This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I made the edits because Jayda Fransen isn't a Fascist nor is Britain First a Fascist movement. SeanWilsonUK (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

If you know of reliable sources, discuss them on the article's talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith edit. I've know added verifiable content to the section "arguments against globalism"--80.147.11.76 (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you are confused. I posted on that article's talk page a few months ago, but I am not the one who posted a comment on your talk page. I would suggest that you continue to work towards consensus on Talk:Globalism. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

After another incident of removing well-sourced material, Aidayoung is now at ANI. I made mention of your removal of the Introvigne quote posing as a Gallagher quote there. Feoffer (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Enough already. I've already allowed you to remove one sourced point of view in your effort to skew the article negative, and for the sake of not getting into an endless edit war, I'll let you delete the relevant degrees that show why Dr.s Taylor and Small are qualified to pass judgment on the documentary, but leave the Labrecque section alone. It's from a legitimate news site and you have no reason to object, other than to make it look like the documentary had fewer defenders than it did.

You haven't removed a single one of the anti- opinions, even though they are highly redundant (not to mention that some are from "organizations" with no actual presence other than the issuance of occasional press releases complaining about anything that doesn't promote Islam). I haven't tried to thin those out, but the opposing viewpoint also needs to be represented. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A better place to discuss this is would be the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Since you recently commented on the ANI thread about an organized promotion effort related to CESNUR, I'd like to ask you to help review that organization's article here on Wikipedia. In an attempt to comply with the spirit of WP:CANVAS, the same message is being sent to everyone who commented on the ANI thread, and no specific editing-conflict is being referenced: the article could simply benefit from more eyeballs. Feoffer (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisne (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST. You can join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://virginia.zoom.us/my/wikilgbt. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W / 47.622928; -122.322912 The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well.

Hi Grayfell - You'll probably see this on your Watchlist, but just in case, I added a section to the Jordan Peterson Talk page: Quillette.com is not a reliable source. I appreciate your attention to detail on this "hot topic" article. ;^)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, thanks for editing Cracking the Coding Interview. I can understand why some of the citations have been removed but I'm a little puzzled as to why the information about Amazon sales has been deleted. A book in the top 1000 of amazon books is significant. I used amazon.com sales to establish notability and amazon.com is a reliable source, how else can notability (via sales) be established ?

By the way, I do not know the author (no affiliation) but have used the book in my teaching, and in my opinion it is notable and worthy of a pageDuncan.Hull (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Duncan.Hull: Hello. Thank you for taking this to talk. I appreciate your clarification regarding WP:COI, and to be honest, that was my first concern.

Per Wikipedia:Notability (books)#cite note-bestseller-4:

A book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list is non-trivial treatment if the list is notable or the list is published by a notable media outlet and the list is republished or covered by other reliable sources. Bestseller lists in retailer or e-commerce sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered reliable. Social media review sites like Goodreads and LibraryThing do not qualify for this criterion.

This might seem like a subtle point, but it is an important one. These lists are notoriously inconsistent and potentially misleading, and, I will add, are far too often used to bolster flimsy articles.

To put it another way, bestseller lists are useful because they are reliable, independent sources, not because the document some specific number of copies sold. There is no fixed threshold where X copies must means "Notable". Notability is established by reliable sources which are independent of the topic. Since Amazon's lists are not reliable, nor are they strictly independent, they are not particularly useful.

Also, per my edit summaries, I started a discussion for this on the article's talk page, at Talk:Cracking the Coding Interview#Notability. I will add that I'm not gunning for the article to be deleted, but these sources are pretty bad, and there's no way to sugar-coat it.

Employment and business-related topics suffer from a lot of "boosterism", churnalism, and similar. There are many sources, but few of them are reliable. This particular article came to my attention because a logged-out editor added the book as a citation to HackerRank, which is on my watchlist. I don't think a commercial service like HackerRank is an WP:RS either, so when we have a self-published book being cited for a spammy article, which in turn cites the same self-published book, we have to step back and make sure this isn't a walled garden. If you have a programming background, I'm sure you can see why this kind of recursion sets off some alarm bells. The way to fix this is with better sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes I can empathise with these points of view. If a book has more than 600 reviews on Amazon.com I believe that tells you something important about its notability. Duncan.Hull (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Per WP:USERGENERATED, user reviews should not be used, and the raw quantity of them is not significant without context from a reliable, independent source. Additionally, Amazon reviews are also notoriously unreliable for various reasons. You will need to find better sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Edgar Rice Burrough's influence on John Norman (at least Norman's early Gor novels) has been mentioned by a number of people, but I haven't heard of the Robert E. Howard influence before. Is there evidence for this? AnonMoos (talk)

Good question. Sorry, I don't know, my edits were mainly intended to clarify what was already there. Almuric was already mentioned. I added Howard's name just as context, but did not dive into sources. I suspect the article has some WP:OR issues, but perhaps I'm being too harsh. My shallow take on sources for pulp and genre fiction is that there are a lot which meet WP:RS/WP:V, but which are offline or just hard to find, so I was reluctant to make major changes.

Almuric and Barsoom were both added to the lead by Ahriman2014 (talk · contribs) in 2016, but that editor does not appear to still be active. It makes sense to me to move both influences out of the lede, but as I said, I don't really know the sources, so I defer to your judgement. Grayfell (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that you were copying from further down. I still think that Almuric has been discussed much less than John Carter of Mars, and so should not be in the lead section... AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me at edits from Toronto in Human genetic clustering. One more edit from the IP (who will no doubt read this) and I suggest we call in Doug Weller to take a look. What do you think? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

ETA: Actually, why wait? @Doug Weller: -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree but the best solution is to protect the page, there are good edits on the range. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Doug, yes. That works. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. I have opened an SPI now that our 'friend' is editing at the AfD. If you want to add anything, it is here.[1] -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Good call, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted the Stevie Awards page back to its old version after the company had been approved of new edits that more accurately describe the awards organization as a whole.

Can you please provide some insight as to why you made these changes and how we might be able to keep our updated version on the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.195.109 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and propose any changes on the article's talk page. Cite reliable sources, which will mainly also be independent sources, and summarize those sources from a neutral point of view. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your comments re: the advertising problem on CGI Inc.. I cleaned up buzzwords and the excessive non-noteworthy awards, and I removed the advert tag. Since you added the tag, could you review to confirm that your issues were addressed? There are clearly other issues with the article that need to be addressed, but these are covered with the relevant section tags already on the page. Thank you. ESofmind (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have responded at the article's talk page. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi I have removed content that sounds promotional on personality page Dhiraj Rajaram. Take a look at the page and request you to remove the advert template/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjrm11 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I have a request for help from you: Can you kindly provide me with some support for the Alan Roger Currie article that I created in April 2015?? I would VERY MUCH appreciate your support and assistance. Thank you. The Discussion is HERE Chicago Smooth (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Truly no implication here, I am just making sure anyone who has edited Race and intelligence in the past two weeks has been properly alerted. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I've been researching a local company, Morinda, Inc., and noticed its Wikipedia page is very outdated. I tried to include more accurate information from what I thought were reliable sources (the SEC, industry associations, etc.), but all of my edits were rejected. I sincerely tried to stay neutral, but the I guess my edits were rejected because they sounded too promotional? I totally get that linking to company press releases or materials isn't great, so that's something I'll avoid for sure. But I would like to update this page to include accurate information. Please advise? Basketballadam (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, May I know please why can't I change Wikipedia citation or deadlinks when needed? How can I put external links in the wiki? Anjelina zeni (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Anjelina zeni: Hello. The sources you have been adding (both here, and at Simple English Wikipedia) are not reliable. Additionally, they are promotional. Adding unreliable promotional sources to Wikipedia is spamming. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you have questions about a specific article, start a new section on that article's talk page. If you have questions about Wikipedia, you might consider Wikipedia:Teahouse, or Wikipedia:Help desk. If you strongly feel that a source is reliable, you can get additional input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Proof of Stake: Cardano

