User talk:Grayfell/Archive 17

Happy holidays

 * Thanks, I hope you had a happy holidays as well. Grayfell (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

James Charles
I left a replied to your message on my talk page so go and have a look. Flash Lloyd (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Thanks! Happy new year to you, too. Grayfell (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the user FinishedCycle trying to push the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory and that the Nazis are left wing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:List_of_Jewish_Communists

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1935_Free_City_of_Danzig_parliamentary_election&diff=1001735366&oldid=997587367

And what somebody else said about this user,

(Confusing Israel's cause with American Jewry in general is a common mistake among antisemites) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_Jewish_Americans&diff=989293926&oldid=989242367

They also did this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgy_Arbatov&diff=1001684192&oldid=1001017733.78.97.16.58 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added some other information on my talk page in response to this IP's post there, and have pointed DougWeller and Liz to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard
I noticed this article was just created, although there was a consensus to delete the artice a few years ago. I find it likely the article creator might be a sock-puppet. Do you have any idea how to manage this? Should I file an SPI or take the article to afd? Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. Good catch. I wish I could offer more help.
 * Before AFD, it might be helpful to have an admin check to see if this is similar to the deleted version. Qualifying for WP:G4 would be a time-saver. Perhaps User:Doug Weller can help, as I believe is familiar with the Kirkegaard situation, and also this cluster of accounts.
 * I agree that sock puppetry is likely. The article is too superficially well written to be from a completely new editor, and the jump from simplistic sandbox edits to an almost fully-formed article with different cite templates within a few minutes is extremely precocious. There are so many possibilities to choose from, and several of Kierkegaard's colleagues and detractors have a history of this kind of behavior. As OpenPsych was created by Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist in a similar precocious fashion, this would be my guess, but I'm sure we can both think of other likely candidates. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was thinking it might be AngloPyramidologist but there was also some other drama reported about this newly created article at the conflict of interest noticeboard, it is alleged that the same user who created the article has been commenting about this on another website (RationalWiki) and he claims to be involved with Kirkegaard. Of course  could be a sock as well. It's all a bit of a mess. I think there are socks involved but I don't know who they belong to. Kirkegaard was banned on Wikipedia so its possible it might be someone involved with him or it could be someone associated with AngloPyramidologist. I think the article should be deleted because I read over the old afd and there was a broad consensus to remove it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * account has admitted to owning "accounts" in the past. This is an obvious sock-puppet. Perhaps an admin should look at this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This was also mentioned at COIN, where a Wikipedia user pointed out that someone on Rational wiki (apparently not Kierkegaard) owned up to creating this article as a promotional effort. Possibly (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just so we're all on the same page, Emil Kirkegaard has been banned from editing Wikipedia by ArbCom. A large amount of accounts have been created various places which claimed to be Kirkegaard, but which were almost certainly impersonation for trolling.
 * So, if BerlinburgerTor is editing on behalf of Kirkegaard, this is WP:BE via WP:MEAT and that account should be blocked. Based on past history, the likelyhood of a joe-job is relatively high, however. I think Throwaway314 is correct to say this looks like whitewashing, which means the account which created the article is less likely to be AngloPyramidologist... However, considering the long history of tedious games, nothing should be taken for granted. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * then it sounds likeWP:MEAT, based on the rational wiki post, which I sent you via email., Throwawayaccount314 strikes me as a user with a conscience...of course I could be wrong. Possibly (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (You cannot fix ping, it must be added at the same time as a signature).
 * Yes, thanks for the email, I saw that post. We should WP:AGF for Throwaway314 for now. There are a lot of serious issues here, and honestly it's hard to know which one takes precedent. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just my own speculation but I believe BerlinburgerTor is Kirkegaard or a working colleague of his and Throwawayaccount314 is AP or someone associated with him. Both appear to have been in an online dispute that has spilled out onto multiple websites going back to 2019. The Kirkegaard article was written in a positive way so I strongly suspect conflict of interest that it was created by someone who knows Kirkegaard. If that is WP:Meat then its a problem and the article should be flushed. I now see its not worth filing an SPI because both Kirkegaard and AP have been stale since 2019. The BerlinburgerTor is quite suspect because Tor is in the last name. They may be using a TOR browser. I understand we must assume good faith on here but I strongly suspect both of these are not new users and they have been blocked in the past but I cannot prove this. Is it worth filing an afd? I might raise this at the admin board. I think an admin needs to weigh in about this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * if you saw the rationalwiki thing,it seems likely it is a colleague. I leave it to you two to figure out... (PS: BerlinbergerTor is a bit of a pun on the Berliner Tor station and/or Brandenburger Tor) Possibly (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have seen it now thanks. This is definitely a case of meat-puppet/sock-puppetry. An IP has raised this issue at WP:ANI . Thanks for the heads up about Berliner Tor station, I didn't know that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * the two are pretty different - the deleted one in fact is more damning. Doug Weller  talk 10:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, not sure if it is a case of meat-puppetry/and or socking but a new account has tried to create the Emil Kirkegaard article again. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"Weasel Words"
Can I question how my edits to "Make America Great Again" were in any way weasel words? all I did was rewrite the sentences so they didn't present the views of a few individuals as unquestionable fact? surely presenting opinions as facts more accurately fits the discription of "Weasel words"? 999ThingsToFix (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "some now consider it" is textbook WP:WEASEL. If reliable sources "consider" it something, then so does Wikipedia. Discuss on the article's talk page, if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

