international cosmetics companies handle their promotion and public relations. You added information based on a non-neutral source's comments regarding a promotional event/ Apparently this was to lead other editors to a specific conclusion you'd already made. What was this conclusion based on? First-hand experience? Your conclusions that this was a milestone aren't stated in the article, nor in any sources, so this is WP:OR. "Milestone" seems like hyperbole, but still, so what? Other than her, and you I guess, who cares? WP:GNG specifically calls for independent sources, and interviews with the subject of the article are almost never considered independent, for obvious reasons. So which usable sources support that this trip was a milestone?
 * This willingness to rely on prior assumptions is also part of a larger pattern, and despite trying to discuss it with you multiple times, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. If you don't see it, or don't agree, so be it, but Wikipedia isn't a news service.
 * As I said, if you treat editors as obstacles, or dismiss them with smug sarcasm, you're going to make things a lot harder than they need to be. Grayfell (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Last item first. I am not dismissing any editor with smug sarcasm and believe me, I am making things easier. The type of behavior your are describing was on full display in Articles for deletion/Tati Westbrook (2nd nomination) with one editor confronting many votes that with according to their view with arrogance and even facepalm emojis as an edit summary. Like I said, the easy way is to improve the article, not debate endlessly throwing up links to sources and policy all over the discussion page.
 * I did not do any original research. I did not have any forgone conclusions. You are acting as if I inserted the word "milestone" into the article, which I did not, I used it here only. I did not assume the Lancome Paris thing was an absolute fact. If I had written In a major milestone in Westbrook's career, Lancome invited her to Paris then your claims above would be true. But I did not. People are considered to be experts on their own lives. It was clear Westbrook considered it important because it was "pretty epic" and thus not WP:OR. It is important, however, to recognize Westbrook is a primary source even if she is an "expert" on her own life and people often lie for attention or whatever. I was therefore very careful to attribute the claim to Westbrook herself and the specific interview, whether or not you liked the verb "revealed". I have no preconceived ideas of what type of function it was. You are the one saying it was a press junket. It could have been a factory tour for all I know. You are the one speculating.
 * You seem to be suggesting that noting from primary sources is allowed without reliable secondary sources. If such a stance was enforced for BLPs we would have virtually no information on early lives and early careers of living people. Do you need the LA Times to state they have seen Tati's marriage certificate before you will accept she is married to James Westbrook? I added no information and didn't synthesize anything.
 * You next accuse me of (mis)leading other editors to forgone conclusions I had already made based on prior assumptions and it's a part of a larger pattern. I have no first-hand experience with the machinations of the makeup or fashion industries. The only forgone 'conclusion' I had was that a self-made channel with 10 million subscribers is notable and, yes, I wanted people to agree with that view.
 * Interviews are a tricky thing, admittedly, but they are not inherently disallowed as sources. It would be wrong to use Westbrook's statements on any other topic but herself as I said before. I would like to point you towards this Interviews essay which goes far more into depth, including discussions of softball interviews and covering the range of fanzine interviews to hard-hitting interviews (60 Minutes is their example). The existence of the interview adds to notability as it shows a public interest in the subject. Statements of fact are fair game to include. I included the Paris invite because it was clear it was important to Westbrook. I did not include it as to say Look everbody, it's Lancome!!! This means Tati is super important!!! You must vote keep now!!! If that is the way it came across to you, I am sorry, but that was not my intent. We both also seem to have forgotten there was another statement of fact I included from which was she had a mobile app designed.
 * Lastly, I do not treat Wikipedia as a news service, even though Wikipedia sometimes acts like one, which has been a detriment to Wikinews. Interviews from three-and-a-half years ago may be many things, but news they are not. If I had added a bunch of stuff about the James Charles-drama, I could understand this accusation, but again, I didn't do that. I deliberately sought out older sources to establish notability before the recent events. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Brain trust" was sarcastic dismissal. If that wasn't your intent, you should be much more careful with your words.
 * There is a fundamental difference between a biography mentioning someone's marriage, and a passing mention of a business trip for undefined promotional reasons. This isn't a new issue on Wikipedia, as I'm sure you already know, but WP:ABOUTSELF seems like a good place to start. A sponsored fluff piece in Tubefilter is very questionable, and a publicity event is self-serving by definition.
