User talk:Grayfell/Archive 7

Michael Wiseman
Nope, won't do it. You win. WriterWithNoName (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)''::
 * Carry on my autocratic nemesis. Why not use your magical powers to suspend my account? WriterWithNoName (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * Saw the user that opened the previous thread opened another one on ANI and didn't notify you this time. The new thread can be found here. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

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

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


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

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

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

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


 * Hello. I did not revert on scientific grounds so much as encyclopedic, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE grounds. There are several related problems here. The first is that this is a general-audience encyclopedia, and information needs to be presented at the level of the topic. Deep scientific info can be added to cuteness, but it needs to be summarized in a way that matches the rest of the article, and the only neutral way to do that is with secondary sources. Wikipedia strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources in general, actually, for many reasons. In the edits to orgasm I reverted, you gave a high degree of prominence to your studies and no others, but did not actually include any content from those summaries. You only mentioned that they exist. Wikipedia isn't a place for promotion, even by expert editors, so this was flatly unacceptable. This content did not provide the reader with any new insight into the topic.
 * Your edits to cuteness mentioned your findings, but again, were not supported by independent sources. Saying things like "...it was proposed that..." is a form of WP:WEASEL wording, as you, yourself are the one doing the proposing and you give no indication that anyone else supports you in that. In order to prevent this kind of thing from being over-stated, you should present an independent source commenting about this study, not the study itself. While this really isn't a medical article exactly, reviewing WP:MEDRS may be helpful here. Hopefully that's helpful, and I am happy to answer more questions when I get the chance. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

Oryx and Crake
Hello Grayfell. This session is my first time doing any of this Talk stuff. I am basically new at discussion of edits and at having edits reverted, et al. Thanx for moving my Oryx and Crake Talk item to the bottom. I didn't know it was supposed to go there. Now I do. Regarding this ongoing sequence of immediate reversions on my Oryx and Crake edit, I don't really get what's going on or why. I made clearly substantive improvements to the current very non-optimal Plot summary text. How is it they are immediately negated without any substantive discussion, first by Flyer22... and now by you? Do you have any substantive argument or points against my undone edits. Are substantive new edits normally or by default reverted?? Is the policy rather to Talk page discuss first, prior to making any edits? I ask in all earnestness and Wiki-innocence. I contributed my edits in good faith and with great care. Their  reception, or rather unexplained peremptory rejection, is quite dismaying as I currently understand it.

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

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


 * Hello, Tommster1.
 * First, and I'm sorry if this is fussy, but please hold-off on the fancy formatting. Starting a paragraph with a space marks the paragraph as being a different type of formatting. Wikipedia's software is relatively old, and it has a lot of features that might have made sense once but are now just in the way. The same goes for dashes and multiple signatures- the quality of your writing is all we care about here. Use the preview button (Help:Show preview) and make sure your edits don't appear too out-of-place. This may seem pedantic, but when it's hard to read your comments, a lot of people won't bother, and then they won't bother to respond.
 * As for the edits, as I said in response to your comments at Talk:Oryx and Crake, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. That means that no matter how confident you are in your edits, you don't automatically get the final say. You should be bold and make edits you think improve the project, but don't be too surprised if someone else disagrees. One concept used to help prevent edit warring is WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. When you make a change and it's reverted, the burden is on you to start a discussion, civilly, on the article's talk page to try and build consensus. This means you need to show patience and give the other editor a chance to respond. Wikipedia favors the status quo, in part because if you simply restore your edits without discussion, it degrades into an edit war. Editing should not be an endurance contest to see who can revert the most. Likewise it's not a shouting match, nor a place for filibustering. Make your case by explaining your edits.
 * Your edits seemed reasonable at a glance, but they also suggested a mild editorial bias. As Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, analysis of works should be verifiable and attributable. If you can find a reliable source which discusses the plot's details, that would be very helpful. Otherwise, plot summaries should be matter-of-fact (maybe even to the point of being a bit dull) because Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. Plot summaries are notoriously tricky for this reasons, and you should not presume that what's obvious to you is obvious to anyone else. An extreme example of this issue is Finnegans Wake, which famously brings English majors to tears/blows/both, but that's a digression. Anyway, the place to discuss specific issues would be the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

