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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Thanks for the guidelines on the autobiographical information on the Gina Smith (author) page. Someone did a Wikipedia article on me a few weeks ago, which I just found yesterday. I wanted to fill out some of the things it left out -- I thought if I made sure to heavily reference everything I added, that ameliorated the autobiographical limitations! Now I know. Thank you also for showing me how to better cite references and make better use of the web links section. gina@ginasmith.com gina Ginasmith888 ( talk) 21:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)gina
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Daniel_Holtzclaw.23Recent_changes_.282.29 regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Oiudfgogsdf ( talk) 22:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Greyfell! I agree, we do need people to contribute - the more the merrier! - but the CSE Wiki page was first created based on high quality scientific peer-reviewed academic research. So we shouldn't erase the original definition, because it is 'out there'. The very first theoretical articles on this subject were published in the Journal of Business Ethics (2004 and 2005) after being presented at academic conferences. Then, a scientific investigation was conducted over a three year period and the results were published in a book that was published by the Cambridge University Press (2013). This is the published definition:
A corporate social entrepreneur (CSE) was defined by Hemingway (2005; 2013) as: 'An employee of the firm who operates in a socially entrepreneurial manner; identifying opportunities for and/ or championing socially responsible activity, in addition to helping the firm achieve its business targets. The CSE operates regardless of an organizational context that is pre-disposed towards corporate social responsibility (CSR)/ sustainability. This is because the CSE is driven by their dominant self-transcendent (concerned with the welfare of others/environment) as opposed to their self-enhancement personal values [1]. Consequently, the CSE does not necessarily have a formal socially responsible job role, nor do they necessarily have to be in a senior management position to progress their socially responsible agenda.'[2][3]
Since then, the term has been picked up by other academics, students, business consultants and others. I think it makes sense to keep the original (already published) definition and then we add as we have more information/ new perspectives. Please note that the first reference (number 1) relates to the research of Shalom Schwarz on personal values. This is good practice to attribute sources and Schwartz theory (notably the dimension of self-enhancement and self-transcendent values) was used to investigate CSEs. But note that Schwarz has not researched CSE himself, so the definition that is now on the CSE Wiki is misleading (and insufficient). Many thanks Chemingway ( talk) 10:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Greyfell, please can you also look at this page,too. These different types of entrepreneurship are distinct, but related to each other, so the distinctions and connections need to be made. My contributions to the page have been deleted - about three times, now? Thank you very much. Chemingway ( talk) 11:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think that it can be mentioned as the most northern fast food chain restaurant in the world, if there aren't any other as northern fast food chain restaurant, even though that chain is just a regional one. (Not remarkable as themselves, but only for their extremity - in this case, for their extreme location) -- 91.159.92.102 ( talk) 05:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Grayfell, First of all I want to thank you for the revision of my addings. You've deleted my addons to the Website builder article and noticed that "superwebsitebuilders.com wasn't a reliable source the last time it was added, and it still isn't". But as for me that site is rather reliable source with historyб good rankings and a great number of topic-related materials. As you can see, there're a lot of information about website builders and I didn't find those listed features, that were deleted, anywhere except that website. So I ask You to undo your deletion.Thanks. Donets.Aleksey ( talk) 11:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Donets.Aleksey
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I would appreciate if you could comment there. Thanks, ―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 04:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell you are now crossing the limits. Seriously if u did not stop deleteing my contribution. I am going to make it legal. And please remember wiki is for all and each contributions are valuable. Why you deleting Mahika from list of people from assam and actress from bollywood cant u google her or you have no time exploring thing else. Please mind your own work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popopo222 ( talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 January 2016
Grayfell the page will be soon created as trust me Mahika is a famous name User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] the page will be soon created as trust me Mahika is a famous name from assam with being miss teen to social worker. She have all profesnl link with times of India to twiter with 20k followers. Kindly help me creating her page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popopo222 ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 25 January 2016
Grayfell dear I created that, but its looking like Draft:Mahika Sharma I want it to appear normaly like other celeb pls help
Grayfell kindly help me creating the page Mahika Sharma else deleting it. Hope the links are notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18beauty ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell man she is model and social worker too. Links attached are all talking about herself. What more is expected. Check Sonam Lamba page issues but yet article alive with no much refferences. Atleast this article should also get alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18beauty ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell we are fans of her as said before who is gona pay. Popopo222 is posting a link and you deleting why??? The biography section is powerful and the site is also very was popular and wellknown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18beauty ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for violating policy. I can't imagine all of my edits did so however, so I wonder if I could still see them anywhere, since I neglected that basic rule of backing them up. I would really like to know which did violate the guidelines. I suspect that references to living persons were the most serious.
However the article as it stands is woefully unsourced. I will try to improve that by listing sources of information on the AIP and also making them available online (not in the AIP article indeed, but on the official AIP web-site).
The section on the so-called "2008 Leadership dispute" is a prime example of unsourced content. Note that footnotes 7-13 contained in that section are now all dead. So the previously most sourced section in the AIP article is now the most unsourced. This is due to three factors I believe. 1. the passage of time, requiring adjustments to links so they still point to the same information, that remains available somewhere on the web, 2.The normal retirement of current event information on some sites, so that the information is no longer available online (unless the Wayback Machine can help with that), 3. The deliberate withdrawal or relabeling of content by the King Faction, recognizing the failure of its efforts.
I deleted the dead footnotes in my now deleted edits. Was that a violation of policy? (Not a rhetorical, but a serious question.) If the principle of sourcing is strictly enforced, that section should be entirely deleted. I was not deleting it, but expanding it and (I believed) correcting it. However I realize that at some point the expansions became more a first person account, which even this newbie now recognizes was beyond the guideline boundaries.
I know for a fact that this dispute began at least as early as 2007. I have the testimony of others that it in fact started in 2006. I can with some significant effort find some evidence of that online. I hate to think that my first-hand information will prove useless, so painfully was it acquired. But 2006 and 2007 are before 2008. The dispute lingered until the last suit was decided in 2011. So the title is clearly misleading. The origins and final results were from 2006-2011.
I will now adopt a policy of collecting the references before I post edits. I will list them on the talk page for the American Independent Party article before using them. I would appreciate your assistance and advice. BraveLad ( talk) 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell for some reason I’m unable to access my previous account we are made a number contributions to Wikipedia before so when you criticise my work under the rules of Wikipedia entries you have made a misnomer. My latest contribution is under the name Gabriel Burnet. It was about MGTOW and was a project that took 12 months to put together along with the interviews and citations for every single sentence and statement within that modification meeting the criteria set for Wikipedia.