opinion sources from reliable sources are still opinion sources the article currently states that "maga" is a racist phrase, that is an opinion whether you like it or not. 999ThingsToFix (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in debating you about this on my talk page. As I said, the place to discuss this is the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks !
Thank you for give me the welcome, and explain me the main reason why the popular culture sections should have a significance. I appreciate this kind of amiability very much. Regards. --Xillegas (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, sure, you're welcome. Glad I could help! Grayfell (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit war on "Steve Sailer" should move to talk page
There has been a sequence of edits & reverts on the Steve Sailer article over whether to include a note about the journal Intelligence ranking his blog alongside other news sources. In your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Sailer&oldid=1007664169 you noted "Do not edit war. Discuss on the article's talk page". The most recent section on that article's talk page discusses just that issue, but you continued a cycle of reverts rather than responding. I agree with your quoted recommendation and hope all editors (including you) hash out the issue on the talk page. TGGP (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, any further discussion should be held at a noticeboard, such as WP:RSN. Due to extensive past history of sock puppetry, WP:ANI may also be appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Portland/Participants list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.

Block evasion by IP?
Hey, I just discovered the fracas over at Talk:Steve Sailer and your observation about a possible block evasion by IP range Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40. This same range has reverted and opened a talk page discussion at Flynn effect. I'm not entirely sure how to deal with this type of issue. Do you have any advice? Generalrelative (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yup, that looks like more of the same. This IP has a long, well-established pattern of acting in bad faith. It's silly to pretend that an edit to the Flynn effect isn't a topic ban violation. My approach would be to revert the talk page post as a topic ban violation and leave a comment on the talk page explaining this. HATting it is another option. Any more topic bans from this IP should be reported, to ANI I guess. I wouldn't bother humoring them directly, since their actions have shown them to be a WP:SEALION.
 * Incidentally, the Rindermann "survey" being cited in that discussion was printed while Richard Lynn was still on the editorial board. The editor-in-chief was Philip A. Vernon who is yet another Pioneer Fund recipient. There are also so, so many other problems with this junk science. You probably already know all this, but I think attrition is part of the IP's tool-kit, so it's worth emphasizing just how garbage these sources really are.
 * Some good-faith editors (and admins, unfortunately) apparently seem to think that these traits cannot be used to discredit a source, giving the benefit if doubt to Elsevier that it successfully imposes editorial standards on its journals. Based on shenanigans from this walled-garden, I reject this. Personality and Individual Differences is no more credible for race (or, ahem, "nationality") content than Mankind Quarterly. A bad journal that occasionally publishes valid science is still a bad journal, and we should stop being afraid to call this out. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your advice and perspective. I'll HAT the discussion, and if they persist I suppose I'll have to take it to ANI. Best regards, Generalrelative (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Image of D'Angelo Wallace
Dear Grayfell,