Lastly, the edition of The following is a list of some notable Old Worthians, being former pupils of Worth School in the United Kingdom is not needed either in my opinion, as it is quite clear and similar to other old boys from different schools articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreiterAdam45z (talk • contribs) 12:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. Yes, I see now that I was mistaken about the list article's name. Sorry for that, and thank you for changing it back. I think it's worth looking into changing them all to match other countries' schools, as it looks like England is alone in this idiosyncracy, but that is a discussion for another place. As for the changes to the lead of the list, similarity was not my reason, MOS:LEAD was. Far too often school articles drift into the verbose and the promotional, because the are understandably often edited by people with a WP:COI. To help keep them on neutral footing, I think we should stick to a brief, factual lead, and WP:NPOV trumps consistency. If you still disagree, the article's talk page is the appropriate place to discuss this. Thanks, Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * If one looks at the recent history of the article, your edit might be the one that appears like an attempt at an edit war: I removed the adjective. An editor reverted my edit without comment or discussion. I wrote to him or her, and re-arranged the first paragraph to eliminate doubt that this is not a widely accepted hypothesis, while avoiding wording that the talk page documents as more inflammatory than illuminating. You re-added the word and in the process made the intro 100+ characters wordier. I suspect the circular and loud tone of the introductory paragraph is why the article is tagged for clean up. I'm sure that somebody with much more patience and understanding will eventually do a much better job of fixing the alarmist hand-waving that dismisses scientist like Sagan and charlatans all in the same stroke. I do see now you did not revert all 3 changes I had made.
 * You started a discussion on another user's talk page, but then repeated the substance of the edit without follow up on it. Both of your recent edits were focused on removing the pseudoscience label from the lead, which is a contentious change that should be discussed beforehand. The template requesting cleanup is asking for more sources. Your edit removed a source, so it was obviously not addressing that problem. As the article makes clear, Sagan made it clear he thought the hypothesis was unlikely and unproven, and had disapproval for later writers who treated it otherwise. Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * Glad to here you say you don't have a conflict. The word "rep" is very often used by salespeople, especially independent salespeople such as MLM associates. The rest of your username is otherwise a bit generic, which is a common characteristic of spammers. This is more of an impression than a scientific claim, but it comes from experience dealing with promotional content on Wikipedia. That and the promotional content you've been adding are why I am concerned you have a conflict of interest.
 * As for sources, they have to be reliable, and positive claims should be represented in proportion to their significance. Neither source you used appears to me to be reliable. One of the criteria for reliability is a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking". This is, among other things, specifically to limit the kind of content you are attempting to add, since it sounds very impressive, but is ephemeral and only thinly supported upon closer look. From their website, the Institute of Customer Service is a trade group which doesn't give much impression of editorial oversight. Although I don't suppose they are being deceptive, there's no obvious way to tell from the sources you've provided, and my own search turned up little. Press releases are poor for establishing due weight, because they are never independent. A Spokesman Said is even less usable, and their about page makes it clear that they are pushing a commercial service. It's an odd service, but it's still not a review site or similar, and gives not indications of reliability.
 * This all might be worth working around if the content you were adding seemed all that encyclopedically relevant, but it doesn't. It just seems like PR tidbits to me. This isn't an outlet for consumer reviews or advocacy. Many editors try to use it that way, and this sometimes slips through the cracks, but that's not a valid excuse to ignore it this time.
 * As a very simplistic rule of thumb, stick to journalists and academics. If a person is notable enough to have their own article, then consider quoting their opinion with attribution. If it's at all controversial (and PR is controversial) opinions must be supported by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Dan Price
thank you for replying. I don't know how Wikipedia works really but it's become my go to source for reliability and this Dan Price thing of all the people revising and deleting and editing, etc has concerned me. I just want as much accurate and citeabke (reputable sources) on a page as possible. I think,might be wrong, that's Wikipedia's goal to. To have detailed, accurate and objective information. Some info in edits are fluff,but in the fluff is objective info. IMO. I went and looked. Figured how to. That was cool! Other edits remove info that seems super valid. I think all that's true and source-able should be present. In this case, the lawsuit, $70 thing and orher stuff I'm sure seems very worth while in this article. Like if someone who is notable or famous does something that garners international attention in media, that shooukd also be Wikipedia worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.205.50 (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2016‎


 * Wikipedia's goals is not to have as much accurate info as possible. Wikipedia's does require info to be verifiable, but it also is expressly NOT an indiscriminate collection of information or a platform for advertising, which is a problem here. Much of the recently added sources were grossly misused to paint a flattering portrait way, way outside of context or reality. Having a bunch of brand new accounts an anonymous editors come out of the woodwork to fight to restore this version of the page gives a very bad impression. Grayfell (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit help neutrality for Jan Rezab Bio
Hi. Thank you for your edits and look into my page. Do you think you could look at the page a bit more and give it a more neutral point of view? I generally think there are a lot of things missing from the Czech startup scene on Wikipedia. For example if I look at Avast_Software, the founders like Eduard Kučera, or almost non-existing profile of Ivo_Lukačovič - these are Europe-wide relevant people that are being completely overlooked. For example Credo Venture Partners doesn't even have a profile (and they sold many of their portfolio companies). Happy to help currate some of this (obviously not my stuff) Jan.rezab (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not interested in helping you advertise yourself for free. If you want to write about topics you don't have a conflict of interest with, that would be a pleasant change, but please try harder to be neutral. Take a long look at WP:NPOV, WP:NBIO, and WP:OTHERSTUFF and get back to me if you have any specific questions. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I will try and contribute adding information about a few Czech entrepreneurs that are missing like I just did with Ivo Lukačovič and will try a few others, don't have the time but someone should really look into Czech / Central European entrepreneurs. There are some amazing things being done from Prague and they are being deeply ignored, maybe because of the language, maybe because of the location - but its discrimination that other people with smaller accomplishments that are born in a different country are on Wikipedia but people from a different part of the world are not. Jan.rezab (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely true, and is a well known problem in the community (Systemic bias), but that has nothing to do with you trying to advertise yourself. Bringing that up seems like a distraction, and it seems like you're trying to appeal to emotion by claiming discrimination. You weren't adding content to Lukačovič's page, you've been promoting yourself and your company. That's very, very different. You do understand why that's different, right?
 * I try do my part to try and remove non-notable Americans when I find them. I've also given the benefit of the doubt to a lot of entries that lacked English-language sources because of this imbalance, but there are millions of articles, and adding more spammy articles isn't fixing the problem, it's just damaging Wikipedia and making it harder to find the people and topics which need real attention. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Revert of Alt-Right NPOV
Where is the talk you mentioned and how can it be NPOV to say that a movement "lacks" an official ideology? That makes it sound like it is deficient. Wouldn't it be be perfectly neutral to simply say that it doesn't have one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutelyaware (talk • contribs) 12:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"Revert driveby tagging. The lead summarizes the body, raise any specific concerns on the article's talk page"
1. What do you mean by "driveby tagging"? Is it what we generally refer to simply as "tagging"? Do you have a problem with the concept of people tagging articles that need attention?