You made no attempt to point out where the allegations of bias are, or even cite one. Without a single example the normal conclusion would be that this article does meet with the standards of Wikipedia and you personally disagree with it and deleted it on preference. With the fact that I interpreted 327 sources and cited multiple sources including the official MGTOW website I believe I have the academic validation that you do not. I do not wish to the same misnomer as labelling you as a bigot. So I suggest that you reread the submission and follow the links before you make an unfounded accusation and violate the terms of agreement of Wikipedia yourself. What has been submitted is accurate and academically reinforced something your reasons failed to do when rejecting those modifications (you have no examples or argument for this position violating the Wikipedia policy agreement). I can hand over thousands of media sources if you wish to read and watch them yourself, as I am open to dialogue and the free dissemination of information rather than escalating this to a formal complaint of misconduct.
Happy to hear your from you Gabriel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Burnet ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
In the first proof there were grammatical errors and that’s why I updated it later. My first intention was to save my page for later submission and future editing. Saving the incorrect version the later modification was my error. The word “we” came from the interview I did with Barbarossa the most prominent MGTOW figure and was not intended for the final submission. I did not know that “save” was final submission. I thought that you were editing my personal notes this was a misunderstanding and very distressing. But your error was to assume that the second submission was identical to the first. That is not a challenge it was a dismissal. I did try to navigate to the place for final submissions and discussion but got lost in navigation. Wikipedia interface is hard to use and is not like riding a bicycle if you can direct me by link to the discussion page you will be greatly appreciated.
My original content producer name was CheekyBastard which has obviously been blocked because of new name policy what was not in place when I made the account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Burnet ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I presume you know about WP:3RR and that you are at 3RR. The other editor hadn't been given a warning so I've done that now. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, I read your comments, I'm not sure that I totally agree with you but I don't want to edit war, so I'll leave it be.
I also removed the words "semi-satirical", because those could be taken as an opinion, so i thought it best to remain as unbiased as possible.
Schuddeboomw ( talk) 22:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Grayfell. I saw you marked three of my sources as unreliable on Draft: Deep Patel. To address your first concern, Huffington Post blog(s) are reliable sources according to WP as it’s clearly stated, “some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.”
Every article on Huffington Post’s blog receives editorial insight. In addition, as far as I can tell, the author of the article is a “professional” as she is respected in the field of business as she holds an MBA. FYI, WP editor, i_jethrobot also agreed that it was an “independent reliable source.”
As for Seeking Alpha, the same principle applies. Every single article receives editorial insight. Plus, what I used as a reference from their site is not a “blog.” All content on Seeking Alpha’s website is characterized under 4 categories: Articles, PRO Articles (receives a certain number of views), Instablogs and StockTalks. The reference I used is an “article,” and not a blog. Wikipedia’s article on Seeking Alpha clearly states “in contrast to other equity research platforms, insight is provided by contributor base of investors and industry experts.” In addition, as mentioned in WP: “In 2013, WIRED magazine named Seeking Alpha one of its, "…core nutrients of a good data diet." WIRED: 101 Signals. In 2007, Seeking Alpha was the recipient of Forbes' Best of the Web Award… and in 2011Seeking Alpha was listed as #1 in Inc. magazine's list of Essential Economic blogs.”
Lastly, from my research, The Mill Magazine is a reliable source in the context of the article. I’ve also had two editors from Wikipedia’s Live Chat tell me it was fine to use. The article published about Patel’s book was composed by their “staff” meaning the content was not the opinion of only one writer of the site.
Thus, with all the evidence I have compiled for the sources you had doubts about, I have respectfully reverted the edit you made. Editor2626744 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, Grayfell. I'm not trying to get into an edit war with you, but I've reverted the edits you made again because the sources used clearly fall into WP's guidelines. BLPs ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons) states that "some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." And once again, that would apply to the HuffPost's blog posts I used as references.
For further reference, WP reiterates that when identifying reliable sources ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources), "some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."
The same thing applies to Seeking Alpha... I'm not sure why you keep saying the Seeking Alpha reference is a "blog" when it clearly is published as an "article" on their site, which has full editorial oversight and is reliable according to WP's guidelines. Editor2626744 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I had created this page Thakur Anukulchandra to redirect to the page Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra, but you moved the same (reversed the redirect) since honorary titles should not be part of article titles. I had done that only to ensure the partial name reaches to the correct page. The name is actually Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra. I am ok with the other page Thakur Anukulchandra not being there. Please could you undo your edit? Thanks and regards. Atreyeemaiti ( talk) 02:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Grayfell for your quick reply. I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Thanks Atreyeemaiti ( talk) 03:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your contribution, request you to kindly highlight the sources which are too promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarikaran32 ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You are invited... | |
---|---|
Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
(To subscribe,
Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe,
Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--
Ipigott (
talk)
08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Good catch on the sockpuppet - I ended up just deleting the page for the book. It's not something that we could speedy as a creation by a blocked user since the original editor wasn't blocked until the SPI, but it was mildly promotional-ish. I've left a note on the now deleted article stating that I'd restore it to a non-sockpuppet account. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Oregon's upcoming Art+Feminism events, which will be held in Portland and Eugene on Saturday, March 5, 2016. Please see the following links for additional information, or to sign up:
About Art+Feminism: Art+Feminism is pleased to announce its third annual Wikipedia edit-a-thon, an all-day event designed to generate coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia and encourage female editorship. Last year, over 1,500 participants at more than 75 events around the world participated in the second annual campaign, resulting in the creation of nearly 400 new pages and significant improvements to 500 articles on Wikipedia. For more information, see Art+Feminism.
You received this message because you have attended a Wikipedia meetup in Oregon or contributed to WikiProject Oregon. To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell and thanks for your input.
I have here 2 secondary sources about Gabriel Cousens' malpractice record
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/special/raw-vegan-gurus.shtml
https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/2012/11/raw-food-does-not-cure-diabetes/
Could you tell me what my next steps are?
Given that the subject is not a really known person, and most of the citations are self-published, and the previous versions of the article quite glorifying, and most of the third party mentions unflattering, I would not trust any of the self-published content, including schools, and I believe this doubt is reasonable. Actually, I doubt this page should even exist.
Any thoughts about it?
00:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Cafnas (
talk)
@ Grayfell: Wow, I had no idea of the tumultuous past of this article. I'm new to this. Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain.
There is the phoenix new time article, but since it is already used as a citation, I assume you don't think it is good enough as a secondary source?
01:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Cafnas ( talk)
Waste of time
|
---|
No idea what you mean by "badge of shame". I refer you to Template:POV for correct usage of the tag, which the user who added it followed correctly. Yourself and Rhode Island Red however are ignoring correct usage for removal. I would suggest for example you follow the recommendation "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight" and contribute to the discussion. -- Icerat ( talk) 21:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
|
I regret to admit it but after this lengthy conversation I have come to a conclusion that no consensus regarding the inclusion or omission of the FTC case in the lead can be reached. Therefore, I would like to inform you that I have requested a dispute resolution process. I hope that the validity of arguments based on reliable sources will eventually win so that we can have an unbiased article both with cons and pros and vice versa. Best regards,-- Historik75 ( talk) 00:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
I presume you know he was blocked for 42 hours last night. The page itself is under discretionary sanctions which of course apply to all of us, and he's had 2 DS alerts relevant to the page. I think he has real competence problems (there's a bit of discussion on my talk page) and I don't see him as able to grasp the concepts he's dealing with or our guidelines and policies. Ah, I should ask you if you think I should add a talk page header saying the page is under DS. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, Thank you for your comments on the Citations for Daniel P. Sheehan's bio page. However, I wanted to point out that the authors bio page actually does directly state that he is working on a book that is due in the fall of 2016. Here is the quote, "Dan is the author of THE PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE for COUNTERPOINT PRESS of Berkeley, California and will publish his second of three books for COUNTERPOINT PRESS in fall of 2016 entitled: RULERS OF THE REALM." It is the very last line of the author's bio page at: http://danielpsheehan.com/about/biography . I personally feel that this is enough evidence to be able to cite that Daniel Sheehan is working on a book, I have heard him mention the book frequently in his public lectures around the santa cruz area. He also mentions it in the Coast 2 Coast interview that I attempted to link to, which you deleted (fair enough, you need to pay to hear the selection anyway, not a great source). Daniel Sheehan also mentions the book in several discussions with interested fans on his public figure Facebook page. So I personally know that Daniel P. Sheehan is working on a book, he himself has mentioned it many times in Public, on publicly available radio, and in public forums online, and it indisputably says that he is on the bio page of the author's own website (link above). I am going to put the citation back in linking to his bio page, again where he specifically references the forthcoming book in the last line of his bio, please do not delete that source.
In regards to the problem with "Peacock" language I will have a look to tone down the rhetoric, and add more sources to cite Daniel Sheehan's achievements, which are many. NoahX76 ( talk) 18:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ha! Bastards keep vandalizing Scientology pages, thinking they're being clever. :) Damotclese ( talk) 15:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Why is Pacer not a reliable source when the court itself refers to Pacer in it's online website as a source to get data from ? -- http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/ecf/documents/ElectronicPublicAccessFeeSchedule_000.pdf
Engine Gone Loco ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell! I'm reaching out to see if you might be able to help me with the Jarret Myer article. I suggested some improvements several months back and have generally had positive feedback about them, but no one has been able to make any edits. I won't do it myself, because I have a financial COI and prepared the suggestions on Myer's behalf. If you have time, would you be able to take a look and tell me what you think? I realize this may not be quite in your wheelhouse, but since you were so helpful on the Tipper Gore article, I thought I would ask. Thanks! Heatherer ( talk) 21:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited January, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juno. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell,
At Talk:R2-45, there is a discussion about whether it is about shooting people. To me, it seems to be pretty obvious that this is the case, but I'd like an independent POV. -- Slashme ( talk) 11:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell. Regarding my addition of passage from Alan Black's paper. I am dumbfounded as to why you seem to arbitrarily label this is an "unreliable" source. The same paper has actually been cited at #2 on the same Wikipedia page. Who is to decide that this is unreliable? You mentioned also that this is an SPS. How so? How are you able to determine that this paper is "extremely obscure?" According to whose standards? Please enlighten me as I want to understand what can be used as a reliable source. I believe that my edit on the Dynamics is sound and adds much to the section, and I attest that it should remain. The edits on the lead section are also meant to enrich the section from direct quotes from Scientology text, to further contextualize the information here. Livetoedit1123 ( talk) 23:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Fascism and Nazism are not right-wing. Nazism itself is left-wing totalitarian/authoritarian. Likewise, fascism is not exclusively right-wing, it is simply a branch of authoritarianism that constitutes oppressive repression of political dissidence, and demagoguery through mass-media propaganda, extreme nationalism, and cult-of-personality tactics. I am honestly willing to debate you about this, because I really don't like seeing masses mislead to believe that a sick and disgusting ideology such as neo-nazism is some sort of poster child for fascist and racist policies that have nothing to do with the right wing. Discrediting by disassociation is a shameful tactic, and this is worsened by the fact that it simply isn't true.
Please respond, because I really want to find a compromise for the neo-nazi page. I don't think misleading curious masses via left-wing bias is the right thing to do.
J-rod916 ( talk) 08:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC) With respect, and with peace and intelligence in mind, - J-rod916
Hi Grayfell. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, -- Kenzia ( talk) 09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Stream Energy logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 19:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Just hard enough to inspire you to heal that year-old scar on Wikipedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 06:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Wikipedia Page
Anuj agarwal name was used twice but why you have removed other two names from key people Please let us know the reason for removing key people name from the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Page. For Anuj Agarwal the reason I understood that it was given before also but deleting other people names also I din't got the reason. Please clarify the reason and also give some suggestions Harman Ahuja ( talk) 12:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Craven's profound impact in the field of filmmaking, especially in the Horror genre, is widely accepted across a very wide range of sources familiar with the matter (as reflected by the many sources i provided). Further the commercial successes of his many works and the influence of them, as well as their meaning in popular culture are well documented and can easily be checked. You may pay a close look at all the different sources i provided and see how the additions i made to the article are indeed valid. I understand that you seem to have questioned the objective nature, however my contributions i.e. specifications in the introductory part shall not be mistaken as personal opinion or even favoritism, (which i certainly never intended). So i think my contributions should be restored and are perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia quality standards and do not merely display a subjective point of view, but are much rather a meaningful and objective fact-based addition to the introductory part about Mr. Craven. Greetings from germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.158.131 ( talk) 06:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I saw that you reverted an edit to Phantasm (film). I agree that it was likely refspam, but what neutrality issue did you notice? I rewrote that text and thought I resolved the issues. I was just going to let it go, personally. I'm too tired of dealing with drama to chastise the user for spamming citations to what looks like his own website. But this particular edit was, in my opinion, a minor improvement to the article, as it went a little more in-depth into something the director had previously discussed in other interviews. It's not a big deal, though. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
You've been reversing vandalism here [3] and here [4]. Notice that the offender is posting from open proxies, which in itself is not permitted. Now that this disruption of wikipedia has gotten the attention of a veteran editor like yourself, maybe it will stop, although not likely. Other examples of this users' vandalism are here [5], which resulted in the page being locked, here [6], in which the editor questions a fact no serious editor denies, and here [7], where cited text is altered. I encourage you to verify the last one independently, as I have the book used as a source and know which version if more faithful to the source. 63.143.225.66 ( talk) 11:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I was looking to see what I needed to recreated Delta Epsilon Iota, now it drops in priority to be even with every other redlink in Professional_Fraternity_Association#Former_members. Oh well. :) Naraht ( talk) 23:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I should like you to kindly remove your unfounded Speedy Deletion tag from the page I created. There is not enough evidence on your part to suggest that it has no place on Wikipedia, and plenty of support to suggest it does. Delete your tag and move on to something else. Thank you kindly. WalkOn75 ( talk) 22:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WalkOn75 ( talk) 23:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, my edits to the Peckerwood article simply reorganized the content within the article - into two distinct sections: the street gang and the terminology. I will let someone else do the terminology section of the page. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "unsourced" because the everything inside the template can be found in the sources throughout the article. I will go back and source whats in the template Everything in my contribution to that page is justified in relation to the content of the article. The rest of the article is about terminology that seems to lack better sources so I will proceed with writing the street gang section and when I have found sources on the term itself i will make that its own section. My old account is retired and my edits were technically not edit warring and were completely justified. You reverted the page back to the way it looked when it sourced articles from neo-nazi blogs which was actually counter-productive. QubixQdotta ( talk) 23:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, I hope this message finds you in good health and spirits.