"Looks like pseudo-academic crypto spam" This project has been researched, peer-reviewed and released with a following equal or greater to other published POS 'solutions' and worthy of inclusion in the discussion. Please do some research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnygreeney (talk • contribs) 07:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we need to report Grayfell, he is dishonest, his agenda is contrary to the Wikipedia Standard...he disregards & deletes other user's content with absolutely no basis for his actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmoore1131 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Any further dishonest, unsubstantiated actions by this user will be reported this user will be reported to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_administrator_attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmoore1131 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I see you have been working the the Proud Boys article. I made a post on their Talk Page requesting that the article be updated to include news reports about an assassination plot involving the lawyer and former Proud Boys leader being caught on an audio recording by an FBI informant plotting the murders of a person who he is suing, along with murdering the opposing lawyer, a local city councilwoman and a state bar prosecutor. The guy, Jason Lee Van Dyke, was recently arrested for the felonies of Obstruction of Justice and Retaliation Against a Witness for making threats of violence and murder.

So I thought you would please update the article. The Bishop1914 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	😍😍😍 Peach6972 (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Grayfell, Hope you are safe at your place. Just wanted to express my gratitude towards your edits on Unacademy. As I am still learning how to make edits and actions at Wikipedia, I am grateful for the edits. Though I try to keep the language non-promotional while writing drafts, sometimes it becomes very unclear and confusing to decide which words depict promotional sense and which not. BenJulio87 (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@BenJulio87: Thank you, I hope you are safe as well.

Wikipedia can be confusing.

I do not mean to harp on this, but one thing that would help this situation is if you clearly explain that you have indeed read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Typically, when you remove something from your own talk page, it is taken as a sign that you have read and understood it. Because Wikipedia' terms of service are very specific about this, especially regarding Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, you should make this clear.

Again, please explain that you have read this and understood it, and if necessary, please disclose any conflicts of interest you have. You should use your own userpage or your talk page for this, so that other editors are appropriately aware.

Again, I understand that Wikipedia can be unclear about what is and is not promotional. In practice, there is no single standard for all articles can be judged, we have to go article-by-article and built consensus that way. One article that I think helps is WP:WTW, as this goes-through a lot of red flags that make an article feel a certain way to other readers, although even there, it's easy to find disagreement. Still, this perspective helps keep things neutral.

Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks, I am safe as well. I indeed read the terms of paid-editing disclosure and conflict of interest but you posted on the talk page, but I don't have any of that with the Unacademy. I am here creating articles for companies and people which I believe should be here. Unacademy is indeed one of them, as its a company with about more than half-a-billion dollar valuation at the market. Moreover, it has sources that are considered reliable and Independent in Indian wikiproject. That is why I added them there after all.

Also, I have not removed anything from the talk page, I was archiving it though. And, I have messed there. I don't know what went wrong while moving it. One other editor has advised me about the archiving process of talk page. BenJulio87 (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have just noticed the removal of Reception section from Unacademy. I think that section has two reliable sources that were from Forbes. The founders being included in the list of '30 Under 30' was the result of their work at Unacademy, and it was clearly mentioned in the sources . So I don't get why you removed it? It was totally supported by the sources. BenJulio87 (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. I have posted an explanation of this at Draft talk:Unacademy. It will be more helpful to other editors in the future if this discussion is in a single place. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about my edits that I made to cultural appropriation. That is NOT my personal opinion, that's actually facts. I never heard the term 'cultural misappropriation', so me adding 'cultural appreciation' is completely fine, it's even a more known term. The fact that it is controversial when one culture adopts elements from another culture and disrespect it is a well known fact that were not written at the start of this article. 92.245.5.72 (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I see you have been blocked for edit warring. That makes this a good time to look closely at Wikipedia:No original research. Then, after your block expires or is lifted, feel free to discuss this change, with reliable sources, at Talk:Cultural appropriation. I am not interested in discussing this specific change on my own talk page. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey there. I saw that you had reverted my edits with the veterans affairs section in the Vicky Hartzler page and said to summarize using a reliable source. All the sourcing I used came from the official congressional database (congress.gov). What else would constitute a reliable source? I'm still very new at this, so if I could have a little bit of explaining, I'd appreciate that. Thanks Spurs1211 (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Spurs1211: Hello.

While it may seem counter-intuitive, Wikipedia strongly favors secondary sources. This is explained at Wikipedia:No original research#Secondary. The issues is not that primary sources (such as the official congressional database) are unreliable. They are reliable, but they do a poor job of establishing due weight. Representatives are typically active in a wide variety of areas, but summarizing these activities neutrally, and picking which ones are encyclopedically important, is something that should generally be done by sources, not by editors.

Obviously politics is especially controversial, and for various reasons, different articles on political figures will have different levels of detail. This is madem ore complicated because of Wikipedia's stance on living people, and also the prohibition on using Wikipedia for promotion or advocacy.