2. I raised specific concerns in my edit summary and with the tags I left. If you have specific reasons to undo my edits, then please specify them, here or on the article's talk page. 5.151.178.168 (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The lead is intended to summarize the body of the article. The notable stories mentioned are discusses, with sources, in the body, so they belong in the lead. Since the issues at Breitbart have already been discussed on the talk page, adding multiple redundant tags the paragraph does not accomplish anything productive, and expecting a brand-new talk page discussion is not productive, either. As for Firing of Shirley Sherrod, see that article's talk page. See also WP:BRD. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As you didn't answer my question, I'll ask it again. What do you mean by "driveby tagging"? Is it what we generally refer to simply as "tagging"?  Do you have a problem with the concept of people tagging articles that need attention?5.151.178.168 (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You can ask all you want, but I don't have to answer rude questions. Don't post here again. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * FYSA; this is this banned troll and has been blocked as such. Please feel free to clean up as needed.  Kuru   (talk)  02:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you .- MrX 02:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring --Neil N  talk to me 19:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You are edit warring/censoring on the Nazi Gun Control Theory page, again
Every one of those edits was cited, verifiable, and constructive to the article. Every one of those edits is either entirely factual or is an attempt to give the article a more neutral point of view by explaining the views of the theory and those who developed the theory, rather than beginning the article by dismissing the theory that the article is supposed to be about as "preposterous" "counterfactual history". Let's begin the article with an explanation of what the theory is about and the views of those who created the theory before we move on to the rebuttals against the theory and the insults directed against the developers of the theory, shall we? Contributing to an article and then re-posting my contributions again after they have been censored is not edit warring. Removing my contributions in a thinly veiled attempt to keep this article highly biased and devoid of any balanced discussion of the theory that the article is about is edit warring, and that is what you have done today, again, as you have numerous times in the past several weeks. Let the edits stand and present your rebuttals after the theory has been communicated, or you will be reported and possibly banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia goes by WP:DUE weight, and this is a WP:FRINGE theory. The majority of relevant reliable sources dismiss it as wrong, and Wikipedia should reflect those sources. Neutrality does not mean giving equal time to "both sides" of a disagreement, for many reasons. It's very likely from your edit history that your account has already been blocked once for edit warring. Since you clearly know how to post to a talk page, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page, as you've repeatedly been asked, rather than make sweeping changes to an established, controversial article. Considering that you already tried to report me without bothering to tell me, I reserve the right to revert any additional comments you make to my talk page. Post to the article's talk page, instead, and please review the talk page's archives (1, 2) first, since these issues have already been discussed multiple times. You should also be aware that Wikipedia has a strict policy of no personal attacks, so saying or insinuating that other editors are sympathetic to Nazi ideology will not go over well. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion input sought
Given your contributions to articles about white nationalism and white nationalists, there is a discussion currently at the talk page on the Nationalism template which may interest you. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've given my thoughts on the issue. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing article on Bhargav Sri Prakash
Hello Grayfell, I noticed that you added an template:advert tag on an article about Bhargav Sri Prakash as I was editing it. I am not sure if my edits inadvertently triggered such an action. I am a pre med student at Stanford University and I have no association with this living person or conflict of interest with this topic. I have attempted to refine the article by removing external links to unreliable sources, as well as adjectives in the body of the content that appear superfluous. Do you have any suggestions for further improvement? I would appreciate your advice. If my edits can serve as adequate refinement and reason to remove the advert tag, please let me know if I may remove it from the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4d01:1100:c5:6b8f:a855:cc33 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2016‎


 * Hello. Removing links is good, but the article needs much more attention. The wording is far, far too promotional, and includes a number of buzzwords and "peacock words" which make it read more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. Examples include (but are not limited to) "pioneer", "entertaining", "taps in to", "product leader", etc., and that's just from the lead. I think your edit to list of entrepreneurs is what brought my attention to the article, but the article's spammy nature has been there for a while, so you didn't specifically trigger that template. I don't see a compelling indication that you have COI, and I appreciate that you're acting in good faith, but it sure looks like someone, at some point in the article's history, was likely paid or closely involved. Regarding the 'invited speaker' section, that's another good example of why the article is too promotional. Content like that should be supported by WP:SECONDARY sources demonstrating lasting, encyclopedic significance. Merely speaking at an otherwise non-notable conference is not generally noteworthy by itself, and Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for this person to promote himself or his output. Conference mentions like that tend to be a red-flag for promotional issues (especially TEDx, but that's another issue). All of this applies to fooya and FriendsLearn, also. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Got it Grayfell. I can try to remove some of the buzzwords and "peacock words" but since it is beyond my expertise to refine this article further, should I just leave it as it is? I definitely do not want to further mess with an article which was untagged when I first found it! Please do not hesitate to undo my edits, in case you think it is not appropriate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4D01:1100:C5:6B8F:A855:CC33 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed
Hi,

