![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Would appreciate your review and edit as needed of today's history. Thanks. -- Zefr ( talk) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grayfell, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 17:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Notifying you because the filer didn't. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 17:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You undid my edits to supply economics. After searching google scholar where papers are published that makes an argument, supply economics did have an impact on GDP and unemployment. However, all papers that were published, are by economists that favor support supply side economics. They are economists no different then Paul Krugman. My question, should I waste my time going through google scholar to reference the papers, or will it seem to be a conflict of interest? Which brings me to my other question, Keynesian economists are stated all time defending their position, so why can't supply side economists do the same? Nobody is arguing the revenue stream problem that Paul and other Kenesian points out but there is evidence made by supply side economists that the Regan and JFK tax cuts did grow the GDP and cut unemployment.( User talk:Madsalty) 08:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Got our message about the removal of the external link I've added to Wix.com Thanks for informing, you are saying they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The Wiki article says "many independent reviews named Wix as one of the best free website builders", but there was no confirmation of it. So I managed to add a link to reputable source with the review of website builders, that actually named Wix #1 for beginners. http://websitesetup.org/website-builders/ it should have made this information more reputable, haven't it? Anyway, not sure it is the right place to post this, as you can see I'm new here :)
Multimrnk ( talk) 09:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Will read all of the above guides for the next references! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Multimrnk (
talk •
contribs)
10:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell, thanks for your advice on providing a summary/reason for editing and I have changed my preferences as you suggested. Have learned a lot in the last few days. Best regards, Geeveraune ( talk) 10:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I see that we're going to have an ongoing relationship here regarding the page for A Different Drum. You seem to be infatuated with correcting my edits. Are you stalking me? Opticon98 ( talk) 22:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The early IBM HDs must have had some diagnostic information. Without an online manual one has to guess as to the parameters provided. Yet otherwise coverage of this improvement in the article is really lacking (separate from the SMART technology article).
In the modern era the S.M.A.R.T. HDD telemetry provides about 120 parameters out of 256, as for some reason the idiots that created the standard did not use UNSIGNED INT16 in the specifications. IBM's original HDDs must have provided at least 5 to 7 HD running parameters as a bare minimum.
Ergo, based on an average HD providing about 40 operational parameters ... this leads to a 7 times increase in provided data. Why anyone would want to censor this is beyond me, as HDDs are slowly verging towards the ash heap of history (due to the Flash Memory technology). Eyreland ( talk)
Please see here: Talk:Initiative_71#Rename_to_Cannabis_in_Washington.2C_D._C..2C_split_off.2C_or_what.3F
Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney ( talk) 23:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
There are probably many people like me who do not use this platform very often nor, because of other responsibilities and interests, do we have time to use it often, and yet we try to contribute meaningfully, fairly and even boldly.
My very limited experience of your editing style, limited to one page, and reading through this Talk page, is that you seek to be fair, to encourage neutrality in how people are editing, and you are interested in building the community.
That said, some of the ways in which you are interacting and your choices of editing are not aligned with these intentions you have.
My own experience of editing The Reader page included that my contribution was continually challenged and changed by you. Rather than seeing my evident knowledge on the subject as an asset, you viewed it, from the outset, with suspicion, and you continually eliminated my work. You justified doing so with a flourish of Wiki-regulations and jargon.
At The Reader and my personal Talk pages, I've taken much more time than I probably should have to explain where I believe you were wrong in your editing. I imagine some people, after reading through these notes, may find your editing unquestionably wrong, anti-collaborative, and alienating.
With your superior knowledge of this platform comes a responsibility to use this knowledge to foster the collaboration of others, and thereby build the community and the value of information on this platform, rather than use it to push them away.
Clearly, I'm not the only one who feels this way. Elsewhere in this talk section, another editor has experienced something similar in which s/he said, "I do think that your editing is very heavy-handed and somewhat arbitrary- and not always in accordance with Wiki Policies...The downside is that this approach is likely to discourage other editors from making new contributions."
I think it would be more fair and a wiser move to see others' contributions who have considerable knowledge on a subject as a result of place, proximity and experience and who are clearly trying-- as I have-- to live up to the ideals, rules and values of Wikipedia, to allow them their say. If you don't do this, and you use your superior knowledge of this platform to get others to do what you want, you're essentially pushing them away from the platform, which I know you don't actually want to have happen.