As a practical matter, in my experience most editors (including myself) accept some primary sources for things like this, but they need to kept brief and handled carefully. That said, I do not speak for all editors, and Wikipedia goes by consensus. The best place discuss this further, to start forming consensus is probably the article's talk page: Talk:Vicky Hartzler. This way any other interested editors can join in, and it will be easier to find the discussion in the future, if this is ever revisited. If you would like to do that, you can start a new section there similar to how you started this one on my talk page. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:BLP/Noticeboard regarding WP:NPOV. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Carl Benjamin's rape joke".The discussion is about the topic Carl Benjamin. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Amaroq64 (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, I just made a bunch of edits on the Epic Systems page. To explain my edits, my partner and I are doing a project in our Johns Hopkins History of Medicine class. We have spend the past couple months carefully researching this c-class article in order to update it to more current information. With that said, I would greatly appreciate some advice you have for transferring our information over from our draft article in our sandbox. Thank you so much Tuphoff1 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I would advise you to discuss on the article's talk page. As I said on your talk page, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Using press releases for routine details is a form of promotion. Again, the article's talk page is the place to discuss this. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I thanked you twice for the same edit. Meters (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you? I don't see it, but no big deal, there are worse problems to have. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New eugenics; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Galendalia (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about Grayfell (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, I made some edits to AAFMAA and I think I reached a point where its possible to remove the Advert tag you placed there. Please let me know your thoughts and if you agree with my edits and actions. Best, Pratat (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for letting me know. I have restored the template with an explanation on the article's talk page. This is probably the best place to discuss things further. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Thanks for making the correction. I am very new to wikipedia and still learning. I added a recent partnership they had with a company called buyucoin. The new of the partnership is on many news and third party blogs sites. I first added the news from bitcoin.com, which is a pioneer in crypto space. But it was edited by some one who said crypto sites are not wprs. Then i saw some refrences in the current mobikwik page which has medianama , money control etc. These are same as like inc42 which you deleted. Can i know what kind of news sites are eligible to be a refrence on wikipedia. Furthermore the new of their partnership was on money control too. The same site which has been used as a refremce on current mobikwik page. So can it be used. Thank a lot in advance. Tinder007 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here but the simplest way to explain it is that the source appears to be churnalism. A "partnership" is not significant merely because a bad source can be found. Using vague language to promote a service is not neutral or encyclopedic. How many users have the option to do something with some service is trivia. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Discuss this on the article's talk page, if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Genuine question, and yes this is about the dissident right page. I want to know because that movement is a legitimate movement at this point. And I'm new to Wikipedia btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dissidentrightindian (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I've already explained that, but will comment further on your talk page, to keep this in one place. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop using biased and loaded language on the Groyper page. Page was edited to reflect terminology which is professed by Groypers as opposed to inaccurate language which is designed to assign labels which do not reflect the Groyper movement The Swamp Creature (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources, which also means independent sources. This means that it's up to sources to decide how the "Groypers" are described. Since your comments suggests that you are a member of the groypers, you have a conflict of interest and should propose edits on the article's talk page. Your first-hand knowledge is not relevant to Wikipedia, we need sources, and your personal dislike of those sources is also not particularly relevant. Any further comments here will be reverted. Further discussion should be held on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I received your note re: removal of external links "...because they seem to be inappropriate for an encylopedia." Not fully understanding your reasoning ("seemed"?), I read the guidelines. Thanks for providing the link as this is my first edit and I have much to learn. In reviewing the guidelines, the only issue that stood out was that links "...should not normally be placed in the body of an article." Is it just a matter of formatting and these should be footnoted instead?

Or...in reading "Links normally to be avoided" I see a few references to avoid links that are "intended to promote" and "...primarily exist to sell products or services." Might this be your reason for removing the links?

I have no affiliation with Joel Hunter in any way and my updates are intended to be just that...bring the information up to date.

Can you help me understand how better to do that? Thanks so much!

Seattle98121-3881 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seattle98121-3881: Hello.

Sorry, but there were several problems with your edit.

The language you added was not neutral, and read like it was intended to promote specific groups. It is important to write from a neutral point of view, not one of advocacy. Advocacy can also take the form of excessive levels of detail, or of details which lack context.

Another problem was that your edits were not properly sourced. You linked to many non-profits, but these links were neither reliable sources, nor did they support that Hunter's role was encyclopedically significant. As just one example (from past experience I need to emphasize that this is just an example, not the only problem here) this link to CFCH.org doesn't mention Hunter at all. In fact, CFCH.org's "leadership" page also doesn't mention Hunter. I don't know how you, personally, knew that Hunter is involved with this group, but you need to cite reliable sources for content like this.

One additional problem is that this was not encyclopedic, because it failed to provide important information according to due weight. The main goal of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is to summarize secondary sources. One important way Wikipedia maintains neutrality is by relying on independent sources (meaning independent of the topic being covered). If independent sources do not mention Hunter's role in these various non-profits, it is unlikely to be significant to readers. Do readers have a path to understanding what the Central Florida Commission on Homelessness is, based on reliable and independent source ? If not, we cannot just take their own word for it and use an unreliable primary source, because this becomes a form of (hopefully inadvertent) promotion. If reliable, independent sources mention this information, we use those sources to provide context for why this is important. We do not use sources about a group to promote that group, even with the best intentions.

I hope that explains some of the problems. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Most all of the updates were sourced from a single source, "A Community Resource Network," (https://www.communityresourcenetwork.com/team) which appears to be where he is currently employed, albeit as a volunteer according to the site. I simply cut and pasted much from this single page. Your example concerning CFCH.org and his past leadership was not known to me. It came from the single source mentioned above (https://www.communityresourcenetwork.com/team). I get this a secondary source...clearly makes sense to not use secondary sources. Is this a logical conclusion I am drawing?

Second question: how would I go about updating the article to reflect his current position at "A Community Resource Network?" Seems like all the other "stuff" I first wrote is not appropriate...thanks for pointing it out and to the various links within Wiki to help me understand it better.

Final question: The Orlando Sentinel reports Hunter resigned, referring to a letter posted on the church's website, which has since been removed. It is archived here: https://www.pressreader.com/usa/orlando-sentinel/20170803/281865823555699. I do not have a subscription to the Orlando Sentinel and thus cannot confirm the original article. How might, if at all, I handle this?

I appreciate your time. Thanks.

Seattle98121-3881 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seattle98121-3881: Hello.

First, do not copy-paste from sources without clear attribution. This is a copyright violation. See WP:COPYVIO.

Second, you are correct that WP:SECONDARY sources are almost always preferable, but communityresourcenetwork is neither secondary, not inherently reliable. Setting that aside, most or all sources should also be WP:INDY of the topic, meaning that promotional blurbs which can be presumed to be provided by Hunter himself, are not generally useful. Very basic details can be supported by primary sources, but nothing beyond that. Since there is no obvious way for readers to understand what Community Resource Network is, the significance of this position will need reliable, independent sources. Start with sources and go from there, do not presume significance because a title sounds impressive.

Again, do not copy/paste from sources until you understand Wikipedia's stance on copyright. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks...for clarification, where did you find evidence of "copy-paste without clear attribution?" I am confused. Everything I originally wrote was attributed. Again, I'm picking up on the need for reliable, and independent and should lack "promotion."

As to communityresourcenetwork...so first establish the entity (using reliable, independent sources)...from there, go to Hunter and his role again using reliable independent sources. Am I close?

Seattle98121-3881 (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seattle98121-3881:I did not see where it was attributed, and because it was a copyright violation, it has been removed from the page history. Again, review Wikipedia:Copyright violations but to keep things simple for everybody, don't copy/paste from any sources. Summarize reliable, independent sources in your own words, and cite those sources as references (Help:Referencing for beginners might help). This is almost always a better approach anyway, for multiple reasons.

If you have a reliable, independent source which mentions that Hunter is on the board of Community Resource Network, neutrally summarize what that source says. If you don't have such a source, it's probably not worth mentioning, since Wikipedia doesn't really care about details that aren't included in reliable sources.

If you think this organization is encyclopedically significant enough to have its own article, see Help:Your first article. I hope it's clear that everything I said about sources will also apply to that new article, as well. I'm just now noticing that Community Resource Network used to have an article, but it was deleted back in 2008 for lack of notability. One helpful guideline is WP:NORG, as this explains what the community expects regarding notability. Grayfell (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it. I indeed cut and paste most of what I edited and I should have put it quotes and then footnoted it, correct? (I think I footnoted one item in my original edit.) Last question: the opening statement "Joel Carl Hunter is the retired senior pastor of..." is not accurate as he resigned. How do I locate the source of this statement and/or have it updated? Seattle98121-3881 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seattle98121-3881: No, I think you're missing a key part of how Wikipedia works. You should summarize and paraphrase sources, neutrally, for almost everything you add to articles. Unfortunately there are a lot of articles which lack sources, but this is a problem which needs to be solved, not a precedent to follow.