I am trying to know if Buzzfeed can or cannot be used as a "reliable source", especially when it comes to relatively obscure subjects. I've asked the question here, but the subject of controversy has been this (see here). I have no idea is there is any clear and definite policy about the use of this website : since you already debated about this subject I thought you might know. Thanks and best regards, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. I have indeed debated on the usability of BuzzFeed a great deal already. Sorry, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS so I don't think there's likely to be a single definite policy. It would be nice if that were possible.
 * BuzzFeed distinguished between their journalism and their clickbait, AKA "contributor", content. They are not alone: Forbes, Huffington Post, and several other major outlets now do the same thing as a modern application of the older idea of having a journalistic firewall. This practice has apparently been very profitable, but it damages credibility, which makes the "reputation" part of WP:RS a lot more contentious than it otherwise would be. Taking that distinction into account, BuzzFeed's reputation is relatively good among other journalists and analysts. They shared a Peabody and some other noteworthy accolades, for example.
 * We're talking about this article, right? This appears to be from BuzzFeed's journalism side. BuzzFeed sometimes blurs the line more than they should. If it were from a "contributor", like this easily disprovable piece of trash, then it would not be usable at all, especially not for a BLP. Since it's from a reporter and can be assumed to have undergone fact-checking, I don't see a reliability problem using it. As the folks at RSN said, it's a matter of WP:DUE and WP:BLP as much as reliability. Maybe WP:BLPN would be a good place to get more input. Good luck. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello ; thanks for your answer. I have more or less the same impression about Buzzfeed. I'll try to get more advice at WP:BLPN... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Fangusu LTA
After some thought, I have created a WP:LTA page for Fangusu: Long-term abuse/Fangusu. The case is not yet approved, but if you have anything to add, please go ahead. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, thanks for letting me know. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Psi Upsilon
Good morning, Grayfell - You updated the Psi Upsilon fraternity page with a reversion of some of my edits, replacing and updating a paragraph about the closure of their Cornell chapter. Clearly the paragraph is tidy, well-referenced and informative.

However, I just don't see that the local issue it references ought to be given such weight as to impugn the entire national organization. Some editors, zealous to be first to post, will from time to time note such a chapter closure or a lawsuit on the front page of these various national organizations. That doesn't make it proper, and these are, correctly in my mind, later removed. I think you should cut that paragraph. Now, I did leave a comment hidden in the article to fend off further inclusions, and it's fine you deleted that.

Fraternities nationally are under enormous scrutiny. The actions of one man have killed this chapter. Other student organizations don't face this kind of backlash when a single person or small group errs. Not even sports teams. Schools don't shut down their band, or their soccer team when one of the players is a jerk. The idiot who (allegedly) raped the girl is dumped, sure. But I think we should leave a main article like this clean from most local news, except where a problem is systemic or where other local mention is otherwise noteworthy. Do you agree? Jax MN (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No, of course I don't agree or I wouldn't have restored it, what a silly question. Trying to minimize this by comparing rape to being a "jerk" is appalingly dismissive, and suggests that your neutrality has been compromised. I've heard variations of these arguments before and I don't find them persuasive. I've responded to your comments on the article's talk page, which is the appropriate place to discuss this issue. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Image relocation
Hi Grayfell,

Thanks for your changes on Kripalu Maharaj page. I would like to see the image on right or left of that paragraph. But whenever I uploaded it, it will go down at right side. So, I put the image in the center. Can I upload 2 images at the center of Jagadguru paragraph? Fruityk


 * Hello. There are multiple problems going on at that page:
 * The images on that page are acting strange, and I'm not sure why. For some reason, it refuses to show up next to the infobox. I'm curious why, but until it's fixed, the images are just making the page look too messy. They may look better on other screens, but on mine they look very bad, so I have removed them for now.
 * The images you added provided no encyclopedic value. They look very nice, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. They don't have dates, they don't have info on where they were taken, they just show a smiling face. We already have a smiling face at the top of the page. Adding more is promotional. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote anyone or anything. See WP:SOAP.
 * The image you uploaded appears to have been a copyright violation. Wikipedia takes those very seriously. The date you gave suggests it was made just today, but since he died in 2013, that's impossible. If you took that image from the web, it must be considered copyrighted, and cannot be uploaded to Commons.
 * I hope that answers your questions, and I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Grayfell (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Greyfell,


 * The images you removed are not showing up next to the infobox because they are palced inside a table. That's just the way we want them because are relevant to the section 'Jagadguru'.
 * The images have clear encyclopedic value as the first one is a close up of the face and the other is the snap of the ceremony where the Jagadguru title was bestowed. And if you read the section Jagadguru you will know the date on when the image was taken. I have seen the original black and white image and the one uploaded on wikipedia is a colored reproduction of the same.
 * The images you deleted were uploaded by an official representative of JKP. Don't remove images just based on conjectures (and time-stamps on image files). Let Wikipedia remove the images if its so concerned about copyright violations.