I'd like to discuss my changes to the "Fundamental attribution error" article. More specifically, my addition of an example that I believe parsimoniously illustrates the principles of the fundamental attribution error. The revision numbers that pertain to this discussion are 692480676 & 669274882 and the revisions that removed these additions.
I appreciate your invitation to discuss this example. I believe a discussion will improve the article's validity and likely improve my understanding of the fundamental attribution error. In the spirit of cooperation and learning, I'd like to ask a few questions about my example and the fundamental attribution error that I hope will begin our discussion. In the interest of precision, my questions only apply to my example and not the examples which were removed along with it.
Concerning feedback: "All of these examples are overly complex and unsourced..." What constitutes a valid source for examples of the fundamental attribution error? What value would such a source add to the article? What degree of complexity is acceptable for these examples? How is example complexity measured?
Please remember, I'm only interested in adding my example to the article. I believe more than one example is helpful. I have no interest in removing or changing any other examples or other information in the article at this time.
Have a great day. Kd7jhd ( talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
What have I added that is wrong? All I have done is added references to existing materials on the GI page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 ( talk) 04:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
(
TL;DR)
|
---|
I have added the following to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Alleged Soapboxing VS Gatekeeping on the Usana Health Sciences page over the past 18 months I would like Administrator intervention because I don't understand what have I done to justify a revert let alone threats of blocking? Furthermore, I reiterate my request of 5 May 2016 that Grayfell be blocked from editing the Usana Health Sciences page and if he is found to have engaged in anything more serious I ask that he be blocked entirely. I am not the first user to have difficulty with Grayfell while editing the Usana Health Sciences page. Over the last 18 months, Grayfell has reverted every significant revision and I note that many of those users no longer appear active, so perhaps you could look into whether they have been erroneously blocked.
I provided more material, up to date material from sources that were already listed on the page. (I went to the ConsumerLab website and found a 2016 survey the results of which I added with the 2011 materials.) I deleted a report by a non-scientifically trained journalist (yes, I have looked up his bio on the Time website) who is the author, experimenter & only test subject of his own non-clinical non-peer reviewed trial because that report has the encyclopedic veracity of a unicorn. I added a reference to the GI symbol program and outlined its veracity. In particular that it is a not-for-profit foundation run by the University of Sydney and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. (In my original edit, I also included data from their testing.) I also added similar details to the Glycemic Index page and elevated the GI Symbol Program to it's own section (given that it is a widely accepted Australian and now international standardised testing procedure). Rather than just revert the page, on this occasion, the entire section on the GI symbol has been removed by Grayfell. Previously he has cited comments that cast individuals in an unreasonably positive light and reverted any changes that provide an opposing point of view. Grayfell has cited an article titled "Barry Minkow: All-American con man" to say that Minkow is a fruad-buster and pastor, even though the theme of the article makes the point that he is in fact a serial-swindler. The article establishes a long standing pattern of deception and distortion against companies over the decade in question. Grayfell only deleted this reference when this hypocrisy was pointed out on a post 5 May 2016.
I expect that this has become something personal for Grayfell. Stalking me around on other pages and deleting my work is not exactly impartial, particularly when my last edit was a simple edit to the Glycemic Index page. I feel that Grayfell has educated himself in the rules and procedures and placed himself in a position where he can erroneously revert any change made to the Usana page. It makes wonder if other users have experienced this problem in the past. It also makes me wonder what personal connection he has with Usana, supplements and the state of Utah. Perhaps a review of his edit history might shed some light on that. CONCLUSION: I would like a sockpuppet check of the following user IP addresses: 172.58.41.35 and 113.172.26.48 in association with Grayfell. I would like Grayfell blocked from the USANA Health Sciences page if not Wikipedia as a whole. I will be notifying Grayfell of this post via his talk page. Given that Wikipedia is the world's top online encyclopedia, I expect that USANA will be keen to see a fair and neutral point of view adopted for their entry. Kind regards 122.148.118.18
Sadly, from time to time it becomes apparent that one of these users has their own cause to pursue: in particular, highly regarded User:Grayfell and his interest in the USANA Health Sciences page. Since December 2014 User:Grayfell has consistently reverted changes made by various users. User:Grayfell has cited things such as "Previous version was more in line with WP:NPOV. Removing bit about sports certification, which would need WP:SECONDARY sources." "WP:NPOV" "Trivial. Needs more than just PR to be worth mentioning." and "What exactly does that have to do with USANA?" to justify these changes. These have resulted in responses such as "Opinions are not facts. If you are going to post opinion, post opposing opinion also." Of particular note, User:Grayfell has cited an article by Fortune [Forbes] titled "Barry Minkow: All-American con man" (at 01:55, 5 December 2014). User:Grayfell has cited this article to reference that Minkow was a senior pastor at the Community Bible Church and executive of the Fraud Discovery Institute (FDI). (Without reading the title of the cite, one would assume from this that Minkow is a respectable individual.) Yet attempts to cite the same article to give an opposing point of view about Minkow are reverted. For example: The opening line of the article describes him as "entrepreneur, fraud fighter, pastor, movie actor – and serial swindler." The story goes on to say that Minkow has been convicted of embezzling $3 million from the above mentioned church and of using his position at the FDI to make false statements. I suspect User:Grayfell has also incorrectly cited a story by "La Fracture" ( http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/la_facture/2008-2009/Reportage.asp?idDoc=75158). However my French is not good enough to be sure of this. And then there was the "possible vandalism" by 113.172.26.48, a Mobile edit / Mobile web edit. This simply added "Which don't work" to the end of the product description. Perhaps just a coincidence that it should occur so soon after my revision. I respectfully request that a review of the USANA Health Sciences page and its edit history be undertaken. I further suggest that User:Grayfell be blocked from making further edits to the page. I will also be forwarding a copy of this to USANA for their information. Given that Wikipedia is the world's top online encyclopedia, I expect that USANA will be keen to see a fair and neutral point of view adopted for their entry. Kind regards 122.148.118.18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 ( talk) 06:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC) |
This page 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. |
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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Thanks for the guidelines on the autobiographical information on the Gina Smith (author) page. Someone did a Wikipedia article on me a few weeks ago, which I just found yesterday. I wanted to fill out some of the things it left out -- I thought if I made sure to heavily reference everything I added, that ameliorated the autobiographical limitations! Now I know. Thank you also for showing me how to better cite references and make better use of the web links section. gina@ginasmith.com gina Ginasmith888 ( talk) 21:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)gina