 * MOS:MULTIPLENAMES also discusses this, as marriage can lead to name-changes, and is therefore vitally significant to anyone doing basic research on a person. An unverified trip to another place isn't significant without some sort of context. There was no context, only puffery. The mobile app thing makes this issue even worse, not better, since it is related to promoting a product.
 * Adding weak, promotional sources damages the article and undermines her apparent significance, as experienced editors will view this behavior as WP:REFBOMBing. Your prior conclusion is that she must be notable because of the number of subscribers is... honestly pretty reasonable, but it's still on you to prove it. The way you went about that was really dicey. You assumed something and then went looking for sloppy sources to prove a point. The source absolutely did not emphasize this one trip as being significant. You added this line specifically to raise her perceived significance, but failed to indicate why this matters at all.
 * No matter how many exclamation marks you use, you have already explained that you intent was to influence editors who you show open contempt for. Grayfell (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have deliberately taken a few days off from this conversation because it is quite frankly frustrating. Calling a nebulous group of editors who vote on a DR a "brain trust" whether sarcastically or not and disagreeing with their collective decision is not a dismissal of any one editor or them all and not something I need to be "careful" with. Especially since it is never the same people. Nevertheless, I am quite confident I could call ArbCom a bunch of idiots or even the WMF a pack of baboons and not face any repercussions. (You can search the ArbCom archives, but I think I am right.)
 * I don't see where WP:ABOUTSELF or MOS:MULTIPLENAMES addresses my example with the marriage to James Westbrook. ABOUTSELF says self-published sources like social media are suspect. But is it "exceptional" or "unduly" self-serving? Is there reasonable doubt? (it's an oddly specific thing to lie about) The Lancome trip was not from one of her videos or her twitter, it was from the interview. The other part is self-serving, which arguably, it was because she probably did want people to know. But you moved the goal posts. Before you said it was a meaningless press junket but now it is an important event she is lying about which could elevate her career? And don't you think people have lied about a marriage for self-serving purposes? People actually marry for self-serving purposes, too. As far as I know, "James Westbrook" could just be a hired actor who appears in her videos sometimes. For all I know, Krevins might still be her name and she never married anybody. Or maybe she was born Westbrook. How does MULTINAMES address this? Answer: It doesn't. It just tells you how to avoid confusion. For example, if there was a paragraph about them both it would be confusing to say Westbrook and Westbrook, so it's OK to say Tati and James. It tells us not to say Krevins when everybody knows her as Westbrook. Isn't it all undocumented and unreliably sourced?
 * Going back a little you call Tubefilter a "very questionable source" and the interview a "sponsored fluff piece". If it was sponsored, I would be concerned, so what is the evidence? Wikipedia still calls Tubefilter a blog, but a blog conjures images of a single person sitting at home posting stuff on the internet (well, I guess like I am doing now). I don't know if that's how Tubefilter started, but you can browse their Wikipedia article or About page and quickly realize they are not a blog. I am actually thinking of opening a RfC on WP:RSP to see if they are ready to be added (for their narrow field, of course). At this point, they are basically the TVGuide or Variety for online video content and people.
 * You say I "went looking for sloppy sources to prove a point". Nonsense. I went looking for quality sources. I did add a Forbes contributor article, but I was unaware of the distinction at the time (thank you, btw, I have encountered them elsewhere and removed them). But I didn't fight it when you reverted. And really I didn't fight your removal of the interview, but I am willing to argue that Tubefilter is not a sloppy source.
 * Was it also sloppy when I added a hardcover book which had spoken to her in 2015 as a source? Keep in mind, I am not the editor who added The Sun to the article because sometimes I think you are confused about who you are talking to. P.S. No boldface or exclamation marks this time (what a difference a few days make). Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why did you even post this in the first place? If you really didn't care about me removing the line, why have you spent so much of both of our time defending it? I had to look up that edit summary to figure out what you are talking about. It was not specific to you and was not intended to be a personal attack. Trashy tabloids should not be used on Wikipedia by anyone, especially for BLPs. That's not a controversial statement.
 * Sources are judged in context. I assume the the hardcover book was Social Media Entertainment: The New Intersection of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, but this does not appear to have anything to do with this specific issue. That source is fine, but it still needs to be evaluated in context, hardcover or not.