I'm undoing your edits, and I hope you won't mess up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.161.168 (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll I can't promise I won't mess up again, but I'll try to try not to mess up again! Sheesh! Please assume good faith.
 * Yes, I know that they were placed in a table, but that's not an explanation. Just syaing "we want them" that way doesn't solve the layout issues. As I've repeatedly said, consider how this appears on multiple screens, because it's not going to work like that. Why does the undated but recent flattering closeup of him belong right next to a heavily coloured historical image? There is no obvious connection between the two images, making this a "shoehorn gallery", which is specifically discouraged by the manual of style (WP:IG).
 * I did not delete any images, Wikipedia did based on my suggestion. Images must conform to WP:COPYVIO rules, and conforming to those rules is not optional. Your comments seem to suggest you are very confused about how WIkipedia works. Wikipedia relies (in large part) on volunteers to report violations like that. That's how the site works: it's not a platform for promotion, it's a volunteer encyclopedia, so ignoring an obvious problem defeats the purpose and is disrespectful to the project.
 * Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy, no matter how well-intentioned, and if you are an official representative of JKP you have a conflict of interest and should not be directly editing the article at all.
 * As an encyclopedia, false color images are undesirable, and we cannot just take your word for it that it's accurate. Information must be verifiable, which you have failed to address. If you have access to the original black and white image, and have the rights to release it to Wikimedia Commons, you may want to consider that. The false color image is too promotional to be useful. Grayfell (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You are just being obstinate. If you knew that they were placed in a table why did you say, then, that they should come next to the infobox. Either you don't know how tables are formatted or you refuse to admit your fault. Obviously they are going to look different on different screen sizes. Its for the wiki to sort out the problem of formatting not you. And healer heal thy self! You should first assume good faith before asking me to do it.
 * Well, by delete I meant remove from the article. And one of your edits did say 'Removing redundant images'. Who are you to decide what's redundant and what's meaningful? Have you ever been to any of the JKP asharams? Have you ever studied any book on Hindu philosophy? You should first make your qualifications known before making vandalizing edits. Your comments seem to suggest that you are a neophyte as far as philosophy is concerned. You are overly concerning yourself with the technicalities of Wikipedia rather than the subject matter of the article.
 * Kindly explain what do you find overly 'promotional' in the images? They just serve to illustrate the subject matter of the sections. I'm not an official representative of JKP. But the images were uploaded by an official representative. If you have no idea what you are doing you should not be lecturing me on what to edit.
 * If you cannot take my word then you should get up and go out and see for yourself and satisfy you verification urges. Color reproduction of black and white images is a standard technique in photography (AFAIK). I don't know what do you mean by false color image. I cannot just let you ruin the article because you are unconvinced. You have succeeded in proving that you have no idea what you are doing and are just wasting Wikipedia editorial resources..

117.207.186.99 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Saying I'm obstinate and questioning my understanding of basic English are not assuming good faith. You ask me to "kindly explain" something, but you have not been kind at all, and your assumptions about me hinder productive discussion.
 * Please understand that personal familiarity with a topic is not required, or even desirable, when editing an article. Your statements about making my "qualifications known" fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't verify editors, it verifies content. That's the entire point. Asking us to take your word for it is unacceptable. Read WP:V before going any further. The burden is on you to provide verification. The burden is not on those who challenge unsupported information.
 * You do not have to be official to have a conflict of interest. If you personally know that the images were uploaded by JKP representatives, that suggests an affiliation with those representatives, which still suggests a possible COI.
 * What does being in a table have to do with being next to the infobox? Tables can be next to infoboxes, and not all galleries need to be in table. Why are you presenting that as a "gotcha"? I tried to briefly explain some technical issues, but your comments imply that you did not understand my point. Instead of accepting that or asking for clarification, you chose to characterize my statements in a way that supported you opinion of me as being incompetent. Again, that's not assuming good faith.
 * While colorization may, arguably, be a standard technique in photography, it's a form of special effects. This is a form of artistry, not a pure document. It adds decoration without imparting factual knowledge. Some articles may use paintings or similar for historical events, but this is almost always for events that predate photography, and almost always in articles which discuss an event's artistic influence. If the original black and white photo can be uploaded, that would be far, far better for Wikipedia's purposes. The project isn't particularly interested in making articles pretty, only in making them encylopedic.
 * The second portrait doesn't provide very much information, and I'm still uncertain of it's copyright pedigree. While it's presumably been uploaded by an official, that's not necessarily good enough. An individual who has authority to release a copyrighted work must do so, not just an organization. Many of the other images uploaded by that account are blatantly promotional, with special effects such as starbursts and similar gimmicks, which is another reason to be cautious. There is also no indication when or where the image was taken, which is very important for providing context. It's a well-taken photo, but it's been overcompressed. It looks like it was expanded beyond its original resolution, which has left artifacts. The ornate watermark is more also more promotional than informative. Any time a flattering photo is added, it's promoting the topic. Sometimes that's okay, but it's still promotional. Articles with many flattering photos are inherently more promotional than articles with none, right? Do you see why I'm concerned that these photos are not improving the article? Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Lowercase title for golfscape
Hi Grayfell,

Thanks for your warm welcome to Wikipedia (I only now saw it as a notification). Regarding the page title, 'golfscape' is spelled with a lowercase G directly from the source website (golfscape.com), Bloomberg, as well as a couple other third-party sources (here and here). The capitalized G has been used by other sources where it is the first word in an article title, and this is where the discrepancy seems to be. I would appreciate if we can update the Golfscape Wikipedia title to lowercase, especially as the uppercase G is causing confusion with the name when Google uses the Wikipedia spelling in the Knowledge Graph which contradicts the company name. I appreciate your comments, and look forward to your feedback. Thanks!