Yes, I do know of these facts about Wikipedia; it is in fact due to them that I had not taken much interest in uploading images to Wikimedia Commons, I just feared that I would put an image that I did not have the rights for. However, when I saw that D'Angelo Wallace's page did not have an image, I searched for one of his videos, took a screenshot and edited it slightly; I thought that this would not violate any copyright rules that Wikipedia has, and that it would be acceptable for me to consider the image my own work. I did not simply search for images of Wallace and upload one of them, or anything of the sort. From what I have understood (yes indeed, as you know, I am quite a new Wikipedian!), I see no reason for this image to be a copyright violation. Besides, I had seen it done in other articles, such as Danny Gonzalez's. Could you pray explain, more precisely, how I am in the wrong?

But thank you for the warm welcome, I quite appreciate it! Editing Wikipedia articles is a great pleasure for me, not only for the obvious reason of me enjoying it, but also because I am thus ultimately, in a way, helping Wikipedia continue to thrive as it has for two decades now.

Sincerely, Meduer (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC).


 * Hello, thank you, and sorry!
 * Unfortunately, copyright on the internet is a huge pain.
 * That said, screenshots are one area where it's a bit more simple. This is explained at Commons:Commons:Screenshots. As that page explains:
 * Screenshots are derivative works and as such subject to the copyright of the displayed content, may it be a video, television program, or a computer program.
 * This means that since the video is owned by D'Angelo Wallace, so are any screenshots of that video. When something is uploaded to commons, not only can it be used on Wikipedia, but it can be used by anyone for a broad number of purposes, including commercial. Ultimately, it is up to Wallace to decide if he wants to share his work in that way. There are a few ways he can decide to do that, but it's up to him to make that call. We cannot decide for him.
 * One way he could do that is by uploading his videos under a compatible Creative Commons license. YouTube does allow creators to use such a license, but it's up to them. The Jake Paul video (which is a good video) is not released under such a license, so screenshots from that video still belong to Wallace.
 * The image for Danny Gonzalez was published under such a license, which is mentioned at Commons:File:Danny Gonzalez.png.
 * There are a few other ways for him to share an image, but it gets complicated pretty quickly.
 * To make things even more complicated, Wikipedia and and Wikimedia both have different approaches to this. In some cases screenshots can be uploaded to Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia, but I don't think this is a such a case. Non-free content explains this. Since a free photo of D'Angelo Wallace might exist, or could be created, a screenshot probably doesn't qualify. I still often make mistakes around this area even after many years editing, but if you have any more questions, I'll do my best to answer them. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

,😉😉 Peach6972 (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

DLive
Why do you have such a weak source and no legit proof of your claim that this conspiracy that the site is for white nationals? Its not, the site is clearly for gamers.. my fact is actually a fact, and your bias is obvious... keep using weak sources and keep being redone, because you have no solid proof, while I can easily take a screenshot of the site RIGHT NOW AS YOU READ THIS and completely own any comeback you have on this biased opinion and conspiracy from your own fragile bias.... grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.40.141.252 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Resorting to personal attacks proves nothing, and is a good way to get blocked. As I have already explained on both your talk page and the article's talk page, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not original research. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Pradeep Adatrow
Hello Grayfell! Upon review of the page for Pradeep Adatrow, I have edited the subjective phrases and words from the article, as you requested. If this meets with your approval, I will remove the Peacock tag. Thank you so much for your valued feedback. Puppylove64 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No, you have not removed the peacock words at all. It seems very likely that we now have two accounts with plausible WP:COI concerns editing this obscure biography article. Please review Sockpuppetry and Paid-contribution disclosure. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello again! I received your message and I assure you that I am not a major contributor to the article for Pradeep Adatrow and am not a paid contributor in any way. I am knowledgeable of him and his contributions to dentistry. I simply provided the information that was requested by you and another editor. I apologize for any confusion. Thank you again. Puppylove64 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I specifically said that you had not removed the peacock words, but you removed the tag anyway. Therefore I am not convinced that you do not have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Unilog Content Solutions - Remedy Issues
I am an employed contractor with Unilog Content Solutions and was tasked with updating the company's Wikipedia page. However, I continually receive "error" messages concerning the content. Since I am new to Wikipedia, please help me remedy the issues so that the warning messages do not appear on the Unilog page.