 * Mentioning a planned business trip is exceptional and unduly promotional. I don't know how many ways I can explain this point. It's just a a business trip, and going on trips does nothing to contribute to a person's notability, even if it's personally important. People mention lots of things about themselves in softball interviews, but so what? Without a reliable source, her excitement is irrelevant to Wikipedia. If reliable sources contextualized this, we would use those sources to explain this, not merely pass it along as a random factoid. That specific interview was a WP:FART celebrity interview which is the bare minimum for basic information. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of random information.
 * This specific interview was branded content for something called Epoxy.tv, which is (or was) a commercial service to help social media personalities with their public relations and branding. I have no idea if Westbrook was a client, but TubeFilter did not, at that time, have the positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking to make this distinction clear. Even if you firmly believe in good faith that this wasn't native advertising, you still have not explained why this one planned-but-not-confirmed trip was encylopedically significant. I am not interested in discussing this point with you. Find a source, or take it to the article's talk page, or a noticeboard, or let it go.
 * As for insults, I am not going to drag ongoing Wikipedia gossip into this, but there are many current and recent blocks, including editors who are much more experienced than you, for showing contempt for the community. Insults against admins are just one part of that. Still, you're right that only a few editors care about passing insults or snide comments, but that's not really what I was saying. I really think you should try and understand this. I was saying that if you keep treating other editors as obstacles, you're only going to make things harder than they need to be. That's still true. Your individual confidence in your actions is irrelevant to this. Admins are not (in general) thin-skinned idiots, but they are also not interested in putting up with abuse just to prove a point. Editors who appear to manipulate the process, regardless of their stated intentions, drive away other editors and make things miserable for those who remain. Since that's what it looks like you were doing, you should be aware of this. Don't agree with me? Okay, but that's what it looked like to me, and I bet other experienced editors are going to see the same thing, so now you know.
 * Regardless, we are done. You are free. Any response will be reverted, unread. Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverted Edits on Enterprise Mobility Management
You reverted the minor update I made to this wiki. It wasn't intended to be self-promotional. The blog article has useful information that is not discussed on the wiki and it doesn't have a separate wiki. Do you have any recommendations on how I can include the article in a neutral manner? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian.maya (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The blog may or may not be useful, but it is not reliable, as it is an anonymous corporate blog post for promotional purposes. I do not think the comments you added are particularly useful, as they are far too vague. It used a large percentage of buzzwords to convey a relatively small amount of information. If you can find a reliable source on how generational changes have influenced enterprise mobility, use neutral language to summarize that point. Alternately, if you can find a recognized expert, you could include that opinion with attribution ("According to professor Smith of State University..."). I would also remind you that if you are involved with Invonto you have a conflict of interest, and should read WP:COI. If you are compensated for these edits, or for promoting this company in general, you are a paid editor, and must disclose this, per WP:PAID. If you are not sure if this applies to you, please assume that it does and act accordingly. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You have reverted a page which is currently under review at WP:AE
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. You have just undone a revert at /r/The_Donald by WookieInHeat which may be considered blockable, due to lack of consensus. Your safest course would be to undo your last edit until the AE complaint gets resolved, one way or the other. Per the notice on the talk page, there is a requirement of getting talk page consensus before making any edit that has been 'challenged by reversion'. This means that both you and WookieInHeat would be equally culpable under the rule unless one or both parties agrees to back away. (I see no talk page consensus for either option). P.S. I didnt make this rule, though I sometimes trying to help with enforcement. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Talkback Tim Pool
14.202.2.167 (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen this article?
Young Americans for Liberty? I ran into it when reading this. It's a bit of a mess but I don't think there's a board where I can mention it, unless maybe NPOV. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