Since that content was not neutral and the source was not necessarily reliable, you should not have copy/pasted it at all. If there is some specific reason to include direct quotes, there are ways to do this, but your copy/paste addition was not appropriate for multiple reasons. Discussing how to hypothetically add content like that is a distraction.

As for your second question, the difference between "resigning" and "retiring" seems trivial to me unless there is some specific importance provided by reliable sources. The church's website merely says he "stepped down"[2] but I don't think that's reliable for anything more than extremely basic information. I've changed the lead to say "former senior pastor" until a better source can be found. The long-term solution is to use reliable, independent sources to explain his career in the body of the article, and then summarize those sources in the lead.

Any information which is not supported by a reliable source can be removed at any time. This is standard for all articles, but especially for content about living people. Grayfell (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the Forbes thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I see in the Zalgo SPI archive, you filed against one of his socks Iikigaii in the past. I strongly suspect Skyisdeep is the same sock-puppet. See what I recently filed [3] for details. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh dang, yeah, that's very likely. Good catch. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to call him a Holocaust denier, we should at least present his specific views. Remember that we have to be strongly biased in his favor because it's a BLP.

Moreover his views are relevant since a reliable source (The Guardian) talked about them. I'm not making this up, it's in the body of the article. CozyandDozy (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You are deeply confused about Wikipedia's policies. We are not strongly biased in his favor, we are "biased" towards reliable sources. If you are advocating for being biased in favor of a holocaust denier, I have no desire to discuss anything with you on my talk page. Discuss on the article's talk page, and do not post on my talk page again unless required by policy. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey. Alex here. I would just like to say sorry for reverting edits without consensus on Benjamin's page, as well as snarky edit replies. I was wondering why the arbitration committee seemed to have been ignored there but, looking back on it, there was a lot of disagreement so I really want to apologise.

My snarkiness did come from a place of anger, not at you but rather:

• People who have made me feel stupid for not reading up on increasingly esoteric pieces of Wikipedia policy and advice (fine if people want to pull that sort of thing up, they just don't have to make me feel bad for having less time than them).
• People who have assumed my political opinions (used to identify as a feminist and atheist in my teens but am now pretty agnostic on both) or opinions about Benjamin (for the record him saying he is a "giant dick" is one of the few things I think he's right about).
• People questioning my neutrality as an editor while not demonstrating their own (including one who referred to Benjamin's "so-called humour"), even though I go out of my way to be neutral and have to try not to smear people. And if they look at my edit count, people will see I edit the pages of folk from all persuasions, in all of which I aim for total neutrality.

I am proud of my work on here and I feel like that's just being questioned by people who don't know me or what I'm about. I think I say it best in my bio when I say "I don't find abstract political systems in themselves interesting, but more so the personalities, struggles and achievements of politicians and people in public life" (this is especially true when it comes to Benjamin since I wonder what drives a man to act in the bizarre way he does in the public spotlight). I'm naturally prone to solipsism as I am neuro-atypical (to be on here seriously, people kinda have to be) so empathising with people across the political and moral spectrum is pretty therapeutic for me.

I might go on that London Zoom call but I think we should have some alternative for our corner of the site so we can have good discussions about ways forward when it comes to maintaining neutrality around controversial topics. I become disheartened when I see comments like, "this reminds me of why I don't come to Wikipedia for controversial topics" because that should be where Wikipedia strives I think. Sorry for the ramble. Many thanks. Alex (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I am a new user and am very worried about the current vandlization on Owen Benjamins page. I am new and not sure how to request this page return to a protected state. Any help? Thank you, TruthBuster21223 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@TruthBuster21223: Hello. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the page you are looking for. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the help.

TruthBuster21223 (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, regarding your edit on InfoWars: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InfoWars&oldid=prev&diff=962838782&diffmode=source Please read mit edit summary instead of just reverting; i restored deleted info from the previous edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InfoWars&diff=960155460&oldid=960031104&diffmode=source Urgal (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I started a sockpuppet investigation into various accounts related to one account you've dealt with in the past. If you have additional input, here's the investigation page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Henrymancini333#Suspected_sockpuppets Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Who's sock is he? I would like to know a bit about this user. Mohanabhil (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: "Revert. Overt editorializing. He used in "briefly"? Then explain why it matters without ? Use these independent sources to provide context for why the opinions of The Negro Family: The Case For National Action are encyclopedically significant. Who is Robert Johnson, and why is this cherry-picked quote significant?"

Hi Grayfell, after two fully stymied attempts to contribute, edit or expand the current Racialism article please advise what kind of edits you would accept here. The current Definitions and differences Section already contains quotes that under your standard may be editorialized or cherry picked. Racialism is a relatively seldom used term but Du Bois, Moynihan, Johnson and others used them or referenced them in a historically varied and sometimes conflicting way. Why should diversity of use be cancelled out? Over time, the term's has been more diverse than reflected in the current Wikipedia content. This diversity is what I'm trying to convey in the edits. Please advise what expansion in the Definition and differences Section you could find tolerable. Shoefly (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As you already know, the place to discuss this is the article's talk page. To emphasize what I said there, summarize what sources are actually saying about the term "racialism". Do not use sources for a connected point to imply something about the term, as this is WP:SYNTH, which is a form of WP:OR. Again, the place to discuss this is there, not here. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Bethesda=Terrible is a pretty obvious DUCK sock of Brockhold, same edits as previous sock, Citadel2811. I don't know whqt the hell the admin wants by way of data. Can you take a look at the SPI? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That is indeed some very loud quacking. Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye on it. To be honest, I never know what is expected from SPIs. As I'm sure you've noticed, it's a gamble based on whichever admin ends up looking at it. In the past I've gone way overboard on diffs, but at least a few times, that's dragged it out so long that it became stale by the time any admin bothered to look at it, defeating the purpose. In practice SPIs expect editors to become lawyers just to report abuse. That's a broken system, but I don't know how to fix it. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Smile Lee, you know who he is, has made articles for advertising not only in English Wikipedia, but in Wikipedia of many languages, including Japanese. I want to delete his articles from Japanese Wikipedia, however, I can't judge whether it passes notability test or not. Would you kindly give some advice for me?(Help desk)--おいしい豚肉 (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@おいしい豚肉: Hello.

Smile Lee again? Dang.

Heaven Sent Gaming is not notable enough for Wikipedia. I do not know Japanese Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but this article is spam. Ja:マリオ・J・ルセロ and ja:イザベル・ルイズ・ルセロ are also spam. The sources are all VERY poor. Most of them are other Wikis or worse, and fail ja:Wikipedia:信頼できる情報源#自己公表された情報源/WP:SPS. You are safe in assuming that this is conflict of interest editing. カナダカナダ is not acting ethically. The best source is weak, and the rest are garbage.

Let me know if I can help with a sock puppet investigation for カナダカナダ. I will do what I can. There are many reasons to think this account is a sock puppet.