Christine Jordan (Wikipedia user name: UnilogJordan) christine.jordan@unilogcorp.com UnilogJordan (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. The first thing you should do is create a page at User:UnilogJordan. On that page clearly explain that you are compensated for editing, who is compensating you, and all pages you have been compensated for editing. Do not include your email address. You may review Paid-contribution disclosure and WP:Conflict of interest if you need help with this. This information is already linked on your talk page.
 * I do not see any indication of "error" messages. These messages were added by editors who recognized a problem. It looks like what is happening is that you are being manually reverted by more experienced editors. This is because Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or promotion. In the future, please propose any changes on the article's talk page at Talk:Unilog Content Solutions. I have created a blank page to make this easier for you. Template:Request edit is designed to facilitate these requests. You should not directly edit the article itself in most cases. You will also have to include reliable sources. It is better if these are also independent sources. These terms are explained at Reliable sources and Independent sources. Without such sources, it is unlikely your proposals will be implemented. You will also have to be patient. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with Laureate Education article
Hello Grayfell! I'm Patrice, from Laureate Education. Last year, you helped me see that I wasn't using Wikipedia correctly as an editor with a conflict of interest and cleaned up the mistakes I'd made on the Laureate Education article. Since then, I've been learning about appropriate behavior for COI editors, and have been working with volunteer editors to review and implement changes I propose at Talk:Laureate Education. I had a couple of people regularly responding, but they haven't been on Wikipedia for a while. I wrote an overhauled draft of the Corporate history section, and am looking for someone to review it and give feedback. The current section, I think, has issues with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RECENTISM. In my rewrite, I've tried to present an improved version that can persist long term on the encyclopedia without needing much maintenance. I thought I'd reach out to you because of the work you did on the article last year. If you are interested and have time to take a look, you can see my post and a link to the draft here. Thank you! PMV1111 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion
It appears the sock will not stop disrupting the article Latin Catholics of Malabar with his original research and a bunch of fake sources. Can we opt for a PP request?? R.C Outlander07@talk 17:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. Yup, that makes sense. I've requested temporary semi-protection: Requests for page protection. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Physical features in articles about ethnic groups
Hi Grayfell! Maybe you can help me out here. I think to remember that there has been an RfC (or even a policy?) which concluded that articles about ethnic groups should only make very restricted use of descriptions of physical features (like "X people are overwhelmingly light-skinned" etc., and if added at all, only using sources that pass WP:MEDRS). Or is this just wishful delusional memory? –Austronesier (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * good question. I don't remember a specific RFC for that, although it would make sense. It wouldn't surprise me if this has been discussed a few times, but I'm not sure where that would be. There are lots of likely noticeboards. MEDRS is a good comparison, especially since so many of the existing sources are very WP:OLDSOURCES that never seem to die a natural death.
 * To refresh my memory, I browsed some likely talk pages for anthropology articles, but nothing pops up. I'm surprised at how inactive some of these articles are, so maybe it hasn't come up before after all. If you find anything, or start something, please let me know. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Your edit summary on Fish for finance
Re this:


 * I was unaware that the text of the France24 article was "plagiarized from a tabloid". I have attempted to find which one by plugging large blocks of text into Google, but it repeatedly gives me "no direct result". Could you give me a link? (It seems you've been a search and destroy mission against FR24 lately. I see that you raised the issue at RS/N, and they have indeed taken steps to avoid Google detection. All the right moves, but I think it would have been better to reach a consensus there first, then put FR24News on RSP, so that editors who keep articles on their watchlist after investing a great deal of time and effort into creating them weren't blindsided. There are people out there who would not do the investigations I just did and go marching off to AN/I about another editor off on some damn fool idealistic crusade. You don't need that and neither does the project).