SomaFM improvements
Hi Grayfell, I took some time to improve SomaFM, an article you previously marked as having WP:PRIMARY issues, by adding three independent and verifiable sources to some of the articles main claims. I think these additions warrant your attention and would appreciate if you could respond, and if you agree, perhaps we can lift some of the issue tags (WP:WTRMT) and agree that the article has made a step up the quality ladder. Ke6jjj (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Talkback Tim Pool (second request)
194.223.38.162 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I am requesting that you respond to the section I made in the talk page as you previously reverted my edits without responding in talk.

Imprint Academic
Looking at their website again, it appears that they are a normal publisher with a self-publishing arm, imprint.digital. See Talk:Steve Moxon (whistleblower). Doug Weller talk 07:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Yeah, it's more complicated than I first thought. Looking at their website I see very little information about their book-publishing side, but I do see some red flags. They make a distinction between short-run self publishing stuff and the academic publisher, but I cannot find any actual information about the academic side at all. Glancing at their "featured" books doesn't resolve my concerns. They publish several books about some... borderline subjects. Julian Jaynes might not be WP:FRINGE, but he's fringe-adjacent. "Why Rape Culture is a Dangerous Myth", by a lawyer named Luke Gittos who also writes for Spiked (magazine), is... odd. Again, not unambiguously unreliable, but a red flag that this is a publisher that likes controversial books by relatively unknown authors. This by another Spiked writer (or maybe a freelance journalist) get's a very positive review in Occidental Quarterly. Doesn't mean it's not legitimate scholarship, but it's not great, is it? Unsurprising that they would publish Dutton, regardless.
 * Are there any sources about Imprint as a publisher? Grayfell (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't find any but I'll look again. any comments? By the way, found this article, I think after the complaint to Netflix about Good Omens thing. American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property  Doug Weller  talk 18:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I too have noticed some overlap between the authors they publish and the contrarian/Spiked crowd. But they also publish series such as this, which appear to be reputable (and certainly not self-published). I haven't come across any in-depth sources about Imprint as a company. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Roger Pearson
I attempted to upload the army record showing date of enlistment, but Wikipedia disallowed it.Faxchekr (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have access to his army records, you very likely have a conflict of interest. Regardless, you should discuss this on the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Dead links should not be included
After a dead link was removed by me in the article «Pepe the Frog», you reestablished the dead link and directed to an essay called WP:LINKROT as a motive. The problem with that essay is that a dead link is an unverifiable source, and we cannot check if it is accurate or not, or even if it existed at all in the first place. Wikipedia states that unverifiable information cannot be included in Wikipedia. Also, I've noticed that the dead link directs to YouTube, which is a questionable source of opinion and we could be in a case of WP:NOTRELIABLE. Since the content of the essay contradicts Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the policy should prevail and the link should be removed. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss on the article's talk page, if necessary. As I said, Furie has made his position very, very clear, such as via lawsuits. The lede should clearly explain that Furie did not create this symbol for this purpose, and is not endorsing the alt-right, as this is a BLP issue. Again, take it to the proper talk page if you must. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Grayfell, even if we accept the dead link, it was a link to a YouTube video, and YouTube is an unreliable source according to Wikipedia's perennial sources. The link shouldn't be put in the first place, or at least not in the lead. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop wikilawyering. If this is really important to you, discuss on the article's talk page. If you have read that entry at RSP you know there are exceptions, and every source is judged in context. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Owen Benjamin again
You removed my link on Owen Benjamin's page indicting his true residence. You revered to something false. Owen does NOT live in Sarnac lake and has not for years. He lives in Washington State, as the white pages and his PO Box indicate. It is not a secret he lives there.. Please do not remove true information especially in exchange for false information.