For example: カナダカナダ claims to speak French fluently, but that account has not edited French Wikipedia (from グローバルアカウント情報). There are other things, as well. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

How is the Yellow Pages not a valid source? 75.119.247.192 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RS. It may or may not be valid in some cases, but trivia needs better sources. The place to discuss this is the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, could you explain why you removed the templates on the Conspiracy theories page? Conspiracy theories are all about topics such as "propaganda" and "media manipulation". It's directly relevant. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL as a start. I will also add that readers will not benefit from a large number of nav-boxes. Hundreds of links, some of which are redundant, some of which are only very loosely connected, are more overwhelming than helpful. While these things are all broadly related, so are lots of topics. Including these connections in this way is a form of editorializing. As I said, discuss on the article's talk page, if necessary. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for removing "my" changes in Gail Tredwell but there seems to be a little misunderstanding.

I'm not used to WP:BLP at all. I added 2 small paragraphs, sourced by Pinterest and Amazon Reviews. Sorry, they are not reliable sources but maybe reading my text would help you understand why I did this. But you seem to blindly apply the rules so I won't try to argue.

I also fixed the messed up links in a big paragraph which is not from me. It was added in 2017 by special users 107.77.205.124 and 75.106.60.97. They used external links instead of internal references so that it was impossible to see that their only source was a blog. This slandering contribution was not sourced, yet it has remained published for 3 years.

I have already tried to removed this big unsourced paragraph in October 2018 but my changes have been reverted by special user 2601:8c3:8080:9780:605b:1863:2ed3:e5a6 in November 2019. You have removed it today? Don't worry it will come back online again. This could involve you in an edit war. Unless you just remove things and move forward, leaving me alone to deal with 107.77.205.124, 75.106.60.97 and 2601:8c3:8080:9780:605b:1863:2ed3:e5a6.

Look at the history and maybe you'll understand diff=972043056&oldid=953631283

Liviscobal (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Liviscobal: I'm not sure what you're getting at, but insulting me won't work. I saw your edit on my watchlist. This was automatically tagged as having potential BLP issues, so I looked closer. I read your changes, but they were not appropriate, because they were in response to inappropriate content. You were correct to remove it in 2018.

I understand and appreciate that you fixed the formatting, but the content should not have been there at all. It is unfortunate that this content lasted as long as it did. It is also unfortunate that this behavior is nothing new. This content has discussed before on Wikipedia, such such as back in 2014 at Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi.

Wikipedia works on consensus, so you should be willing to work with other editors. Because of the seriousness of this content, please consider posting to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if this happens again. I will try to keep a closer eye on the article. Grayfell (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I posted two images on pages that I am interested in and they both got removed. The images are both taken by me and show only myself on them and relate to items of clothing I regularly use and wear as daily choice. Can you please let me know why they were taken down? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopk1231 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nopk1231: Hello. In both cases, The images were added twice to each article, and one of the images was unnecessarily large. Having redundant images is not helpful for readers trying to understand these topics. Also, this is hard to distinguish from spamming, especially since they are self-portraits. Further, galleries should not be used in this way (see WP:IG). I would suggest proposing the images on the articles' talk pages: Talk:Pantyhose for men and Talk:Pantyhose. This will allow other, impartial editors to evaluate the appropriateness and neutrality of these images. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have noted and replied on both pages. Please excuse the use of copy and paste, but my reply seems accurate to both instances. Curved Space (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I was working on Sierra Nevada Corporation and hoping to make contributions to improve the article in a way that would make the advert message that you posted in September 2017 unnecessary. Can you take a look at the article to see if its ready? If not, I will keep working on it, just wanted to ask for your review first. Bubble567gum (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will post a comment on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m sure it’ll be useful inthe future. However... checking some links wiki says the Forbes source may be acceptable if the writer is an expert in the field. In this case she is a lecturing professor at the Uni of Nevada, Las Vegas, has at least one published book in the field of sex toys and many years experience including New York Times etc. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/lynncomella/#6348853c272f for her blurb so I’d call her a subject matter expert. What do you think? I don’t want to use this article only to have it reverted again. Dakinijones (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dakinijones: Hello.

I apologize if I caused any edit conflicts. I noticed that you were still working on the article and decided to hold off on any more edits for now.

Hmm. Well...

Contributor content is basically the same as a blog post. Generally, as WP:UGC/WP:SPS, blog posts are only usable with attribution. So, for example, "According to communications expert Lynn Comella..." Ideally, this would include a wikilink to Lynn Comella for context. At a glance it appears she might meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as a tenured professor, which means a red link would be appropriate.

I sincerely do not mean this to be insulting to Professor Comella, but this story was not published in the NYT, it was published in Forbes. Forbes is very lax with editorial standards, fact-checking, corrections, retractions, etc. I've read some great stuff from Forbes contributors, but I still don't cite it in articles. If there is content from this article which is important, and is not supportable with a better source, that might be good approach. I hope that's helpful.

Grayfell (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Very helpful. I’ll use the Forbes Comella article as a pointer to search for alt refs (some seem to be in her book) if poss and only redline if no other option. I did notice and appreciate your care around editing conflicts so thanks for that too. Dakinijones (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Would you have time/inclination to weigh in with BoiledAlaska and this latest round of... trans-critical euphemisms? (I'm trying to find a polite phrasing.) I'm going to try to put up some contributive edits over the weekend and address their concerns about sourcing and TenNapel's responses, but these arguments are exhausting and I feel like you have a better grasp of Wikipedia policies and overall community positions on these matters than I do. Thanks! Mockingbus (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Yeah, I also find them exhausting, but I have posted a response at the article's talk page. Oh, one thing I didn't mention there is MOS:GENDERID. That might be worth explaining as well. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Well met! Thanks for joining in; I suspect that this is going to go on for a while (and likely in circles). Mockingbus (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I admit I don't have as much patience for these kinds of discussions as I would like. TenNapel's gimmick is not new, and I've seen this kind of thing come up on Wikipedia more often than I can count. The temptation is for Wikipedia to refocused on how we cover TenNapel's point of view, but this is false balance. If it gets to this point, we've already lost. Giving these self-described "cancel culture" victims the benefit of the doubt long enough to explain their position isn't credible. As Cody Johnston said, "Cancel Culture Isn't A Thing, You Snowflakes".