 * I won't put the italics back, but I think you're unnecessarily presuming the intent was to editorialize. My intent in using the italics was to make the contrast harder to miss. MOS:ITALIC does not bar the use of italics outside of obvious things like titles of works; while it does recommend that sometimes the writer recast the sentence, it does not suggest it looks too much like editorializing to discourage it.


 * "It appears this bad source may be a symptom of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues." And it appears to me that writing that may be a symptom of WP:AGF issues. I don't see why you needed to say that ... you should have just stuck to the RS/N mandate. This was really something you needed to discuss on the talk page, and didn't. Daniel Case (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "FR24" is not part of France 24, it's a doppelganger site. That outlet plagiarized with just enough word replacement to obfuscate detection.  Bad sources slip through the cracks all the time, but there were red flags in this case. It happens. The issues with domain are currently discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which is how I found that article. There is a lot of cleanup needed for these kinds of spam farms, so sorry for being blunt. As I recall, that one was plagiarized from the Daily Mail or similar, so I cannot link to the original article, but you should be able to find it yourself by looking for very close paraphrasing.
 * I'm not interested in guessing about your motives. The use of italics for emphasis is a form of editorializing, which I assume (in good faith) that experienced editors already know. This issue is made more clear then the sources are tabloids and worse. Again, it happens, but it's a red flag in this case. Articles should not use separate sources to imply a conclusion not supported by any one source alone, which, again, I assume you already know. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For future reference, I have posted a comment about this on the article's talk page: Talk:Fish for finance. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "The use of italics for emphasis is a form of editorializing, which I assume (in good faith) that experienced editors already know." That assumption is at odds with MOS:EMPHASIS, itself part of MOS:ITALICS. If it were true, I don't think that section would read as it presently does: "Emphasis may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence, when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers, or to stress a contrast ..." I would concede that maybe in an article about a controversial topic (such as the one that started this discussion) one should try more to avoid it than usual (a "usual" which I also agree is pretty sparing), but there's still a long way to go towards saying all use of italics is necessarily editorializing. I searched but could not find any MOS talk page discussions that considered this possibility even in passing. I'm fully aware of how WP:SYNTH works; I just don't see how you invoke it where only one source was at issue. I had no idea (and apparently I wasn't alone) that fr24news.com was not (oops, don't wanna "editorialize" there) not France 24, much less that the article represented as original to the site was in fact lifted from another source without attribution in a way that made it difficult to trace. It was an honest mistake that I am happy the article has been purged of. There was no ulterior motive on my part and I do not like one being imputed to me by the invocation of policies. If you genuinely aren't interested in guessing my motives, don't use language that strongly suggests that you are. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Italics are conversational, but they are rarely formal. If sources emphasize a point, it follows that it's possible to explain why they emphasize that point, and we can then avoid typography tricks. To put it another way, we use sources to decide which words are important. The use of italics I saw in that article was editorializing, because it used typography to indicate something was important without explaining why it was important, nor did it explain who believed it to be important. Before I removed it, I did not pay particular attention to who added it, so I was not speculating on your motives. The end result, intentional or not, looked to be a form of editorializing. Perhaps not always, but this did not appear to be one of the rare exceptions to me, and I have not changed my mind on this yet.
 * As for your snarky comment about italics on a talk a page, we both fully know that we're allowed to have opinions and to express those opinions on talk and in edit summaries. You don't have to like my edit summary, and you don't have to pretend to like my comments here, but the initial point is about the content in an article.
 * Out of hundreds of sources for the article, one was found to be especially bad. These sources are not only plagiarized, they are mechanically altered in ways that makes them fundamentally untrustworthy for even the most basic facts. For your benefit, I tracked down the original. I was mistaken about it being Daily Mail, it's Daily Express (which has a similar standing per RSP but has not been blacklisted yet.) In this particular case, the original article is not radically different, but it's different enough to subtly change the meaning and introduce some (more) factual errors. But that doesn't matter that much does it? As the acronym goes, GIGO so it needed to go, and the point it supported should not be presumed important without a better source.