RudyPlus (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. The issue you are describing comes up a lot, and is specifically dealt with by the manual of style: Manual of Style/Trademarks. I think you've already seen that, right? As an aside, I will note that neither of those 3rd-party sources are truly 3rd party, since one is an interview where the interviewer doesn't actually use the name outside of a web link (and is a poor WP:RS anyway), and the other is a thinly veiled press-release. Sources are not the only deciding factor in this case. Lowercase names in English cause too much confusion to readers. Is golfscape a proper noun, or is it a common noun describing a general concept? Adding branding at the expense of clarity is not what a neutral encyclopedia should be doing. Wikipedia doesn't do this for Craigslist or Adidas, either, so you're in good company.
 * Since this issue is specific to this one article, I suggest moving this discussion to Talk:Golfscape to facilitate wider consensus, but I oppose such a change for these and other reasons. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Men Going Their Own Way
Thanks for your edit to Men Going Their Own Way. We have what looks to be a single IP editor, editing from a number of different UK mobile provider IP addresses, edit-warring there: I've semi-protected the article for a week to put a stop to this for now. Please let me know if this resumes. -- The Anome (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit to Peter Marino page
Hi Grayfell, I am failing to understand why you believe all of the content that I added to the Peter Marino page to be "promotional". There are a few sentences that I can see needing a bit of revision, but the Education and early career section is completely factual and objective. Also, the citations are from many reputable sources including the New York Times and Business of Fashion. I also don't see how the quote is promotional. He is simply describing his approach to architecture and it sums it up well. Many other well known architects have lists of their project and awards so I don't see how that is an issue either. Then it appears you are personally attacking me since you tagged the Horton Plaza Park page as an advertisement when it has been live for months with no issues. I am relatively new to wikipedia, so please enlighten me on all of this. Emikey-34 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. Wikipedia has a serious problem with paid editors and promotional editing, so when a new editor adds large quantity of flattering material, experienced editors often check that editor's contributions to and see if it's part of a larger pattern. This information is easily visible for all editors; mine is here, for example: Special:Contributions/Grayfell. I hope it's clear why that happens, and I know it can feel unfair and distressing, but this isn't personal. I do not know who you are, and unless you have a conflict of interest or are using a sock account, I do not have any interest in that at all.
 * Regardless of your intention, I stand by my claim that the content you added to Peter Marino was far too promotional. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and phrases like "internationally acclaimed", "luxury concepts", "engaging a dialogue between art and architecture", "iconic names from the worlds of fashion, art and society," and so forth, are flattering without being particularly informative. The purpose of the article is to provide an overview, not to promote or name-drop. Things like that are fine for a press release, but absolutely unacceptable for an encyclopedia article. Writing like that makes it read more like a PR packet, which is a violation of one of Wikipedia's core principles. WP:WTW may also help explain why this is such a red flag. Beyond that, the level of detail must be proportional to reliable sources. Passing mentions are not good enough. Press releases are also not good enough. You also introduced content that wasn't supported by the attached sources, such as his work with Bulgari. This is a strong sign that you were not approaching the article neutrally.
 * Awards are especially easy to abuse for PR purposes, so as a general guideline, awards which are not themselves notable, meaning they already have a Wikipedia article, should include reliable, independent sources and provide context about what the award is and why it's noteworthy. If there are other architects with such lists, and I'm sure there are, unfortunately, let me know and I will be happy to help clean them up. Wikipedia is always a work in progress, so existing content is not always a valid precedent.
 * Horton Plaza Park also includes a large number of peacock words and other vague-but-pleasant details which do not match Wikipedia's style or goals.
 * I hope that is somewhat enlightening. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Those phrases you quoted accurately describe the work Peter Marino does. He designs buildings for major fashion houses - are you saying Dior, Valentino, Yves Saint Laurent, etc. are not iconic fashion designers? I think the fashion industry would disagree with you. He is known in the architectural world as bridging the gap between art and architecture and working with luxury fashion clients, so how else would this be stated? This information is very much informative and the article would not be accurately descriptive of his work without it. Also note there are not any press releases in the citations so I don't know where you got that from. Most of the articles cited are entirely about Peter Marino himself and are not "passing mentions". The mention of his work with Bulgari I will accept as not appearing in that citation, a small mistake. I can easily find another reference to support it however.


 * Wikipedia doesn't use WP:PEACOCK words to describe people. They should not be described as "iconic" because that doesn't actually mean anything substantial, and Marino's page would not be the proper place to describe them that way if it did. "Bridging the gap" is a aesthetic opinion, not an incontrovertible fact, and it's an especially poor metaphor to use for an architect. Any such assessment must be clearly attributed as an opinion by a reliable source, not stated as a plain fact in Wikipedia's voice. Marino has doubtlessly said many things about himself, but Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality require secondary sources to summarize opinions (or controversial details) in most cases. Some (but not all) of the content you added may re-added with changes, but the promotional tone was flatly unacceptable. If you want to include the specific details, please do so neutrally. I reverted your edits in multiple steps so that I could leave an explanation for my actions. Editing Wikipedia means getting reverted sometimes. If you are not interested in collaborating, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Grayfell, I went back over the Education and Career section and made changes to remove any promotional language. Could you possibly look this over and tell me if it is objective enough? Then also, what is the best way to go about reinstating the corrected sections to the article? Do I make a new edit entirely or can I make changes when "undo"ing your reverts? Thanks.