There's an obvious reason sources are discussing TenNapel's comments, but this gets lost. It's obvious to most reasonable people why these comments are unacceptable in polite society, so sources don't even bother to explain it. His bigotry, his zealotry, his astonishingly bad comparison of BLM to Hitler... these somehow manage to slip through the cracks and become "out of context". As a courtesy to him, or to cover their ass legally, sources let him paint himself as the victim. And therefore every comment section mentioning his name now becomes some Bizarro-world version of a gender studies classroom... The worst part is it doesn't matter if his defenders on these talk pages even realize any of this. They are either fooled in good faith, or they're not. The end result is the same. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, the whole thing is at best a whitewash and at worst a bad-faith semantic game of "I'm not touching you!". I've had variations of the argument outside of Wikipedia enough times to recognize them, but here I try to find a temporary "less bad" stopping point to build from, just to prevent edit wars from cluttering up the version history (a la AnimeFan). You're probably right, though; it's probably an over-conciliatory approach sometimes. Thank you again for stepping up. Mockingbus (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD, in particular: "Don't restore your changes..." which you did here before beginning a discussion as an apparent afterthought. Thank you. Magic9Ball (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, not a policy. Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is another essay, not a policy. Your perfunctory comment is not a template, but it's just as silly. WP:OWN, on the other hand, actually is a policy. You have less than 500 edits, and over a hundred of which are Comicsgate or affiliated personalities, such as the alt-right blogger Vox Day. If you want to discuss policies and essays further, perhaps try the teahouse. Otherwise, the place to discuss the article is the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Grayfell,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Thakur Anukulchandra for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. In general, mass reverts are not helpful, and it is a violation of policy to unilaterally remove an NPOV tag. Please explain what you believe the unattributed opinions were, because the lead is to serve as a concise summary of the article (You simultaneously removed the same content from the lead and body—where it included a citation—and then called that content in the lead, where citations are not required, "unattributed.). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing and tag bombing are also not helpful. Follow BRD and gain consensus on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I am reaching out about your comment on my talk page.

1. I posted a warning to another user after going through to edit history of Blackstone Group, and found that the change I made was also made/suggested by another user (see the last talk edit on Blackstone pages). That would count for 2 out of 3 edits. My edit was reverted without any discussion, and an accusatory attack on my conflict of interest in editing the post (and being accused of being part of PR). In an effort to reach out to wikipedia about how to proceed when two editors are disagreeing, I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#For_urgent_situations. I felt warring best described the situation, and followed the instructions to warn the user. 2. You accuse me of both sockpuppetry and having a conflict of interest. Neither of these are true. I am an avid user of wiki, was looking up what year Blackstone started investing in single family rentals, and landed on the wiki article thats first sentence was not up to wikipedias standard. A bunch of inflammatory, non definition links that belonged in a different section. I decided to join wikipedia and edit the article, and now plan to become involved as I enjoyed that process. Please do not accuse me of being a part of a "PR campaign" or sock-puppetry without any evidence. It discourages new members like myself to get involved. 3. I am happy to encourage the user to move these links to a different section with a more neutral tone. That is not a significant ask and well within wikipedias content guidelines --Theoracle102 (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello.

It's pretty strange for a brand new account to be talking about being "well within wikipedias content guidelines". Whether you are right or wrong about that, it's still pretty strange. Per the article's talk page, Blackstone Group has a specific documented history of paid editing. Undisclosed paid editing harms Wikipedia. By policy, Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations or advocacy, so this is a legitimate concern and I hope it's obvious why your sudden appearance and precocious behavior would be noteworthy.

It's also pretty strange that you copy/pasted a template warning from somewhere else. The template is specifically for WP:3RR violations, which means three edits within a 24-hour period. This doesn't apply, so your template was inappropriate. Please be more careful about this.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#For urgent situations specifically advises you to go to a noticeboard if things get urgent. It doesn't advise you to post the wrong template. Regardless, Wikipedia:Edit warring has a specific meaning, this doesn't seem urgent yet, and the article's talk page is the place to discuss this further.

If you're keen to become more involved, perhaps the WP:TEAHOUSE might be useful. Grayfell (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. I read the guidelines in detail and thought they were pretty clear. I also don't like comments on my page such as "Pretty clearly a member Blackstone's PR team. How embarrassing for them. Colinmcdermott (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)". This are ad hominem attacks that don't address the content of my edits at all.

I will check out the tea house — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoracle102 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw the revert, but no sourcing. Where is the sourcing? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Inline citations are not the same as sources. The lead is a summary of the body of the article, which has many sources. The place to discuss this further is the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop mass reverting Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Other editors have already asked you to stop mass reverting articles like Andy Ngo. Iroh (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Are we looking at edit histories now? Aren't you the editor who wanted to downplay Jared Taylor's antisemitism? I'm writing out a comment for WP:FRN WP:FTN so that other editors can evaluate this content. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Jared Taylor is not antisemitic, I just wanted the section header to be consistent with its body (and I appear to have garnered a consensus on that point). I must admit I am not familiar with WP:FRN. Iroh (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Grayfell. You've had a rather sharp red pen on a few of my contributions lately. For example, I have been cleaning up the article Phi Rho Sigma which had not been formatted anywhere close to the standard that my fraternities and sororities project adheres to, and I had frankly made it much cleaner. Our standard syntax allows statements of an organization's creed or operating goals, found in their constitution or separately on their website. Yet you've removed them, calling this WP:SOAP and "unnecessary detail.". I think this is an unfair, unwarranted and arbitrary characterization. Such items of content are the foundational motivations of these many groups. If your intent is to remove all such language from perhaps a thousand fraternity or sorority pages it will be distressing to the many volunteer editors who seek to maintain these thousands of fraternity and sorority pages. It seems unreasonable that you would do so, almost an attack on this particular page. Your edit comment suggests these should rather come from other verifiable sources. --But new groups don't have the luxury of inclusion in the reference standard for the fraternity world, Baird's Manual. Nor are the creeds or goals of these groups clarified in well-established news sources, as would be necessary for more controversial articles. Editors (like me) are forced to go to the group's constitution or bylaws themselves for this information. While not an independent, published source, a practiced eye can see that it is reasonable to assume they are accurate. Often they are accepted by host institutions as the documents whereby a chapter was accepted for student group status. You see?

Finally, while I am a participant in the fraternities and sororities project, I have simply zero connection with this particular group. (You marked the page with a third-party tag.) I am merely a volunteer editor with an Aspie streak, looking to improve all these pages. I've worked on hundreds of them. Honestly, I feel as if you are picking on these groups a bit. It's easy to do with tools like Twinkle, but I remind you that people adopt pages as a labor of love, as volunteers. Much of my work has been to trim bad, or biased content. What you removed was neither bad or biased.

I do appreciate the edit you made to the page which you labled MOS:DATED Jax MN (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: this particular organization is quite old, enough to have been listed in Baird's, but unfortunately, unlike many of the fraternities listed there, Baird's did not include a mission (purpose, creed) statement in the 20th edition, to which I would normally refer. Jax MN (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy. This means that reliable, independent sources are necessary for almost everything of substance. Your obvious passion for promoting these organizations is at odds with Wikipedia's mission as a neutral encyclopedia. Regardless of any particular WP:COI, advocacy of this kind is not appropriate, and fails WP:NPOV.

As for Baird's, it is a single tertiary source which is heinously over-used on these articles. Wikipedia is also a tertiary source, and over-reliance on any single source is inappropriate. If an article is entirely dependent on Baird's (and the group's own promotional material) then the group is likely non-notable. Wikipedia has established guidelines for notability, such as (but not limited to) WP:NORG. We do not presume that an organization is notable, this must be demonstrated by multiple significant, independent sources. All sources need to be evaluated in context, and again, Wikipedia strongly favors WP:IS. This means that any article on a fraternity or sorority will reflect that group in proportion to reliable sources. This is not a new or extraordinary standard.