Most recently, although I'm not sure what the notification means, you wrote something at my Talk page to the effect that my role as an editor may be taken away if I don't comply with certain rules and that you will soon enlist other editors to make sure I comply with other requests of yours.
All of this you are directing at someone who rarely uses this platform and tries to use it fairly to the best of their ability. Is that not being somewhat heavy-handed and needlessly intimidating?
Thank you for reading this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBalandina ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Your editing choices and your interactions are more than "heavy-handed", they are pushy and reveal an overriding sense of your own rectitude and an incapacity to be influenced by others who disagree with your choices.
You have continually eliminated any possible positive statement made about The Reader Magazine, a sixteen year old publication in Southern California, which mostly as a result of your insistence, you have reduced to a single article written by a graduate student, who was subsequently sued for libel.
Most recently, you have argued that this article accusing the publication of plagiarism is so important that it be included in the second sentence of the entire entry on the publication, even though it is mentioned in the body of the entry. Your response is that it is proper to include it as it "summarizes" the publication-- according to who? You? You have eliminated positive, cited content to the point that the entry is so sparse that someone looking for information on The Reader Magazine-- because of you-- knows practically nothing about it, including information that is verified, cited and independent.
The positive statements about The Reader you argued to eliminate (and did eliminate) include cited statements made on record and in an article about The Reader Magazine by "Mr. Magazine" himself, Professor Samir Husni, a globally-recognized thought leader in the magazine publishing industry. Why would you would eliminate his critique of The Reader but not a graduate student's critique? Your rationale for eliminating his cited article and statements drifts into absurdity: you claim that Mr. Husni's article may be self-promotional, or that it appears online only even though the article you center upon, in the Columbia Journalism Review, is also only available online, and never appeared in print.
Please stop including that The Reader was accused of plagiarism more than once, and it should not be mentioned so close to the beginning of the description of the magazine. It colors the rest of the entry-- and let us not forget that this was an article written by student sued for libel, which is not immaterial. The rationale for making it somehow a "summary" is totally subjective, and it is unfair.
Second, please allow for "Mr. Magazine" or Samir Husni's statements about The Reader to be seen, because he is a distinguished, recognized authority in magazine publishing. To assume that his statements and article are not independent is to not assume good faith and is irrational given his position in the publishing industry as one of its leaders, and the credibility he has earned over decades.
Finally, The Reader Magazine is one of only 1,961 companies globally that has earned the designation of B-Certified (along with Seventh Generation, Etsy and others). Why have you, again taken this cited information away from the description? What I hope others see here is that your editing has been heavy-handed to the degree of unfairness. How? You have stripped down the description of The Reader to a negative caricature or cartoon. You've done this, even though information is available from independent and even non-profit publishers and globally recognized third-party institutions. So your style is actually materially hurtful to others-- all done in the name of your ballyhooed (and actually non-existent) neutrality, wrapped in your generous use of Wiki jargon, and ultimately unfair.
Thanks WikiBalandina ( talk) 02:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First World privilege is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First World privilege until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsrestoresanity ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Grayfell. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no ties to this living person. I am a tenured Professor of Architecture and Sustainability at the NUS (National University of Singapore). It is my opinion that the article about Sheila Sri Prakash is adequately backed by the numerous inline citations, references and reputable institutions that she serves, not the least of which include the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Furthermore, as a woman who entered this field in the 1970s from Asia, she is undeniably a trailblazer, social innovator and pioneer. Would you clarify your credentials/extent of expertise, to comment on the field of architecture and disclose any ties to the topic of this post, along with any conflict of interest with any others, as it appears that you are repeatedly trying to undermine the reputation of this living person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.14.185.67 ( talk) 00:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Please bear with me. Trying to clean up this article. Need help removing bogus citations. Never done that before. Dlawbailey ( talk) 09:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The articles referenced about Steve Bannon do not in anyway substantiate the claim that Bannon was "influenced" by Evola. They merely refer to the fact that Bannon mentioned Evola in reference to Alexandr Dugin and Euroasianism. Referring to a philosopher is not the same as claiming to be influenced by them. The articles mentioned were but click-bait smear articles intended to smear Bannon for ideological reasons. Spenglarian ( talk) 18:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
But some on the alt-right consider Mr. Bannon a door through which Evola’s ideas of a hierarchical society run by a spiritually superior caste can enter in a period of crisis.- perhaps it should be reworded to better reflect this, instead of removed entirely. Seraphim System ( talk) 19:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Seriously you need a better photo.