TruthBuster21223 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Secret" or not, this still needs to be supported by a reliable source. This is not optional, per WP:BLP. Any further discussion should be held on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Young Living, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Young_Living check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Young_Living?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:11, 26 July 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. The discussion is about the topic TERF. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Canuck the Crow


Hello, Grayfell. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Canuck the Crow".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. kingboyk (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I thought this was a wind-up at first. As it's not, I hope you'll complete the article and submit it! --kingboyk (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory
I answered you in the page. Check it--BrugesFR (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Steve Sailer. ''Thank you, Greyfell. Please do not insert the material again.'' Babajobu (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. So the response I posted to talk explaining my revert prompts this perfunctory template, and you don't even spell my username right? Are you interested in discussing this issue? If so, respond on the talk page. I can see you're a bit rusty as an editor, but you should also review WP:DTR while you're at it. Grayfell (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

South African Farm Attacks
Hi Grayfell, I appreciate your comments in the talk section of the page, although we have different interpretations, having someone to discuss the issues with could help improve the article. I hope that between us we can fix some of the issues especially with your editing and reviewing experience.BHistory (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Mike_Cernovich
Please stop vandalizing the page about Mike_Cernovich. If you want to slander him, that's your prerogative, but please find better sources, not highly partisan and unreliable sources like Buzzfeed. You're not helping Wikipedia's image. Ceran (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just FYI Grayfell, this user has been blocked for 72 hours for continued edit warring at Cernovich and Rachel Maddow. Koncorde (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your hypocritical and self opinionated behavior
You have constantly undid edits with no real reason except your own personal bias. you have added unrelated topics to unrelated pages and tried justifying your behavior by citing what you claim is the origin. You have insisted that modern usage of a word is based on something no one even thinks of when using said term. Please consider yourself the problem before swearing and pointing fingers — Preceding unsigned comment added by PercherTM (talk • contribs) 02:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * um... no. You're a brand new account and already at an 11 on thur extra scale. Please, if you sincerely wish to contribute to wikipedia, learn its rules. I'll some links your way. Until then, please avoid diatribes about sjws.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "Swearing"... I'm pretty sure "yikes" isn't a swear word, but edits like this are a pretty good way to get banned, regardless of what you want to call them.
 * Anyway, if you've got any reliable sources saying that "loli" came from somewhere other than Nabokov's novel Lolita, discuss them on the article's talk page in a WP:CIVIL manner. Forum posts and random blogs are not reliable, FYI. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-standard colors in templates
I've reverted the non-standard colors in the Nazism and Neo-Nazism infoboxes, which seem to me to have no encyclopedic purpose. I will keep an eye on those templates to look for suspicious editing patterns there, and elsewhere. Thanks for your efforts on this; please keep up the good work. -- The Anome (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and same to you.
 * FYI, I reopened Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais regarding this behavior. Grayfell (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've also removed the custom colors from Communism, Socialism and Anarchism for consistency, per the same rationale. -- The Anome (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ...and all the other similar navboxes I could find. -- The Anome (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please check osu! talk page
Hi, you seem to have a lot of experience editing the osu! page. I'd appreciate it if you'd chime in on the latest post in the osu! talk page, I'm trying to see how everyone feels about removing the notability banner. Thanks! Malletmandan (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have responded at Talk:Osu!. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of January
There is a discussion at Talk:January regarding the etymology of the name. If I read the page history correctly, you were the user responsible for adding the note about the word ianua and the goddess Juno as the tutelary deity. I'd like to invite you to join this discussion if possible. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have commented there. That edit wasn't very good, and its a bit embarrassing that its lasted as long as it has. I defer to your judgement on what should replace it. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Context Matters
Whilst I agree that "Attributed reviews help provide context", so does the context that they are applied to. The piece makes no attempt to be inclusive, therefore the inclusivity of it is irrelevant to it. In the same way, you wouldn't review a hamburger in the same context within which you would review Chinese cuisine. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.86.41 (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "Inclusive"? That doesn't make any sense. The review provides context for a product this person is attempting to sell. Wikipedia isn't a platform for helping people sell products. It is noteworthy because a small number of sources have discussed it. The outlet which reviewed it is, apparently, considered reliable for attributed reviews. If Vikerness' attempts to design an RPG are noteworthy, he is open to criticism as such, same as every other public creative activity. If you wish to discuss this further, do so on the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for undoing in one fell swoop my efforts to make the Scott Wiener article (which was likely written by someone close to the subject) more objective. You removed a lot of important information. I literally chose to find two citations for each line I added to avoid editorializing. You should be free to improve it by editing out what I did, but undoing it like you did dismisses the hard work I did and reverts it to an article with major bias issues in favor of the subject. Can you work with me to find what parts you took issue with? 69Avatar69 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC) For example, you removed a section I added about his authorship of the bill that requires trump to show his tax returns. It was fine, neutral and important. I don't think your action was in bad faith but I think more thought could have been put into it.69Avatar69 (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC) I did my best to re-add the most salient edits i had made while not editorializing. i think it's much better.69Avatar69 (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Using sources, such as this one, which don't mention Scott Wiener at all, shows that this is still editorializing. It appears to me that it was used to share information that you, personally want to emphasize. This is still a form of editorializing. The place to discuss this further would be the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks, I will move discussion there.69Avatar69 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Evergreen Page
Excuse me, Grayfell, but in what respect was my contribution "flimsy." --Tesint (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Since you've already exceeded WP:3RR, and know how to post to a talk page, you should be able to figure out the proper talk page to discuss your edits. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