Marino earned a degree from Cornell University’s College of Architecture, Art and Planning. http://www.surfacemag.com/peter-marino/ Marino began his architectural career working for Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, George Nelson, and I.M. Pei / Cossutta + Ponte. https://www.businessoffashion.com/community/people/peter-marino In 1978, Andy Warhol hired him to do a renovation project for his townhouse on the Upper East Side of Manhattan http://www.surfacemag.com/peter-marino/ and then the new Factory at 860 Broadway. http://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-scoops/peter-marino-book-signing-dior-store-london-10442622/ That led to commissions from Yves Saint Laurent and Pierre Berge, Gianni and Marella Agnelli, and Giorgio Armani. http://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/architect-peter-marino-article In 1985 http://wwd.com/eye/people/peter-marino-fashion-s-go-to-guy-3561494/, Marino was hired by Barneys New York to design the new women’s store concept http://www.surfacemag.com/peter-marino/ and 17 freestanding Barneys stores worldwide between 1986 and 1991. http://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/peter-marino-creating-and-collecting-art-article It was while planning Barneys that Marino met many of the fashion designers whom he would eventually design shops for, including Calvin Klein, Donna Karan, Giorgio Armani, Ermenegildo Zegna, Fendi, Chanel, Dior, Louis Vuitton, and Loewe. http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG10077044/Peter-Marino-the-flagship-fashion-man.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emikey-34 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. We should probably move this to the article's talk page. That's better for this, as it invites other interested editors to chime in, and the discussion can be more easily found in the future. When responding, you can WP:PING me there to specifically get my attention (there is no point in pinging me on my own talk page). I'm going to copy this there for convenience and then reply. Also, don't forget to sign talk page posts. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2016 (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. Emikey-34 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Frivolous report. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

History of Marketing: Deleted Content
I see that you saw fit to delete some content that I added this afternoon.

What you call "editorialising", I see as scene-setting. I actually think that it is important to make a distinction between 'marketing as practice' and 'marketing as a discipline'. And, that was what I was trying to do.

What you call, "original research" is lost on me. I have no idea what that comment was about.

As for the history of marketing and the evolution of marketing needing to be collapsed into a single section - well, that's exactly what I was trying to do. The evolution was within the History section, but with a few paragraphs that provided some context and background. Marketing didn't just begin with the production era.

And, as for McCarthy being mentioned multiple times, I absolutely agree. I had fully intended to go into the later section and revise it. But that was until you deleted the passage that I wrote about McCarthy's contribution for the History section. So, if the emergence of the 4Ps doesn't qualify as part of the "History" of marketing then I'm quite sure that I don't know what does. And, if the roles played by McCarthy and Kotler don't qualify as part of that history, then I'm totally lost.

BronHiggs (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. "Original research" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia: see WP:OR. All but the most very basic conclusions should be supported by reliable sources. Your expertise in the subject is an asset in that you are familiar with sources and understand what they mean, but we do not just take your word for it; content must still be verifiable (WP:V). It must also be written in a formal WP:TONE. In order to set a scene, you should cite reliable sources to support the distinction between practice and discipline and explain what that means. If sources do not mention the first towns and cities after the neolithic, for example, then it is, by Wikipedia's standards, original research. It would at least be editorializing, as either it's obvious enough that it doesn't need to be mentioned, or it's worth providing context based on sources. When writing about something as 'historical', it should be supported by WP:SECONDARY sources as historical with some form of context. Otherwise it's presenting material as encyclopedically significant without verification. While that may seem overly fussy, it's very important to be aware of to preserve neutrality. I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for clarifying. So what I take from that is basic conventions of writing in an interesting manner - e.g. paragraph intros, conclusions, transitions, lead-ins etc cannot be used because they would not contain sources.

In future, I'll be sure not to contribute to this page given that it is subject to such extraordinary vigilance and pedantic interpretations of what it means to be 'encylopedic'.

BronHiggs (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you think it would be easy? Yes, you do have to adapt to Wikipedia's guidelines. That means summaries, transitions, and conclusions need a bit more work. Find a source summarizing the history of marketing, and then write from that. Just making stuff up about the Paleolithic reads like filler, and it trivializes debates in the history of economics. Some people might appreciate the conversational style, but I'm not one of them, and I think Wikipedia's policies and guidelines agree with me. Grayfell (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not about being 'easy'. It is about following Wikipedia's guidelines. Here is an example from Wiki's tutorial on editing:


 * " "Paris is the capital of France" is an example of a statement that does not necessarily need to be sourced, because it's common knowledge and everybody knows that there are dozens of sources which could be cited. The information is attributable, even if it is not attributed."

This does not suggest that EVERY sentence must be referenced, as you suggest. Nor, does it suggest that self-evident statements are banned. On the contrary the guidelines also indicate that sources are required for statements that are controversial, but not necessarily for statements that are unlikely to attract counter-arguing from a rational person.

Here are two examples of paragraphs from a Wiki Page that is a featured page(i.e. it is considered to be of very high quality by readers.) You will note that these paragraphs contain a number of sentences that are unsourced along with some that are.

From Wikipedia, Bacteria (A Featured Page)
 * Certain genera of gram-positive bacteria, such as Bacillus, Clostridium, Sporohalobacter, Anaerobacter, and Heliobacterium, can form highly resistant, dormant structures called endospores.[76] In almost all cases, one endospore is formed and this is not a reproductive process, although Anaerobacter can make up to seven endospores in a single cell.[77] Endospores have a central core of cytoplasm containing DNA and ribosomes surrounded by a cortex layer and protected by an impermeable and rigid coat. Dipicolinic acid is a chemical compound that composes 5% to 15% of the dry weight of bacterial spores. It is implicated as responsible for the heat resistance of the endospore.