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Daniel_Holtzclaw.23Recent_changes_.282.29 regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Oiudfgogsdf ( talk) 22:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Greyfell! I agree, we do need people to contribute - the more the merrier! - but the CSE Wiki page was first created based on high quality scientific peer-reviewed academic research. So we shouldn't erase the original definition, because it is 'out there'. The very first theoretical articles on this subject were published in the Journal of Business Ethics (2004 and 2005) after being presented at academic conferences. Then, a scientific investigation was conducted over a three year period and the results were published in a book that was published by the Cambridge University Press (2013). This is the published definition:
A corporate social entrepreneur (CSE) was defined by Hemingway (2005; 2013) as: 'An employee of the firm who operates in a socially entrepreneurial manner; identifying opportunities for and/ or championing socially responsible activity, in addition to helping the firm achieve its business targets. The CSE operates regardless of an organizational context that is pre-disposed towards corporate social responsibility (CSR)/ sustainability. This is because the CSE is driven by their dominant self-transcendent (concerned with the welfare of others/environment) as opposed to their self-enhancement personal values [1]. Consequently, the CSE does not necessarily have a formal socially responsible job role, nor do they necessarily have to be in a senior management position to progress their socially responsible agenda.'[2][3]
Since then, the term has been picked up by other academics, students, business consultants and others. I think it makes sense to keep the original (already published) definition and then we add as we have more information/ new perspectives. Please note that the first reference (number 1) relates to the research of Shalom Schwarz on personal values. This is good practice to attribute sources and Schwartz theory (notably the dimension of self-enhancement and self-transcendent values) was used to investigate CSEs. But note that Schwarz has not researched CSE himself, so the definition that is now on the CSE Wiki is misleading (and insufficient). Many thanks Chemingway ( talk) 10:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Greyfell, please can you also look at this page,too. These different types of entrepreneurship are distinct, but related to each other, so the distinctions and connections need to be made. My contributions to the page have been deleted - about three times, now? Thank you very much. Chemingway ( talk) 11:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think that it can be mentioned as the most northern fast food chain restaurant in the world, if there aren't any other as northern fast food chain restaurant, even though that chain is just a regional one. (Not remarkable as themselves, but only for their extremity - in this case, for their extreme location) -- 91.159.92.102 ( talk) 05:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Grayfell, First of all I want to thank you for the revision of my addings. You've deleted my addons to the Website builder article and noticed that "superwebsitebuilders.com wasn't a reliable source the last time it was added, and it still isn't". But as for me that site is rather reliable source with historyб good rankings and a great number of topic-related materials. As you can see, there're a lot of information about website builders and I didn't find those listed features, that were deleted, anywhere except that website. So I ask You to undo your deletion.Thanks. Donets.Aleksey ( talk) 11:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Donets.Aleksey
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I would appreciate if you could comment there. Thanks, ―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 04:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell you are now crossing the limits. Seriously if u did not stop deleteing my contribution. I am going to make it legal. And please remember wiki is for all and each contributions are valuable. Why you deleting Mahika from list of people from assam and actress from bollywood cant u google her or you have no time exploring thing else. Please mind your own work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popopo222 ( talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 January 2016
Grayfell the page will be soon created as trust me Mahika is a famous name User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] the page will be soon created as trust me Mahika is a famous name from assam with being miss teen to social worker. She have all profesnl link with times of India to twiter with 20k followers. Kindly help me creating her page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popopo222 ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 25 January 2016
Grayfell dear I created that, but its looking like Draft:Mahika Sharma I want it to appear normaly like other celeb pls help
Grayfell kindly help me creating the page Mahika Sharma else deleting it. Hope the links are notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18beauty ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell man she is model and social worker too. Links attached are all talking about herself. What more is expected. Check Sonam Lamba page issues but yet article alive with no much refferences. Atleast this article should also get alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18beauty ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell we are fans of her as said before who is gona pay. Popopo222 is posting a link and you deleting why??? The biography section is powerful and the site is also very was popular and wellknown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18beauty ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for violating policy. I can't imagine all of my edits did so however, so I wonder if I could still see them anywhere, since I neglected that basic rule of backing them up. I would really like to know which did violate the guidelines. I suspect that references to living persons were the most serious.
However the article as it stands is woefully unsourced. I will try to improve that by listing sources of information on the AIP and also making them available online (not in the AIP article indeed, but on the official AIP web-site).
The section on the so-called "2008 Leadership dispute" is a prime example of unsourced content. Note that footnotes 7-13 contained in that section are now all dead. So the previously most sourced section in the AIP article is now the most unsourced. This is due to three factors I believe. 1. the passage of time, requiring adjustments to links so they still point to the same information, that remains available somewhere on the web, 2.The normal retirement of current event information on some sites, so that the information is no longer available online (unless the Wayback Machine can help with that), 3. The deliberate withdrawal or relabeling of content by the King Faction, recognizing the failure of its efforts.
I deleted the dead footnotes in my now deleted edits. Was that a violation of policy? (Not a rhetorical, but a serious question.) If the principle of sourcing is strictly enforced, that section should be entirely deleted. I was not deleting it, but expanding it and (I believed) correcting it. However I realize that at some point the expansions became more a first person account, which even this newbie now recognizes was beyond the guideline boundaries.
I know for a fact that this dispute began at least as early as 2007. I have the testimony of others that it in fact started in 2006. I can with some significant effort find some evidence of that online. I hate to think that my first-hand information will prove useless, so painfully was it acquired. But 2006 and 2007 are before 2008. The dispute lingered until the last suit was decided in 2011. So the title is clearly misleading. The origins and final results were from 2006-2011.
I will now adopt a policy of collecting the references before I post edits. I will list them on the talk page for the American Independent Party article before using them. I would appreciate your assistance and advice. BraveLad ( talk) 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell for some reason I’m unable to access my previous account we are made a number contributions to Wikipedia before so when you criticise my work under the rules of Wikipedia entries you have made a misnomer. My latest contribution is under the name Gabriel Burnet. It was about MGTOW and was a project that took 12 months to put together along with the interviews and citations for every single sentence and statement within that modification meeting the criteria set for Wikipedia.