QNet Revert
I have made a point by point explanation of all the edits made by me on the QNet wikipedia talk page as you had suggested.Kindly have a look and make necessary additions and deletions if needed since my edits have been reverted twice by wikipedia admin. I have also posted my view points on my edits of QNet page in the talk page of C.Fred yesterday after my edits were reverted by him. I have been editing the page with newslinks since 2013-14 and will continue to do so until the scam ends from my country India, which will be hopefully very soon. Thanks for the patient read. Jitumoni1995 (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Is AUM investigation OR/SYNTH
Since you're up to speed on the CESNUR discussion, would you advise us over at Talk:CESNUR Feoffer (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Take it Easy please!
I, have no means to start an edit war!! So be careful about your words. Secodnly if the introduction is a summary overall then why we only have to put negative things like ties to white supremacist and all. The only thing i meant is that we should be more neutral with our words on wikipedia. But anyways there was no purpose to intentionally distrupt your changes. (HinaBB (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC))


 * I'm not sure what you mean. You do have the means to start an edit war, and you were contributing to one by repeating a contested edit. See WP:BRD.
 * It is not up to you or me to personally decide what belongs in the lead. We must use reliable sources, and consensus for that. If those sources decide that something is important, we do not get to decide it isn't important because we think it's "negative". Sometimes facts are unflattering, but they are still important. The proper place to continue this discussion is the article's talk page. Again, please see WP:BRD. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I will properly look into it. Maybe i am lacking some sort of information Thanks, anyways!!! ♥ (HinaBB (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC))

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

John Solomon (political commentator)
Hi, the IP user is back. Could that be user:Dragore? Could the page be semi-protected for a bit, given that Solomon is making news right now?

Peter NYC (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. Good questions. I have started a discussion at WP:EWN, which is here. I am not an admin, and cannot protect the page. If necessary, WP:RPP will be the place to go. Please be aware that 3RR applies to everybody, so hold-off on reverting the article any more for now. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd been thinking about the 3RR for myself :-) I'm actually in the process of locating a good source or two for the awards. It isn't clear to me as yet whether Solomon won awards as a member of a team for an investigation, or whether a team he had worked with won awards sans Solomon. If I come across good sources I'll update the article with them later tonight.


 * == Peter NYC (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Good idea. The promotional bio being cited by the IPs does a poor job of differentiating this, but the awards themselves are significant. Whether or not this belongs on the lede depends on reliable sources and consensus, naturally. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I did a rewrite of the intro, combining both awards and criticism in the final sentence, and created a new section "Awards" with what I think are good refs. If the POV-ers aren't happy with that, then I guess it's time to call it bad faith. Please let me know what you think.


 * == Peter NYC (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * That seems like a very solid foundation. As you mention, this person is in the news, so we may or may not see more activity. Hopefully this will prompt discussion, or lead to better sources. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, why’d you take off the fat fetishism flag?