Especially when yours is stolen from fucking flickr and cropped.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/farber/153592927
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.210.91 ( talk) 04:41, 29 November 2016
Thanks. Grayfell for sparing your valuable time on the article. However, every brand has different products and services and there are dedicated pages for them as well on Wikipedia. For eg. For Apple Pay and Android Pay. Hence, I created this for Mi-Pay. In future, I will pay heed to what you say, particularly, for products that are less noticeable. Gupta Dindayal ( talk) 12:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear, I want to know, whether this article would be moved to the mainspace automatically after being reviewed or I need to do it manually. Please help! Gupta Dindayal ( talk) 12:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell,
I've seen you deleted some of my edits and I would like to know why. I added some paragraphs + external resource to hack up my data, don't you like them or just being picky? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Becks ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. I think these sites are positioned as trustful resources on its industry/market, also their writers have strong presence in sex work field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Becks ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
"Let someone else add this if it's so important". Could you please reference which Wikipedia rule this falls under? TariqMatters ( talk) 19:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Trying to game the system with this edit of yours after you reverted my edit in this manner doesn't put you in the greatest light as it just proves that you are just trying too hard to push your POV. If you have further problems with my latest revert of your reversion, do be more constructive in your attitude and take them to the talk page first. Flaggerton ( talk) 07:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell, I identified a few of Peter Marino's notable projects and put a revision in my sandbox [ [1]]. How does this look? Thanks for your help! Emikey-34 ( talk) 16:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Which parts in particular should be removed or improved? Thank you for your help. A.s.jones ( talk) 17:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for your note. I have no affiliation with Mr. Shaikh or his company besomebody. I downloaded the app a year ago and love the concept. I also have been following the movement during that time. I am not paid in anyway nor would I ever seek to be. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm very familiar with the rules and guidelines. I understand you're doing your part as a community leader, but I must say I am shocked by the unsubstantiated assumptions you've made. I was excited to contribute to the community and spent a significant amount of time researching everything prior to publishing. I used credible sources, including the actual organizations that gave awards ("ie Brandweek") and media (USA Today). I did not use any sites directly affiliated with Shaikh or his company. Moreover, I studied other biographies of living persons on Wikipedia to emulate the style and format of "proper articles" such as Gary Vaynerchuk, Kathryn Minshew, SaulPaul, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. I believe much of what was removed from my contribution was unnecessary, however I will look at the sources again and make the appropriate edits. Thank you A.s.jones ( talk) 23:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, his birthdate is available on his public Facebook profile page, I had seen other articles reference birthdates in this way. I know now not to use those as precedent. Also, in one of the references you removed from a newspaper it referenced Shaikh as a Klein High School grad, also publicly available on his profile page. I appreciate this feedback and understand your concerns. It's cool how passionate you are about protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. I want to do that as well. I will be making some additional changes and then I will let you know. I would appreciate you letting me know if the edits/updates I make are in line with Wikipedia's ethos. I won't use other articles anymore as references." A.s.jones ( talk) 20:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Jtrrs0 ( talk) 15:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, your comment about reverting my edit was "see talk," but I saw no discussion there, other than the one I posted tonight. Amywestervelt ( talk) 05:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grey
I have been trying to create a wikipage with the name Creditseva since a week and i am facing issues in this process. I have been modifying and improvising the content quality everytime you have suggested changes. Inspite of doing this at a regular basis, i have been seeing that my content is a promotional content and it looks like an advertisement. I have referred all the guidelines mentioned by you after you have reviewed the Creditseva wikipage. I fail to understand the reason for the content to get approved by you without the tag of advertisement or promotional content
Could you please help me on this, as in what has to be exactly removed in the content provided by me. As you had mentioned recently, there are no peacock words in this content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mratnam176 ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response Grey. Sorry for asking the same question at two different pages. I am not accustomed to the Wikipedia page, so it was difficult to understand where i was going wrong. Thank you for giving me direction and showing me the correct path in such a clear way.I am working on the guidelines mentioned by you, after i have completed making the changes, i will update you on this talk page. Please review so that i can post it finally on the wikipage in such a way that it is free from any errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mratnam176 ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grey
I have made the necessary changes in the Creditseva Wikipage by improvising the content quality and removing all those words that made you feel its a promotional content, kindly review it and please remove the promotional content tag. Mratnam176 ( talk) 09:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller
talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Thank you Grey for looking in on the page I created - I have seen all your edits and agree with them - I took off the Advert warning as I thought you had done a superb job of returning it to it's former glory - if you disagree - please let me know what else needs doing and I'll get on it - still learning the correct form! Commanderjameson ( talk) 11:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you have made a revision to the how tag that I added to the article on Cuckservative. I've added a section to the talk page highlighting some of the questions I have with the accusations of racism. Feel free to comment here Sawta ( talk) 21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and have been editing low stakes pages. I do not understand how that content appears to be promotional. If so, please help fix the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveDorf ( talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Thank you for your patient and diligent work on Arsh Shah Dilbagi and related edits. Wikishovel ( talk) 10:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, I noticed you reverted the edit I made to Red pill and blue pill on the grounds that "Women's hypergamous nature" is a fringe opinion and should not be stated as a simple fact. I understand that the issue of hypergamy is very controversial and that the opinions of /r/theredpill are a minority. I apologize if my edit came off the wrong way but my intention was just to point out one of the primary issues/opinions that the subreddit discusses regardless of whether they are generally considered to be true or not. 99.252.156.13 ( talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
With regards to your reversion, the language "real or perceived" is literally more neutral than the innate assumption that all systems in which white people hold the majority of social or financial capitol are operating under deliberately manufactured white supremacy. Consider a country like Sweden which until recently has not even had the chance to practice white supremacy politically due to its overwhelming native Swede majority: as its immigrant population increases the state has been incredibly accommodating. The notion of white supremacy is not a system of government, it's an ideology with various implications depending on social climate and history. Therefore, implying that suggestions of its existence in all given systems are automatically true is the biased stance. Saying "real or perceived" prevents generalizations in the global context.
Nerdcatcher ( talk) 13:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Re. your reverting my edits, there wasn't a word of original research. All fully referenced as David Benatar as I was just in the process of adding. Balance is needed in this section as there are scores of points on the good in life and one line on the bad. Perhaps you could add this balance? Pipkin2.0 ( talk) 00:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've taken it from the same text as referenced at antinatalism David Benatar. Sound reference, if a somewhat unpalatable subject for some. Pipkin2.0 ( talk) 00:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You made some minor edits to List of sports team names and mascots derived from indigenous peoples (thanks) without commenting on my proposed split/renaming. Since it has been a month since I placed the notice I will proceed with the process.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 16:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell, Thank you for your advices. I have removed the promotional words from the page Rajdweep Dey. Please remove the advertisement tag as it is not an advertisement. Rajdweep is a famous playwright, lyricist from the state of Assam, India. I have given some reliable sources also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axomiya deka ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
If you say so. Personally, I feel such summaries fail to accurately capture what the person was trying to convey for the sake of shortening an article by a few characters. Cheers, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
"I think the next step is for women to reach inside of ourselves and find that courage and run for office to change some laws."or
"It's so imperative that people of my generation, native to technology, that we step up and make our voices known."(I do not believe any of those quotes belong, in case that wasn't obvious.) It's clear from the source that her decision to run was not just about Trump, so using that quote while ignoring the larger context provided by the article is non-neutral. That's why quotes are so tricky. So to answer your question, yes, I believe my summary addresses a POV issue introduced by your direct quote. To extend this to an "in general" sense, this issue comes up pretty often. For several reasons, I feel that if a short summary works well, it's almost always (but not always) going to be more neutral than using a lengthier quote. Grayfell ( talk) 06:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to wait on secondary sources that will be coming regarding the reckless driving criminal convictions. But why remove the entire paragraph including the weapons charge and upcoming sentencing of Feb. 3, 2017, which is well sourced? (I can and will add two more sources, including the WSJ and the Hill) This charge is quite relevant. Where do you propose this paragraph go on the page then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon3579 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of patience |
Bless you. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 02:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC) |
Thank you for the input on why the material I added on my company's page was removed. I have a question, however. If I follow the procedure for giving copyright approval for the material from our website, will the OTRS pending template show up for all viewers, or only members of Wikipedia? Logan!1989 ( talk) 01:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you consider that Brittany and Nicole Pettibone should be merged into one article named T.S Pettibone? They are working with
Lauren Southern,
InfoWars, and are heavily influential in the alternative right movement. It would seem that it would carry a Wikipedia page, but it definitely requires work on independent third-party sources. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Can1r53 (
talk •
contribs)
04:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:SOCK
Would you consider Brittany Pettibone as starting with alt-right or conservative in the description? I've seen both listed, but she seems to be freely associated with the alt-right movement. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Can1r53 (
talk •
contribs)
04:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:SOCK
Hello Grayfell, Thanks for the welcome, Hope its ok saying Thank you here! Picnicin ( talk) 02:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell, is there a means to reach you privately? If yes, do let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggie Olubunmi Atere ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Discuss at
Talk:Warren Farrell, not here.