I intend to improve these articles as I find them. It seems that this usually means trimming promotional language. In my experience, almost all of those "thousands of volunteers" have a COI themselves, and I suspect you are also aware of this problem, or you wouldn't have mentioned it. WP:EFFORT is not a valid justification for preserving poor content. We have to evaluate articles on their own merits, not based on some arbitrary or flawed precedent. Further, Wikipedia is for everyone, including people who reject the legitimacy of the "Greek" system. An article which tacitly endorses the Greek model is inherently non-neutral. Far too many of these article use non-neutral language to inflate the significance and value of the organizations. This is a problem which needs to be solved, it is not an excuse to add more promotional material. Again, your obvious passion for this model is clear, but this is not the platform for sharing that passion.

I am not interested in a protracted discussion of this. Please make any response succinct. Grayfell (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It's an idea, inspired by the constant fringe and COI promotion in the medicine area and the recent village-pump thread, that reminded me of the importance of MEDRS. Considering that the same problem persists, maybe something similar would be useful in relation to claims about the intelligence of groups, genetic correlates, etc... —PaleoNeonate – 08:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: This is an intriguing idea. I don't know how this would work, but I am curious to hear more about it. I think the recent FRINGE RFC shows support for better tools to deal with this. I've pointed to MEDRS in some cases, since psychology can be medical, but usually that's a stretch.

Also, I can't tell for certain, but it does seem like there is a surge in racialist pseudoscience activity on Wikipedia these last few days. Maybe I'm just reverting more of it than usual. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware of the MEDRS-level sourcing requirement that Barkeep49 implemented as a discretionary sanction on the R&I article? Using DS to target problem articles could be a faster/easier option. –dlthewave ☎ 03:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that one. Easy to lose track on that page. In that thread we see some very poor-quality sources being proposed because they are in peer-reviewed journals, so I'm not sure how much that actually helps to prevent fringe issues. Grayfell (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Greyfell,

Editing on this article is veering into edit-warring territory. You are a very experienced editor and so I know you already know this but I'm just giving you some encouragement to try to involve other editors on the article talk page to resolve the dispute over this content. I've posted a notice on Maxim's talk page but I try to avoid templating long-term editors if I can avoid it. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday, after three days of discussion on the talk page, I made an edit, and then promptly explained that edit. How many days would I have had to wait for a response before this wouldn't be edit warring? This is a rhetorical question.

I assume you're commenting based on behavior, not content, but it's silly to pretend that they are completely separable.

An article as important as Jews should not be left with issues this bad. This content seriously misrepresents sources, and also happens to align with a talking point from the fringe theory of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, which is based on white nationalist pseudoscience. I've explained this on the talk page, and other talk pages, and at WP:FRINGEN, and nobody, including "the other editor" seems to disagree that this theory is fringe garbage. So why is this theory's paper still cited in the article without any context at all? That's not a rhetorical question, but the article's talk page would be a better place to answer it. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Greyfell totally new to Wiki but found some nice information that I thought worth sharing. I tried to up load my source document under file but they are pdfs which I found wiki does not like. I have the original investor deck, a print out of a dodsbir.net article, and First meeting of incorporation. Oh and a print our of an email chain from the two founders "Nanodigm is simply being renamed to Nanosolar to reflect our current product focus" — Preceding unsigned comment added by FindingPaperwork (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@FindingPaperwork: Hello.

To recap the issue: Information on Wikipedia should be verifiable via reliable sources. Although sources do not have to be online, there does need to be a way for editors to confirm these details. Without sources, this is original research, which is not allowed.

A printout of an email chain is almost certainly not appropriate as a reliable source. See WP:PRIMARY. If this email involves specific people, WP:BLPPRIMARY also applies.

For other, public sources, I would take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners.

If you found this information online, you should include a link if you can. If this is behind a paywall, see WP:SOURCEACCESS.

If the information is not online, is unambiguously public information, and also is not copyrighted (or you own the copyright and are willing to donate it), you might be able to uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. This is a sister project to Wikipedia, and has it's own set of rules and guidelines. Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons explains this further.

One other thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources, although they are not always required.

I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@ greyfell The Wikimedia commons page is where I attempted to upload the documents but it stated something about the documents were not media. I have file box on everything related to nanosolar's early days. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G4UMlW7DxYfKcJ9tDHsvVKqP5IrR3fjh/view?usp=sharing FindingPaperwork (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@FindingPaperwork: I'm confused. If you got these from dodsbir.net, why are you trying to upload them? If you found this information online, it would usually be much better to direct readers to that source.

Like I said, Commons is a sister project. It has its own set of rules and guidelines. Perhaps Commons:Help:Contents would be helpful, but beyond that I cannot offer you any more assistance. Grayfell (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Black Rock citizen! I wanted to let you know that I modified some edits you made to Soldiers' Monument (Santa Fe, New Mexico). I don't think that these protests that toppled the obelisk had anything to do with the George Floyd protests, but rather they had to do with Indigenous People's Day, a.k.a. Columbus Day. Please let me know if you would like to discuss in more detail. Thanks and good meeting you here in the default world. Netherzone (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Netherzone: Hello, nice to meet you!

For my own future reference, these are the edits we are talking about. The article is still kind of a mess, so my edits were just to make the lead meaningful to people trying to understand why this monument is/was important, and why it was toppled.

So first thing first, I think that regardless of the details, the lead should definitely mention that the obelisk has been toppled. Right now it doesn't mention this, it just says the plaque has been damaged. This is misleading. One of the four commemorative plaques was already damaged. What is new is that the obelisk has been removed from the plinth.[4] Most of the monument (by height, at least) is currently gone.

I didn't actually say in the article that the toppling was part of the George Floyd protests. My addition said that it was toppled during Indigenous Peoples' Day protests.

The timeline, as I understand it:

• It was erected in 1868
• One of the the four plaques was chiseled in 1974
• That same plague was severely damaged in mid-June 2020, at or around the same time the tip was removed for safety reasons. [5] ← this is the part that was around the time of the George Floyd protests
• The obelisk on the plinth was toppled on 12 October on Indigenous People's Day.

Since these all seemed import to the history of the monument, this was what I tried to summarize in the lead.

Hopefully that explains what I was trying to do with the article. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, dusty greetings and thanks for your quick response. I agree the article is still in the messy formative stages, and that the article is an important contribution to the encyclopedia. It was mainly the mention of the Floyd protests that I felt could be confusing to readers who might conflate those protests with Oct. 12 indigenous peoples protests. I was tired when making my edits earlier and introduced some errors which I hopefully self-reverted. Yes you are right, it is critically important that the lede mention the toppling of the obelisk (as well as the plaque damage) because the toppling is the most demonstrable statement/result of the recent protest. As more news of the event and the aftermath unfold, there will be more content to work with. In the meantime it's on my watchlist. Have a good evening. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Kia ora Grayfell, came across this editor who I thought sounded very similar to recently banned IP but dates don't match as account made before IP. However, I see there is more history to it all from Admin noticeboard and Trolling so wanted to get your thoughts. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Howdy.

Yeah, I noticed that editor as well. I don't think there is enough to behaviorally link that editor to the Tennessee Verizon troll mentioned in the two ANI links, and the style seems very different. It's possible, but connecting any one editor to another here is difficult. The username being a possible reference to LeafyIsHere is also a bad sign, but it might be a coincidence and it's better to wait and see. If their goal is disruption, forcing us to spend our time playing Whac-A-Mole means they still win.