 * Adding bad sources happens. I've done that before, we've all done that, but this one was indisputably bad. Like I said, it happens, and I've inadvertently included sources as bad as that, and sometimes it takes too long for someone else to notice. The problem is that we don't just slap on sources to support our own prior understanding of the topic. I know you must agree with this, because the article is very heavily and meticulously cited. The alternative is that we have to look at what those garbage sources were supporting and adjust the article accordingly.
 * This was more complicated than the other uses of that source I cleaned up, and addressing the source required me to make a call on the content it supported.
 * Your comment here and on the RSN post seems to suggest that you were not yet aware of just how common and how disruptive these spam sites are. You also mistakenly state I'm the one who first raised the issue. That is not correct. I was one of several editors who made a few edits to help fix a serious problem someone else identified. There were dozens of source that needed cleaning up, and during this cleanup effort, another spam/copyvio farm has been identified with hundreds more citations. This ongoing issue is discussed on the RSN and Spam noticeboards, but it is unfortunately a very routine occurrence. This isn't the first such farm I've identified, and I'm not even particularly active in this area.
 * One part of the complication for this specific article, as I've partly indicated on the article's talk page, is that it was used in combination with a footnote, and that footnote was placed in support of a larger point that was not directly made by text of those footnotes. This format is not always synth, but there is a high potential for it. I view this as synth because it looks to me like it was using sources to form conclusion A, and then placing that conclusion A to indirectly support conclusion B. When at least one of those sources is as awful as the fr24 one, like I said, it's a pretty big red flag.
 * I think any further discussion of this specific issue should be on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Alpha Kappa Alpha FAR
I have nominated Alpha Kappa Alpha for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited OYABUN, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palm Beach.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Meme coin (removal of link)
Hi Grayfell and thank you for improving the wiki. However I reject the removal. The link removed is relevant due to its original content and referrals in source (comments from Swedish bus-travelers and photos). It is worth highlighting that the advertising happened in more than just one country for the afterworld as this probably will be discussed in coming months/years, and will happen in other countries as well. Sources within certain areas (such as cryptocurrencies) are often new and does not have a lot of authority (you could check any crypto-related wiki). Tamegame33 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi there.
 * This is a pretty common issue in general, and specifically with crypto stuff. A core principle of Wikipedia is that info in articles must be supported by reliable sources. Further, there is a strong preference for independent sources. To put it another way, editors find reliable sources and use those to explain to readers why info is encyclopedically significant.
 * For a source to be reliable on Wikipedia, it should have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, which is demonstrated by clear editorial oversight, a track-record of being cited by other reliable sources, and a demonstrated willingness to issue retractions and corrections when necessary. I noticed that you have edited three articles since your account was created in August, and each time you used Cryptoholics.com as a citation. That website doesn't seem to have any of these things that would make it reliable. It also potentially suggests that you may have a conflict of interest. If so, please carefully review Conflict of interest.
 * Further, that particular source is pretty vague and appears to be based on someone else's tweets. It basically just says at least one ad was shown on at least one bus stop in Stockholm. Everything else is either unrelated or speculative.
 * As you mentioned, this is part of a larger trend. There is a serious lack of reliable sources for information about cryptocurrencies and related things like blockchain, NFTs etc. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so editors will differ on which sources are reliable and which are not, but over the last few years, consensus has been pretty consistent that that crypto outlets should be handled cautiously. This isn't necessarily a condemnation of every single crypto story in every crypto outlet. I often find sources which are useful for crypto, but which still should not be used on Wikipedia for various reasons. For Wikipedia, this should be a prompt to keep looking for better sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Decentraland (Event relevance)
Hi! Regarding this edition, and the comment "Why, exactly, does this one event matter to the history of this project?". The relevance of the event is expressed in the section "attracted 40,000 people". The source doesn't put that number in perspective. But other sources cited through the article do: "number of concurrent users of around 1,600 in 2021", "the experience as mostly empty". Should the relevance be self contained in the same source? Or can it determined by linking the information given by other sources? Thanks! Eibriel (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello. That's a good question.
 * For future reference, this discussion is about this edit. To repeat the full edit summary for convenience: While the source does support this detail, it is a passing mention. Why, exactly, does this one event matter to the history of this project?