|
---|
Here are my complete edits and reasons. Please reinstate my changes... Eliminated: Before writing further about men's issues and empowerment, Farrell spent years researching incest, including the ways people who commit incest justify their actions and (controversially) the potentially positive impact on family life. In a 2015 article in Mother Jones magazine, Mariah Blake summed up his findings and quoted him on the topic: "In a 1977 interview with Penthouse, Farrell explained that some saw incest as 'part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection.' The magazine also quoted him as saying that 'genitally caressing' children was 'part of a caring, loving expression' that helped them develop healthy sexuality." These ideas threatened his reputation; as Blake reported, "Farrell maintains that he said "generally caressing" and that the magazine conflated his ideas with those of his subjects. "'The question is, how does a man or a woman justify having incestuous relations?' he told me. 'I was reporting how people justified it. In most cases the article made that clear, but in some cases what the people I interviewed had said got mixed up with what I said.'" In the face of reputation-damaging public reaction, Farrell ended up not publishing the book.[16] Reason: The only sources, pornography and a radical feminist magazine’s attack whose purpose is to discredit the men’s issues movement’s leaders rather than report what is being said, is not a source worthy of Wikipedia. Re; Mother Jones, the comment section documents how people attending the conference covered by Mother Jones reported a completely different experience, such as half of the keynote speakers being women, including women of color, such as Senator Cools of Canada. Eliminated: Not all responses have been positive, as Mariah Blake notes in Mother Jones, and some readers have taken Farrell's claims to an extreme degree--using them as justification for violence, for example. As Blake notes, "It wasn't until recent controversies drew attention to the men's rights movement that Farrell began to feel his ideas were having a real impact. During an interview on NPR's All Things Considered in September (2014), Farrell suggested that men's rights activists were tackling the very problems that may prompt young men to go on shooting rampages. 'We're all in jeopardy,' he said, 'if we don't pay attention to the cries of pain and isolation and alienation that are happening among our sons.'[60]" The audience for his Twitter feed has found some of his tweets problematically sexist, such as "Does the [new edition of] Myth of Male Power start with a naked woman? See Warren Farrell's 2014 ebook. #mensissues."[61] Replaced With: While Farrell’s 2015 TEDx presentation on The Boy Crisis, [2] and his interviews related to his Why Men Earn More [3] have received broadly positive responses, he has also been controversial in both liberal and conservative circles. His support of Clinton in interviews with worldwide media also The Fiscal Times http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/05/10/Hillary-Plays-Woman-Card-More-Men-Are-Being-Dealt-Out; Yahoo https://www.yahoo.com/news/men-rights-pioneer-backs-hillary-000000407.html were protested by some men’s rights advocates [4]. Conversely, his statements on media such as NPR catalyzed the objections of some feminists. Farrell reminded feminists of the man-hating of some early feminists, such as Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men), and that it didn’t block him from finding feminism’s best intent. He argues that this compassion needs to be applied to men--that “it’s important to understand that anger is often vulnerability’s mask,” [See both http://www.npr.org/2014/09/02/343970601/men-s-rights-movement, and http://www.ttbook.org/book/men%E2%80%99s-rights-movement-then-and-now] that it is better to hear anger than to allow a volcano of repressed emotions to explode into school shootings. The 2016-17 release of the documentary, The Red Pill, [FN: http://theredpillmovie.com/ ] depicting feminist producer Cassie Jaye’s journey from her initial intent to do an attack piece on men’s rights activists, to her documenting why men’s issues should also be feminist issues, has had an impact on the popularity of Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power. It features The Myth of Male Power as the “red pill” that, once read by feminists, led to many becoming men’s rights activists. [FN: Besides Farrell, Fred Hayward, Harry Crouch, Paul Elam, and Steven Svoboda are featured, each originally feminists who became disillusioned.] The Red Pill also features Farrell as supporting the portions of feminism that expands women’s options, but objecting to the portions that he feels demonize men and undervalue the family and fathers. Reason: Re: the eliminated paragraph, there is no evidence of anyone taking Farrell’s claims as a justification for violence. Re; Mother Jones, the comment section documents how people attending the conference covered by Mother Jones reported a completely different experience, such as half of the keynote speakers being women, including women of color, such as Senator Cools of Canada. A radical feminist magazine’s attack whose purpose is to discredit the men’s issues movement’s leaders rather than report what is being said, is not a source worthy of Wikipedia. The eliminated paragraph only cites Wikipedia’s general page on NPR, which says nothing about the show being referred to. The replacement is the actual quote and a summary of the two NPR shows in which Farrell and NPR dealt with this issue. It is now in the context of both criticism and praise, in Wikipedia tradition. |