 * Bacteria are further divided into lithotrophs that use inorganic electron donors and organotrophs that use organic compounds as electron donors. Chemotrophic organisms use the respective electron donors for energy conservation (by aerobic/anaerobic respiration or fermentation) and biosynthetic reactions (e.g., carbon dioxide fixation), whereas phototrophic organisms use them only for biosynthetic purposes. Respiratory organisms use chemical compounds as a source of energy by taking electrons from the reduced substrate and transferring them to a terminal electron acceptor in a redox reaction. This reaction releases energy that can be used to synthesise ATP and drive metabolism. In aerobic organisms, oxygen is used as the electron acceptor. In anaerobic organisms other inorganic compounds, such as nitrate, sulfate or carbon dioxide are used as electron acceptors. This leads to the ecologically important processes of denitrification, sulfate reduction, and acetogenesis, respectively.

And, as for your recent point about not enjoying the style/commentary, can I draw your attention to another Wikipedia guideline (below) which suggests that a person's subjective opinion about what is acceptable does not carry a great deal of weight:


 * “Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers… is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia…"being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal or inclusion of content.” (From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not)

I think that there is a whole other agenda going on here. This is not about being 'encyclopedic' - it's about something quite different, and only you know what that is. There is evidence of far too many arbitrary decisions with paltry attempts at justification. Dismissing emphasis by calling it "Shouting" or "gratuitous". Dismissing sentences as lacking in source but then dismissing other sentences because their sources have been deemed "unreliable." You are happy to delete most of a paragraph, but leave one lonely sentence dangling dangling in mid-air - lacking in any context and without any integration to the material that surrounds it. Dismissing other content because somehow 'evolution' and 'history' have become synonymous. Making wide-ranging unilateral decisions, without any attempt to seek consultation from other editors or giving contributors the opportunity to add a reference where you think one might be warranted (e.g. by using [citation needed]) signs. Rather than give new or inexperienced editors any opportunity to improve the quality - let's delete all contributions unless they meet some higher standard of excellence - where the excellence rule book is some kind of secret. As I said previously, I am simply not prepared to play any game - where the rules are arbitrary and enforcement is carried out on a whim.

BronHiggs (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said, I think Wikipedia's policies and guidelines agree with me. That was my point, not that the content should be "censored". Wikipedia is a collaborative process based on many policies, guidelines, a sprawling manual of style, and sometimes unwritten conventions. It's messy and arcane, which is unfortunate but unavoidable. WP:BRD is an essay that's often cited by the community, and it underscores the common-sense idea that in most cases the burden is on the one providing the content to support it. The place to discuss this would be the article's talk page.
 * If you think that "Endospores have a central core of cytoplasm..." is self-evident along the lines of WP:BLUESKY I don't know what more to say. Even if something is self-evident, an article still needs to provide a reason to mention it based on verifiable content. The neolithic existence of marketing is not self-evident, and would only make sense if we accept a very broad definition of the term. Even then it runs against the anthropology of economics, and the myth of primitive barter economics, and other issues in messy ways which are controversial and far, far outside the scope of the article. If you introduced it to ease the reader into the topic, that's a good goal, but it's just not that simple. A tag is a courtesy, but not a requirement. Some content simply doesn't belong without a source.
 * If you really think I have an "agenda", take it up with a noticeboard or something, because speculating about my motives without any concrete accusations or evidence is inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It's all fine. I have tried to make my case to no avail, and have no desire to take it further.

I came to Wikipedia just a few weeks ago with a mission to correct several foundation concepts which I had noticed were confused in a number of prospective text-books and prospective journal articles (I work part-time as a writer, reviewer and editor for several publishing companies and universities in Australia). I wondered why the confusion was creeping into the literature over the past year or two and decided to investigate the issue. I found that several marketing tutor websites and Wikipedia were all using incorrect definitions - and any one of these could have been the original source of the error. After attending to that, I noticed other problems on other Wiki pages and began to 'improve' these pages. However, my original goal is accomplished, and after this experience, I have lost the desire to continue so I am out.

I do think that your editing is very heavy-handed and somewhat arbitrary- and not always in accordance with Wiki Policies -(but as you say, editors could revert etc). The downside is that this approach is likely to discourage other editors from making new contributions.

BronHiggs (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that. I can live with being called heavy handed, but it was not my intention to stop you from editing. My intention was to prevent you from adding contributions that I felt would later have to be removed or seriously altered. As frustrating as this is, it would be much worse the more time had been spent, right? I hope you will keep contributing.
 * Most of my editing lately has been articles about extremist politics, while I've also worked hard to remove covert spam and paid editing. Both of these areas have serious, persistent problems that get personal very quickly. You mentioned being tired of games... well, my patience is even thinner than usual, and perhaps that rubbed off on this article, for which I apologize.
 * There are a lot of problems with marketing articles on Wikipedia, and they could definitely use more attention from knowledgeable editors. That said, sources are absolutely vital. While it's sometimes a major hassle, it's the defining hassle of Wikipedia, and it's a big part of why Wikipedia keeps getting cited by college kids and overworked textbook editors. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia's policies are rambling - and vague in places, leaving a lot of room for different interpretations. Along with many marketing pages that are in need of an overhaul, Wikipedia's policies are very much in need of consolidation and clarification. However, I will leave all that for the attention of other editors.

BronHiggs (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)