You made no attempt to point out where the allegations of bias are, or even cite one. Without a single example the normal conclusion would be that this article does meet with the standards of Wikipedia and you personally disagree with it and deleted it on preference. With the fact that I interpreted 327 sources and cited multiple sources including the official MGTOW website I believe I have the academic validation that you do not. I do not wish to the same misnomer as labelling you as a bigot. So I suggest that you reread the submission and follow the links before you make an unfounded accusation and violate the terms of agreement of Wikipedia yourself. What has been submitted is accurate and academically reinforced something your reasons failed to do when rejecting those modifications (you have no examples or argument for this position violating the Wikipedia policy agreement). I can hand over thousands of media sources if you wish to read and watch them yourself, as I am open to dialogue and the free dissemination of information rather than escalating this to a formal complaint of misconduct.
Happy to hear your from you Gabriel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Burnet ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
In the first proof there were grammatical errors and that’s why I updated it later. My first intention was to save my page for later submission and future editing. Saving the incorrect version the later modification was my error. The word “we” came from the interview I did with Barbarossa the most prominent MGTOW figure and was not intended for the final submission. I did not know that “save” was final submission. I thought that you were editing my personal notes this was a misunderstanding and very distressing. But your error was to assume that the second submission was identical to the first. That is not a challenge it was a dismissal. I did try to navigate to the place for final submissions and discussion but got lost in navigation. Wikipedia interface is hard to use and is not like riding a bicycle if you can direct me by link to the discussion page you will be greatly appreciated.
My original content producer name was CheekyBastard which has obviously been blocked because of new name policy what was not in place when I made the account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Burnet ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I presume you know about WP:3RR and that you are at 3RR. The other editor hadn't been given a warning so I've done that now. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, I read your comments, I'm not sure that I totally agree with you but I don't want to edit war, so I'll leave it be.
I also removed the words "semi-satirical", because those could be taken as an opinion, so i thought it best to remain as unbiased as possible.
Schuddeboomw ( talk) 22:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Grayfell. I saw you marked three of my sources as unreliable on Draft: Deep Patel. To address your first concern, Huffington Post blog(s) are reliable sources according to WP as it’s clearly stated, “some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.”
Every article on Huffington Post’s blog receives editorial insight. In addition, as far as I can tell, the author of the article is a “professional” as she is respected in the field of business as she holds an MBA. FYI, WP editor, i_jethrobot also agreed that it was an “independent reliable source.”
As for Seeking Alpha, the same principle applies. Every single article receives editorial insight. Plus, what I used as a reference from their site is not a “blog.” All content on Seeking Alpha’s website is characterized under 4 categories: Articles, PRO Articles (receives a certain number of views), Instablogs and StockTalks. The reference I used is an “article,” and not a blog. Wikipedia’s article on Seeking Alpha clearly states “in contrast to other equity research platforms, insight is provided by contributor base of investors and industry experts.” In addition, as mentioned in WP: “In 2013, WIRED magazine named Seeking Alpha one of its, "…core nutrients of a good data diet." WIRED: 101 Signals. In 2007, Seeking Alpha was the recipient of Forbes' Best of the Web Award… and in 2011Seeking Alpha was listed as #1 in Inc. magazine's list of Essential Economic blogs.”
Lastly, from my research, The Mill Magazine is a reliable source in the context of the article. I’ve also had two editors from Wikipedia’s Live Chat tell me it was fine to use. The article published about Patel’s book was composed by their “staff” meaning the content was not the opinion of only one writer of the site.
Thus, with all the evidence I have compiled for the sources you had doubts about, I have respectfully reverted the edit you made. Editor2626744 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, Grayfell. I'm not trying to get into an edit war with you, but I've reverted the edits you made again because the sources used clearly fall into WP's guidelines. BLPs ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons) states that "some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." And once again, that would apply to the HuffPost's blog posts I used as references.
For further reference, WP reiterates that when identifying reliable sources ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources), "some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."
The same thing applies to Seeking Alpha... I'm not sure why you keep saying the Seeking Alpha reference is a "blog" when it clearly is published as an "article" on their site, which has full editorial oversight and is reliable according to WP's guidelines. Editor2626744 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I had created this page Thakur Anukulchandra to redirect to the page Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra, but you moved the same (reversed the redirect) since honorary titles should not be part of article titles. I had done that only to ensure the partial name reaches to the correct page. The name is actually Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra. I am ok with the other page Thakur Anukulchandra not being there. Please could you undo your edit? Thanks and regards. Atreyeemaiti ( talk) 02:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Grayfell for your quick reply. I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Thanks Atreyeemaiti ( talk) 03:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your contribution, request you to kindly highlight the sources which are too promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarikaran32 ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You are invited... | |
---|---|
Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
(To subscribe,
Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe,
Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--
Ipigott (
talk)
08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Good catch on the sockpuppet - I ended up just deleting the page for the book. It's not something that we could speedy as a creation by a blocked user since the original editor wasn't blocked until the SPI, but it was mildly promotional-ish. I've left a note on the now deleted article stating that I'd restore it to a non-sockpuppet account. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Oregon's upcoming Art+Feminism events, which will be held in Portland and Eugene on Saturday, March 5, 2016. Please see the following links for additional information, or to sign up:
About Art+Feminism: Art+Feminism is pleased to announce its third annual Wikipedia edit-a-thon, an all-day event designed to generate coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia and encourage female editorship. Last year, over 1,500 participants at more than 75 events around the world participated in the second annual campaign, resulting in the creation of nearly 400 new pages and significant improvements to 500 articles on Wikipedia. For more information, see Art+Feminism.
You received this message because you have attended a Wikipedia meetup in Oregon or contributed to WikiProject Oregon. To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell and thanks for your input.
I have here 2 secondary sources about Gabriel Cousens' malpractice record
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/special/raw-vegan-gurus.shtml
https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/2012/11/raw-food-does-not-cure-diabetes/
Could you tell me what my next steps are?
Given that the subject is not a really known person, and most of the citations are self-published, and the previous versions of the article quite glorifying, and most of the third party mentions unflattering, I would not trust any of the self-published content, including schools, and I believe this doubt is reasonable. Actually, I doubt this page should even exist.
Any thoughts about it?
00:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Cafnas (
talk)
@ Grayfell: Wow, I had no idea of the tumultuous past of this article. I'm new to this. Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain.
There is the phoenix new time article, but since it is already used as a citation, I assume you don't think it is good enough as a secondary source?
01:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Cafnas ( talk)
Waste of time
|
---|
No idea what you mean by "badge of shame". I refer you to Template:POV for correct usage of the tag, which the user who added it followed correctly. Yourself and Rhode Island Red however are ignoring correct usage for removal. I would suggest for example you follow the recommendation "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight" and contribute to the discussion. -- Icerat ( talk) 21:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
|
I regret to admit it but after this lengthy conversation I have come to a conclusion that no consensus regarding the inclusion or omission of the FTC case in the lead can be reached. Therefore, I would like to inform you that I have requested a dispute resolution process. I hope that the validity of arguments based on reliable sources will eventually win so that we can have an unbiased article both with cons and pros and vice versa. Best regards,-- Historik75 ( talk) 00:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
I presume you know he was blocked for 42 hours last night. The page itself is under discretionary sanctions which of course apply to all of us, and he's had 2 DS alerts relevant to the page. I think he has real competence problems (there's a bit of discussion on my talk page) and I don't see him as able to grasp the concepts he's dealing with or our guidelines and policies. Ah, I should ask you if you think I should add a talk page header saying the page is under DS. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, Thank you for your comments on the Citations for Daniel P. Sheehan's bio page. However, I wanted to point out that the authors bio page actually does directly state that he is working on a book that is due in the fall of 2016. Here is the quote, "Dan is the author of THE PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE for COUNTERPOINT PRESS of Berkeley, California and will publish his second of three books for COUNTERPOINT PRESS in fall of 2016 entitled: RULERS OF THE REALM." It is the very last line of the author's bio page at: http://danielpsheehan.com/about/biography . I personally feel that this is enough evidence to be able to cite that Daniel Sheehan is working on a book, I have heard him mention the book frequently in his public lectures around the santa cruz area. He also mentions it in the Coast 2 Coast interview that I attempted to link to, which you deleted (fair enough, you need to pay to hear the selection anyway, not a great source). Daniel Sheehan also mentions the book in several discussions with interested fans on his public figure Facebook page. So I personally know that Daniel P. Sheehan is working on a book, he himself has mentioned it many times in Public, on publicly available radio, and in public forums online, and it indisputably says that he is on the bio page of the author's own website (link above). I am going to put the citation back in linking to his bio page, again where he specifically references the forthcoming book in the last line of his bio, please do not delete that source.
In regards to the problem with "Peacock" language I will have a look to tone down the rhetoric, and add more sources to cite Daniel Sheehan's achievements, which are many. NoahX76 ( talk) 18:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ha! Bastards keep vandalizing Scientology pages, thinking they're being clever. :) Damotclese ( talk) 15:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Why is Pacer not a reliable source when the court itself refers to Pacer in it's online website as a source to get data from ? -- http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/ecf/documents/ElectronicPublicAccessFeeSchedule_000.pdf
Engine Gone Loco ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell! I'm reaching out to see if you might be able to help me with the Jarret Myer article. I suggested some improvements several months back and have generally had positive feedback about them, but no one has been able to make any edits. I won't do it myself, because I have a financial COI and prepared the suggestions on Myer's behalf. If you have time, would you be able to take a look and tell me what you think? I realize this may not be quite in your wheelhouse, but since you were so helpful on the Tipper Gore article, I thought I would ask. Thanks! Heatherer ( talk) 21:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited January, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juno. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell,
At Talk:R2-45, there is a discussion about whether it is about shooting people. To me, it seems to be pretty obvious that this is the case, but I'd like an independent POV. -- Slashme ( talk) 11:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell. Regarding my addition of passage from Alan Black's paper. I am dumbfounded as to why you seem to arbitrarily label this is an "unreliable" source. The same paper has actually been cited at #2 on the same Wikipedia page. Who is to decide that this is unreliable? You mentioned also that this is an SPS. How so? How are you able to determine that this paper is "extremely obscure?" According to whose standards? Please enlighten me as I want to understand what can be used as a reliable source. I believe that my edit on the Dynamics is sound and adds much to the section, and I attest that it should remain. The edits on the lead section are also meant to enrich the section from direct quotes from Scientology text, to further contextualize the information here. Livetoedit1123 ( talk) 23:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Fascism and Nazism are not right-wing. Nazism itself is left-wing totalitarian/authoritarian. Likewise, fascism is not exclusively right-wing, it is simply a branch of authoritarianism that constitutes oppressive repression of political dissidence, and demagoguery through mass-media propaganda, extreme nationalism, and cult-of-personality tactics. I am honestly willing to debate you about this, because I really don't like seeing masses mislead to believe that a sick and disgusting ideology such as neo-nazism is some sort of poster child for fascist and racist policies that have nothing to do with the right wing. Discrediting by disassociation is a shameful tactic, and this is worsened by the fact that it simply isn't true.
Please respond, because I really want to find a compromise for the neo-nazi page. I don't think misleading curious masses via left-wing bias is the right thing to do.
J-rod916 ( talk) 08:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC) With respect, and with peace and intelligence in mind, - J-rod916
Hi Grayfell. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, -- Kenzia ( talk) 09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Stream Energy logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 19:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Just hard enough to inspire you to heal that year-old scar on Wikipedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 06:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Wikipedia Page
Anuj agarwal name was used twice but why you have removed other two names from key people Please let us know the reason for removing key people name from the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Page. For Anuj Agarwal the reason I understood that it was given before also but deleting other people names also I din't got the reason. Please clarify the reason and also give some suggestions Harman Ahuja ( talk) 12:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Craven's profound impact in the field of filmmaking, especially in the Horror genre, is widely accepted across a very wide range of sources familiar with the matter (as reflected by the many sources i provided). Further the commercial successes of his many works and the influence of them, as well as their meaning in popular culture are well documented and can easily be checked. You may pay a close look at all the different sources i provided and see how the additions i made to the article are indeed valid. I understand that you seem to have questioned the objective nature, however my contributions i.e. specifications in the introductory part shall not be mistaken as personal opinion or even favoritism, (which i certainly never intended). So i think my contributions should be restored and are perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia quality standards and do not merely display a subjective point of view, but are much rather a meaningful and objective fact-based addition to the introductory part about Mr. Craven. Greetings from germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.158.131 ( talk) 06:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I saw that you reverted an edit to Phantasm (film). I agree that it was likely refspam, but what neutrality issue did you notice? I rewrote that text and thought I resolved the issues. I was just going to let it go, personally. I'm too tired of dealing with drama to chastise the user for spamming citations to what looks like his own website. But this particular edit was, in my opinion, a minor improvement to the article, as it went a little more in-depth into something the director had previously discussed in other interviews. It's not a big deal, though. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
You've been reversing vandalism here [3] and here [4]. Notice that the offender is posting from open proxies, which in itself is not permitted. Now that this disruption of wikipedia has gotten the attention of a veteran editor like yourself, maybe it will stop, although not likely. Other examples of this users' vandalism are here [5], which resulted in the page being locked, here [6], in which the editor questions a fact no serious editor denies, and here [7], where cited text is altered. I encourage you to verify the last one independently, as I have the book used as a source and know which version if more faithful to the source. 63.143.225.66 ( talk) 11:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I was looking to see what I needed to recreated Delta Epsilon Iota, now it drops in priority to be even with every other redlink in Professional_Fraternity_Association#Former_members. Oh well. :) Naraht ( talk) 23:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I should like you to kindly remove your unfounded Speedy Deletion tag from the page I created. There is not enough evidence on your part to suggest that it has no place on Wikipedia, and plenty of support to suggest it does. Delete your tag and move on to something else. Thank you kindly. WalkOn75 ( talk) 22:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WalkOn75 ( talk) 23:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, my edits to the Peckerwood article simply reorganized the content within the article - into two distinct sections: the street gang and the terminology. I will let someone else do the terminology section of the page. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "unsourced" because the everything inside the template can be found in the sources throughout the article. I will go back and source whats in the template Everything in my contribution to that page is justified in relation to the content of the article. The rest of the article is about terminology that seems to lack better sources so I will proceed with writing the street gang section and when I have found sources on the term itself i will make that its own section. My old account is retired and my edits were technically not edit warring and were completely justified. You reverted the page back to the way it looked when it sourced articles from neo-nazi blogs which was actually counter-productive. QubixQdotta ( talk) 23:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, I hope this message finds you in good health and spirits.