Brittany Pettibone is an extensive editor of the website. But there is no non-primary documentation that I could find about her and the website. Would it be okay to include a primary source due to its importance and the lack of current mainstream attention to it. She has a huge influential following, notability, and in my opinion should be included in it. Same thing with Lana Lokteff of Red Ice. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
YorkvilleFan (
talk •
contribs)
01:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Editor is a sock puppet
I noticed you removed Breitbart as an unreliable source. Is Breitbart unreliable on this article in particular because they supported the film, or has Breitbart been deemed unreliable in general? If the latter, please point me to the discussion page where this was decided. Thanks, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 04:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I am contacting you in regards to the article, Cuckservative. There were a number of recent edits/reverts regarding whether or not Richard Spencer should be listed as either a Nationalist, Supremacist, or Identity Activist.
Please take a moment to review the talk section I have generated here and provide whatever information you wish to convey on the matter. Thanks. Sawta ( talk) 17:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I am looking to understand the basis upon which you continue to revert edits to Bhargav Sri Prakash, as you repeatedly revert edits that have references to recently peer reviewed publications at Stanford Medical School, as well as a recent article on CNBC-TV18, as "puff". Both of these would be considered reliable sources for reference per wikipedia standard. Would you consider editing the contribution instead of just reverting it without even a discussion. It appears that your interpretation of the evidence presented in the scientific literature is inconsistent with the facts, as you assert that such research is based on psychology. Would you please disclose any conflict of interest with this subject and/or the need for misrepresenting the work of a living person? I am not a seasoned wikipedia contributor or power user but I am just a researcher. Should such baseless reverts of contributions prevail because of your administrative privileges, without as much of a willingness for a discussion on the talk page, then I guess I would just be more inclined to stop contributing to wikipedia. 2601:647:4D01:1100:95B6:66C:8B0F:C260 ( talk) 04:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
You disagree with me, and then threaten to block me and accuse of an edit war, which is also what you are doing. I don't understand why you accuse me of original research when I GAVE YOU THE SOURCES, THEIR VIDEO, WHICH WAS RACIST. Stop reverting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Williscroft ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, you seem to disagree that an individual who has been on a Disney Channel program counts as a notable member. This seems to be a bit subjective, however, and simply because you do not feel this program is as notable as others, I ask that you avoid letting your opinion get in the way of sharing this information. Furthermore, a clip of the program is accessible online, but it is hosted on Vimeo and is not permitted to be linked in the Wikipedia article. If you simply perform an internet search of "maddy snow globe girl show us your stuff", the first video result is a clip from the program. There is also an Instagram post with thousands of likes and comments regarding the program, ( https://www.instagram.com/p/77kWxbHMB-/) but I suspect that is not an ideal source either. Her linkedin profile as well as the Rhodes College Tri Delta facebook page both corroborate the fact that she is a member of the chapter. As such, there are independent sources proving that she is both notable, and a member of Tri Delta. Therefore, I ask that you stop removing her name and info from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.249.55 ( talk) 03:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
When you have a problem with part of an edit, fix it, instead of lazily reverting the whole thing and throwing away hours of someone else's work in five seconds. Jwray ( talk) 02:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Because of a multiplicity of new options, I've withdrawn the RfC you participated in and replaced it with this one Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell,
I'd appreciate it if you stopped defacing Lancaster Country Day School's page by removing my contributions to notable alumni. If you would like proof of the validity of the edits, I'd be happy to chat about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.53.74 ( talk) 01:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (415 Southwest 10th Avenue #300, Portland 97205) on Saturday, March 18, 2017 from 10:00am – 5:00pm. For more information, visit Eventbrite.