 * ( Tieher (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

How did I vandalize fat fetishism with the pride flag?

Tieher (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not acceptable, as the flag was larger than width of the article on most screens. It was also not acceptable the last time an account tried to make this exact same edit. If you know of a reliable source supporting that this is a real flag which is actually used by this community, and not just an occasional internet-only meme or joke, propose that source on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi greyfell, I’ve been told to tell you before I put the flag back up Can you help me place it properly? I understand someone else did it wrong. Tieher (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No, did you read my comment above? You should not create a new section for every comment.
 * As I said, you need to find a reliable source that this flag is used by this community. If there are no sources for the flag, it doesn't belong in the article, and there is nothing else to say. The place to discuss this further is the article's talk page: Talk:Fat fetishism. Post one section at the bottom of that talk page, and respond to that thread as needed. Don't start a new thread for every comment. You do not need to post to my talk page again. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the help I’ll add a source and make the flag fit right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tieher (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my comments?
Why do you keep deleting my comments on the talk page? I was trying to participate in an ognoing discussion with a useful analysis of what was going on. And then you reported me, but you were the one who deleted my stuff! Ridiculous. Saetia95 (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Concerning Edits to Dianetics Article
I understand your reasoning but I am not comfortable with the present prelude to the article.

Firstly, it references Dianetics as a “metaphysical” practice which Hubbard emphatically gainsaid. He wrote, “The first contribution of Dianetics is the discovery that the problems of thought and mental function can be resolved within the bounds of the finite universe, which is to say that all data needful to the solution of mental action and Man's endeavor can be measured, sensed and experienced as scientific truths independent of mysticism or metaphysics". Although Scientology went beyond the “bounds of the finite universe,” Dianetics never did. Even after the engenderment of Scientology he wrote that Dianetics was a science of the mind “which applies to man, a living organism; and Scientology is a religion.”  He withal wrote, “Dianetics is Dianetics and Scientology is Scientology. They are separate subjects. They have in common certain tools like the E-Meter, TRs and auditor presence. But there it ends.”

It seems the article is attempting to define Dianetics by the same definition as Scientology. This is incorrect.

If one were to reference New Era Dianetics even that is a horse of a different color.

Secondly, to refer to him as solely a sci-fi writer seems quite inequitable since he wrote 1,010 books of which only a minute fraction was sci-fi. His later writings on Scientology were not well known except among Scientologists. However, he was much more well known by his Dianetics writings. His first book on Dianetics, which is the book that actually defined him, was a best seller for quite a long time. It was not sci-fi. The next series of pre-Scientology Dianetics books were also quite popular with the public.

His most well known writings were not sci-fi nor Scientology—it was Dianetics.

I suggest the “metaphysics” statement be struck and the sci-fi statement be referenced later in the article.

CWatchman (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in discussing this here. The appropriate place would be the article's talk page. To briefly respond, however, The article absolutely should not merely repeat Hubbard's description, it should summarize reliable, independent sources. Hubbard is a primary source, and not a particularly reliable one. The distinction between Dianetics and Scientology is not emphasized by reliable sources in the same way you have described it. Hubbard wrote many things, and had many roles, but outside of Dianetics/Scientology, he is overwhelmingly known as a pulp writer.
 * Again, don't bother discussing this here any further. The appropriate place is the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Although you requested we not discuss the contents of the article here, I felt your recent work was worth an honorable mention. I just wanted to drop you a line and say that you did a very remarkable job on making the article more neutral as well as more fluent. Of course, it still is not completely neutral, but it is much, much better and no longer gives one the impression that they are reading an attacking article written by anti-Scientologists. The article is about Dianetics and not about Scientology or it's conflict with detractors. It still needs a lot of work but is much better than it was. Good job!

CWatchman (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in your personal feelings on my behavior. The lede will still need to explain that Dianetics is pseudoscience, since this is a defining trait. Grayfell (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Concerning Edits to PEO Industry
My edits were not advocacy but rather just simple facts about the industry. I work in the industry and this is based on my understanding and experience. Perhaps this is semantics or requires clearer wording but my concern is that readers of this page erroneously believe that the PEO is obtaining insurance coverage for both its clients' employees AND the PEO's own employees. It is just the former and does not include the latter.