I'd like to discuss my changes to the "Fundamental attribution error" article. More specifically, my addition of an example that I believe parsimoniously illustrates the principles of the fundamental attribution error. The revision numbers that pertain to this discussion are 692480676 & 669274882 and the revisions that removed these additions.
I appreciate your invitation to discuss this example. I believe a discussion will improve the article's validity and likely improve my understanding of the fundamental attribution error. In the spirit of cooperation and learning, I'd like to ask a few questions about my example and the fundamental attribution error that I hope will begin our discussion. In the interest of precision, my questions only apply to my example and not the examples which were removed along with it.
Concerning feedback: "All of these examples are overly complex and unsourced..." What constitutes a valid source for examples of the fundamental attribution error? What value would such a source add to the article? What degree of complexity is acceptable for these examples? How is example complexity measured?
Please remember, I'm only interested in adding my example to the article. I believe more than one example is helpful. I have no interest in removing or changing any other examples or other information in the article at this time.
Have a great day. Kd7jhd ( talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
What have I added that is wrong? All I have done is added references to existing materials on the GI page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 ( talk) 04:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
(
TL;DR)
|
---|
I have added the following to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Alleged Soapboxing VS Gatekeeping on the Usana Health Sciences page over the past 18 months I would like Administrator intervention because I don't understand what have I done to justify a revert let alone threats of blocking? Furthermore, I reiterate my request of 5 May 2016 that Grayfell be blocked from editing the Usana Health Sciences page and if he is found to have engaged in anything more serious I ask that he be blocked entirely. I am not the first user to have difficulty with Grayfell while editing the Usana Health Sciences page. Over the last 18 months, Grayfell has reverted every significant revision and I note that many of those users no longer appear active, so perhaps you could look into whether they have been erroneously blocked.
I provided more material, up to date material from sources that were already listed on the page. (I went to the ConsumerLab website and found a 2016 survey the results of which I added with the 2011 materials.) I deleted a report by a non-scientifically trained journalist (yes, I have looked up his bio on the Time website) who is the author, experimenter & only test subject of his own non-clinical non-peer reviewed trial because that report has the encyclopedic veracity of a unicorn. I added a reference to the GI symbol program and outlined its veracity. In particular that it is a not-for-profit foundation run by the University of Sydney and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. (In my original edit, I also included data from their testing.) I also added similar details to the Glycemic Index page and elevated the GI Symbol Program to it's own section (given that it is a widely accepted Australian and now international standardised testing procedure). Rather than just revert the page, on this occasion, the entire section on the GI symbol has been removed by Grayfell. Previously he has cited comments that cast individuals in an unreasonably positive light and reverted any changes that provide an opposing point of view. Grayfell has cited an article titled "Barry Minkow: All-American con man" to say that Minkow is a fruad-buster and pastor, even though the theme of the article makes the point that he is in fact a serial-swindler. The article establishes a long standing pattern of deception and distortion against companies over the decade in question. Grayfell only deleted this reference when this hypocrisy was pointed out on a post 5 May 2016.
I expect that this has become something personal for Grayfell. Stalking me around on other pages and deleting my work is not exactly impartial, particularly when my last edit was a simple edit to the Glycemic Index page. I feel that Grayfell has educated himself in the rules and procedures and placed himself in a position where he can erroneously revert any change made to the Usana page. It makes wonder if other users have experienced this problem in the past. It also makes me wonder what personal connection he has with Usana, supplements and the state of Utah. Perhaps a review of his edit history might shed some light on that. CONCLUSION: I would like a sockpuppet check of the following user IP addresses: 172.58.41.35 and 113.172.26.48 in association with Grayfell. I would like Grayfell blocked from the USANA Health Sciences page if not Wikipedia as a whole. I will be notifying Grayfell of this post via his talk page. Given that Wikipedia is the world's top online encyclopedia, I expect that USANA will be keen to see a fair and neutral point of view adopted for their entry. Kind regards 122.148.118.18
Sadly, from time to time it becomes apparent that one of these users has their own cause to pursue: in particular, highly regarded User:Grayfell and his interest in the USANA Health Sciences page. Since December 2014 User:Grayfell has consistently reverted changes made by various users. User:Grayfell has cited things such as "Previous version was more in line with WP:NPOV. Removing bit about sports certification, which would need WP:SECONDARY sources." "WP:NPOV" "Trivial. Needs more than just PR to be worth mentioning." and "What exactly does that have to do with USANA?" to justify these changes. These have resulted in responses such as "Opinions are not facts. If you are going to post opinion, post opposing opinion also." Of particular note, User:Grayfell has cited an article by Fortune [Forbes] titled "Barry Minkow: All-American con man" (at 01:55, 5 December 2014). User:Grayfell has cited this article to reference that Minkow was a senior pastor at the Community Bible Church and executive of the Fraud Discovery Institute (FDI). (Without reading the title of the cite, one would assume from this that Minkow is a respectable individual.) Yet attempts to cite the same article to give an opposing point of view about Minkow are reverted. For example: The opening line of the article describes him as "entrepreneur, fraud fighter, pastor, movie actor – and serial swindler." The story goes on to say that Minkow has been convicted of embezzling $3 million from the above mentioned church and of using his position at the FDI to make false statements. I suspect User:Grayfell has also incorrectly cited a story by "La Fracture" ( http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/la_facture/2008-2009/Reportage.asp?idDoc=75158). However my French is not good enough to be sure of this. And then there was the "possible vandalism" by 113.172.26.48, a Mobile edit / Mobile web edit. This simply added "Which don't work" to the end of the product description. Perhaps just a coincidence that it should occur so soon after my revision. I respectfully request that a review of the USANA Health Sciences page and its edit history be undertaken. I further suggest that User:Grayfell be blocked from making further edits to the page. I will also be forwarding a copy of this to USANA for their information. Given that Wikipedia is the world's top online encyclopedia, I expect that USANA will be keen to see a fair and neutral point of view adopted for their entry. Kind regards 122.148.118.18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 ( talk) 06:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC) |
This page 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. |