 * The source is this article from Voguebusiness.com, which is about twenty paragraphs long, give-or-take. Most of the article is about a completely separate set of events, scheduled to be held near the end of next month to coincide with fashion week (which is typically held later *this month*, but whatever).


 * The specific quote from that source is the first half of a longer paragraph: This is not Decentraland's first big event. In October, a four-day music festival with acts including Deadmaus and Autograf, among 80 other artists, attracted 40,000 people. Since then, there are up to 12 Decentraland events daily, with daily attendance records regardless of events, Hamilton says... (Hamilton is referring to Sam Hamilton, creative director at Decentraland Foundation).


 * So to answer your question, Wikipedia's guidelines advise against combining sources to imply anything which isn't supported by any source in isolation. This is known in Wikipedia jargon as WP:SYNTH, meaning synthesis of sources.


 * Using this source to imply that this number is important looks like synth to me. Vogue Business isn't talking about Decentraland because of the music festival, so we have to weigh this in that context. Further, attracted 40,000 people implies it was total over the full four days, and not a peak number at one time.  If we're implying something about how popular Decentraland is, that's a very important distinction, but it's not the main problem with this approach. We shouldn't be implying anything at all. We should summarize what sources are actually saying. So why, exactly, is this specific concert significant?
 * The mention of Autograf also tells me that this blurb is coming from Hamilton, which casts it in a promotional light. To be blunt, Autograf are too obscure for this to make sense in this context. The readers of Vogue Business might reasonably know who Deadmaus is. I don't think many of them know who Autograf are, unless there is some fashion industry connection I'm not aware of. So why mention information that will only confuse readers like that? Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain it in detail. Eibriel (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

You're Invited! Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia
On, Friday, February 25, 2022, Oregon State University will be hosting an online editathon focused on Black history of the Pacific Northwest. You can learn more here and/or register here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Portland Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon: March 12, 2022
You are invited! An Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon will be held in Portland, Oregon, on March 12, 2022. Learn more here!

Wikipedia is one of the most-visited sites on the internet—and it’s created by people who volunteer their time to write and edit pages. Learn how to edit Wikipedia and be a part of shaping our understanding of our world. In this workshop, volunteer Wikipedia editors will be on hand to train participants on how to get started editing pages and offer ideas for which pages you can pitch in to help improve. Show up at any point during the four hours to get started!

Also: Free burritos!! We will be providing vegan, vegetarian, and meat burritos from food cart Loncheria Las Mayos. Alder Commons has a large, fenced playground. Children are welcome! Some computers will be available to borrow, but if you have a laptop, please bring it to use. We will also be leading an online training for new editors at 11am-12pm PST. Please feel free to join that training if you are not able to show up IRL.

This event is part of the international month of events organized by Art+Feminism, which is building a community of activists committed to closing information gaps related to gender, feminism, and the arts, beginning with Wikipedia. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Important notice
Mathsci (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Usurp
Not sure ping went through, you were mentioned Link_rot/URL_change_requests. -- Green  C  17:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. (The ping didn't go through because User:Greyfell, with an "e", is a WP:DOPP account.) Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit summary
Grayfell, this edit summary may be read as attacking the motives of another editor. The problem is that it implies my edit was based on trying to spread/legitimize false information vs my actual intent which is to adhere to IMPARTIAL. It's perfectly reasonable to dispute my edit but that could reasonably be read as an implied accusation. I don't believe that was your intent but the next editor to read it may not realize that. Thanks Springee (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The summary was directly about your edits, which restored euphemistic language and weasel wording in a way which granted credence to a fringe perspective by casting doubt on the scientific mainstream. I have no patience for false balance or false civility. I have no interest in discussing this issue further on my talk page. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have no time for civility you shouldn't edit Wikipedia. Civil is one of the pillars.  Springee (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I said false civility. Don't bother responding here. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)