Still, there is something weird going of for this topic. As I said above at #Potential idea, I've noticed a sudden surge in racialist pseudoscience edits. It might be a sock farm, but I think it's more likely coming from some offline site or twitter account or similar. I just checked, and as I expected, Emil Kierkegaard (who is banned from editing) tweeted about the recent AfD several times. He blamed it on "communists". The IP claimed a private slack channel was being used to coordinate trolling. This was a failed ploy to cause drama and paranoia, but it's also probably semi-accurate. I would be very surprised if there weren't private "human biodiversity movement" Slacks, Discords, etc. floating around spreading this nonsense. There aren't actually that many of them, but the "HDB movement" is very online, and most of online world is bored and anxious. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell. I'm considering listing the article on human genetic clustering for deletion as a case of WP:TNT. The tl;dr argument is it's original synthesis as an unreadable hodgepodge of quotes and arbitrarily-selected studies with virtually none of the text dedicated to actual clustering methods or their interpretations. Do you have any thoughts?Citing (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Citing: Hello. That's an interesting idea. I've reverted some WP:BE at that article in the past, but I have to admit that much of the technical details of that article go over my head. I suspect they go over the heads of a lot of other readers, too, whether they admit it to themselves or not. Based on the Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence discussion, that won't stop them from commenting "Keep - topic is notable".

As you may already know, "clustering" is very often used as a euphemism for "race" by the Human Biodiversity Movement and other scientific racists. Something similar is going on at nations and intelligence quotient, where "nations" is merely another proxy for race, creating a WP:COATRACK of race and intelligence.

Sorry, now I'm rambling. I dunno. I'll look at the article closer when I have a chance to dive into the sources more. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, I've seen a lot of abuse of "clusters" in that sphere. It caught my attention since the topic is very close to my area of research. The scientific sources cited are not bad per se, but the problem is basically every genetics study involves some sort of cluster analysis so citing specific studies is cherry-picking and totally uninformative. As presented, the article implies that researchers are duelling and looking for "true" clusters and arguing about race when in reality what they're doing is using cluster analysis as one of several tools among many data sets to find signals of things like shared demographic histories. The article does a terrible job of explaining what the topic actually is and it's become a giant WP:COATRACK. It also doesn't help that the article was created (and thus shaped) by a now-banned editor who had a habit of edit warring in various race sciencey ways. I think an AfD would be appropriate (and I anticipate the same types of contributions as there were with the Ashkenazi intelligence article), but since I saw your activity there I figured I'd give you a heads up.Citing (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human genetic clustering.Citing (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell and Donner60: Is this a case where we should be reporting a violation of the three-revert rule? I don't think I've ever made such a report before. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell and 207.161.86.162: I have puzzled about this because it may be that everyone is in good faith, even if some mistakes of approach or errors in applying policies could be involved. Off the top of my head, I tend to think a request for some level of temporary page protection might be appropriate. Another thought is that it might help to have a neutral, uninvolved third party give an opinion about anything that should be included or omitted after reviewing the stream of edits as a whole. There is a page to request such opinions but I am not sure that anyone would necessarily want to get involved as this may be more controversial than I supposed as I looked at a small piece of it. On the other hand, some administrators might be willing to take a look at it from that view rather than straight out blocking the user. I must admit that my one revert of an edit which removed text without explanation was done with a Huggle edit and I did not notice all of the ongoing edits so Greyfell, who apparently looked at this more closely, might have a definite view on making a report. I have been editing for a while and do not recall that I have ever made such a report - which really doesn't mean much because that does not mean they are not appropriate in some instances. Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you were there on the subject. I am trying to improve the article. Kindly see and advice. Your suggestions will help me. Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@RAJIVVASUDEV: Hello. I last edited that article on March 2016, and I don't remember much about this topic. Looking at your changes, my only concern is that patents are WP:PRIMARY sources and should be used with caution. It is almost always better to cite a secondary source when possible. I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Well noted, all. I am sincerely thankful for your time and guidance. Is it possible to add another source (secondary) along with the existing ones? Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I believe this proposal is what User:Lmomjian is referring to. I think it has support from all of the editors who have been involved (on both sides) in the discussion. Stonkaments (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That proposal doesn't remove the word "education". There are other problems I could raise, but the place to discuss this further would be the talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, keeping/removing word "education" is not important to me, I'm fine with leaving that in, if we can agree to the proposal that would be great as we consider that a pretty good compromise between the various edits that people have been warring over in the past week or two. This has been very controversial. Thanks, Lmomjian (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the place to discuss this further would be the talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah... the place to discuss this is on the article talk page, but I think everyone here knows that. Not only did most of the editors involved in that thread not even respond to the linked comment and hence I think it has support from all of the editors who have been involved (on both sides) in the discussion is presuming to speak for a great many people, Aquillion saying I would oppose any weakening of the wording right before they reverted Stonkaments's fourth deletion in a row of the same material definitely does not mean "I think it would be a great idea if Lmomjian deleted this instead." --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

Please don't edit war, even to revert disruptive edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Holocaust denial is vandalism. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey there, you recently reverted a change I made to the Unity engine page asking for a source why the Golden Axed game was made with Unity. I have it installed and it has the Unity dlls and telltale APPNAME_Data folder. As for as citable sources it's hard to find anything as there's really no posts by the authors about it but the Moby Games page entry for this lists is as belonging to the Unity engine group. Unfortunately I can't find any source that mentions Unity. I'm not a seasoned veteran like you on Wikipedia so help me out here. I know this is a Unity game (based on looking at the assets) but other than the post mentioned, there's no online source to verify it. Even the author Tim Dawson doesn't mention it in his thread on Twitter. A search through the Steam forums has several mentions of it by users [6] but again, these are not really reliable sources as far as Wikipeia goes. So how can one verify something like this? Thanks. bsimser (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bsimser: Hello. Good points and thanks for bringing this up. This is a tough one. Generally, Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Usually I would say we shouldn't bother to mention this if a reliable source cannot be found, but there are a couple of complications. The game's development was specifically more significant than the game itself, and the game was developed before Unity became ubiquitous. I have restored the entry with a 'citation needed' tag, and will also explain this on Talk:List of Unity games so there is an obvious place to continue this if necessary. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Thanks for the clarification and update. I agree some things are hard to verify and would normally be excluded, but I thought this entry was somewhat noteworthy because of the history of the game and the development of the prototype and it's release. Hopefully they'll be some kind of citation published and I'll update the entry. Appreciate the help. bsimser (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Grayfell, I see you removed the 'Category:People associated with cryptocurrency' on the Charles Hoskinson page when you added 'Category:People associated with Ethereum'. This seems inconsistent, in that the two main Ethereum founders are listed as both, and Hoskinson has been a founder of more than one crypto. What are the rules on this? Thanks. IOHKwriter (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@IOHKwriter: Hello. The guidelines are at Wikipedia:Categorization, and specifically at Wikipedia:DIFFUSE. Unfortunately categories are not very consistently applied on Wikipedia, so it is easy to find more examples of where this should be fixed. Grayfell (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)