Happy to discuss if you believe this to not be correct.

PEOActuary (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)PEOActuary

Request for Feedback
Hi User:Grayfell! I have made some changes to the Transit (app) page which I see you have previously contributed to. I am a student working in an online communities course (and very new to Wikipedia) so I would love any feedback you have to the changes I have made and the information I added to the article. Thank you! -MichelleBir. (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, welcome.
 * I don't really know anything about that app specifically, and my edits were to remove some spam added about a year ago. Spam and promotional editing is an ongoing problem, especially with business and technology articles. Part of this is undisclosed paid editing (which is prohibited by Wikipedia, but is difficult to enforce), and there are other reasons, as well. Anyway...
 * At a glance, it looks like the Transit app article looks much better. It still needs more reliable sources, and specifically these should be independent sources, but this is almost always the case for articles on commercial products. Press releases, and promotional bits from the app's website, should both be avoided. Most of an article should be based on independent sources, with primary sources only used to fill-in details when necessary.
 * Articles should use a formal tone, so no buzzwords, and phrases like "growing the app" should not be used. If you have any specific questions, let me know, or consider posting a question at Wikipedia's teahouse, where many editors are happy to help.
 * Thanks, and again, welcome. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

CESNUR
I agree with your reading of the behavior around this topic. I ended up at Eric Roux after I dug around in response to this conversation at Drmies talk page, which you may be interested in. Nblund talk 15:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've been watching that from the sidelines. Something is going on, but I don't know what, and I don't know enough about Maltsev to try and guess. A while ago I starting writing out a SPI for this group if editors before I found Sockpuppet investigations/Aidayoung/Archive, and then Sockpuppet investigations/Russians Don`t give up. These editors have been weird about declaring a COI, but I can't really blame them since they have already been harassed by a sock farm. Still, it cannot be a coincidence that they are showing-up at the same talk pages within hours of each other, after weeks or months of inactivity. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Gordon Growth Model
Hello Grayfell,

I note that you removed my comment - more a health warning actually - on the use of the Gordon Growth model for the valuation of real estate, citing a lack of source. Fair enough! I attach a link to a recent article published by the head of advisory at JLL in Russia & CIS, Tim Millard. https://www.jll.ru/ru/аналитика-и-тренды/инвестор/valuation-in-an-uncertain-world The article makes clear reference to the three principal reasons why GGM is not appropriate for the valuation of real estate. In truth, the use of the GGM in the Russian property market is causing havoc for borrowers of senior debt. GGM began being used (incorrectly as you will see from the article)in 2015 as the financial crisis and roublization of the market effectively killed the transactional market. The in-house valuers of the Russian banks turned to the GGM as a means of calculaing discount rate due to the lack of market evidence. This is still the case and assets are being routinely under valued. Indeed, independant Russian valuation companies are using unrealisitc assumptions elsewhere in their valuation models to try and compensate against the wholly unrealsitc discount rates coming from the flawed use of the GGM. Easilydistractedbyshinyobjects (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. The Dividend discount model article needs more sources in general, so I understand why this might seem strange for this one point. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a publisher of original research. Articles should instead summarize reliable sources (WP:RS). Blogs are what is known as self-published sources, and are not reliable in most cases.


 * So what you are saying all seems like information which should be supported in the article with a source. The link you have posted is not a WP:RS. On Wikipedia, blogs posted by corporations are sometimes referred to as "blogspam" because this issue comes up a lot. JLL is a real estate developer, but doesn't have the "reputation for accuracy and fact checking" described by Wikipedia's guidelines on sources. JLL is also non-neutral, as a provider of commercial services.


 * What we are looking for is works published through reputable outlets, such as an established business publisher with editorial oversight, a respected academic journal, or good business journalism. If you know of such sources, please feel free to re-add the content, or discuss further on the article's talk page: Talk:Dividend discount model. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)