Hope to see you there! - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks like someone from the corporate side of Thrillist (Grp9) is trying to delete public information about the CEO of TMG and now Group Nine Media, Ben Lerer. Thank you for handling that. Lerer is currently in a public battle with employees over unionization efforts.
Carlstreator ( talk) 22:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)carlstreator
@Grayfell Hello, please specify what you mean by copyright. I work for Isagenix and everything (perhaps with exclusion to the Dr. Oz fact) that I updated is facts from our website and/or from our health blog in which we have permission to use.There is a ton of misinformation in all sections on the page that needs to be updated, this is not self promotion. Melizdean ( talk) 03:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Megan
@Greyfell Hello, I had seen you had revised my edit to the Pampers page and I understand why some was taken off however the UNICEF portion was written exclusively by me and there should have been no issue with the copyright there. Sorry about that, thanks.Sorry I believe I signed correctly if not my apologies.-- Cmitham ( talk) 13:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC) @cmitham-- Cmitham ( talk) 13:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell,
Thank you for the warm welcome. Twice now. I was not aware of the username policies when I created my original name - MSFocus.
This is about the page for * Multiple Sclerosis Foundation
I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia. I do work for the organization and wanted to maintain that transparency with my usernames.
I did not intend for the changes to be promotional, I just wanted to create an informative page, since our page in it's current form does not provide a lot of information.
Please let me know which changes I have submitted that need to be re-written in order to comply with Wikipedia rules.
Thank you
Tony at MS Focus ( talk) 18:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm new to this but I can see you keep reverting the additions to PJW's page. I don't understand how someone's own YouTube videos are not valid sources? I will continue to push to have these links as I think they provide an important aspect of PJW
Thanks
Tom230184 ( talk) 20:54, 28 March 2017 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Would appreciate your review and edit as needed of today's history. Thanks. -- Zefr ( talk) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grayfell, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 17:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Notifying you because the filer didn't. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 17:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You undid my edits to supply economics. After searching google scholar where papers are published that makes an argument, supply economics did have an impact on GDP and unemployment. However, all papers that were published, are by economists that favor support supply side economics. They are economists no different then Paul Krugman. My question, should I waste my time going through google scholar to reference the papers, or will it seem to be a conflict of interest? Which brings me to my other question, Keynesian economists are stated all time defending their position, so why can't supply side economists do the same? Nobody is arguing the revenue stream problem that Paul and other Kenesian points out but there is evidence made by supply side economists that the Regan and JFK tax cuts did grow the GDP and cut unemployment.( User talk:Madsalty) 08:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Got our message about the removal of the external link I've added to Wix.com Thanks for informing, you are saying they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The Wiki article says "many independent reviews named Wix as one of the best free website builders", but there was no confirmation of it. So I managed to add a link to reputable source with the review of website builders, that actually named Wix #1 for beginners. http://websitesetup.org/website-builders/ it should have made this information more reputable, haven't it? Anyway, not sure it is the right place to post this, as you can see I'm new here :)
Multimrnk ( talk) 09:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Will read all of the above guides for the next references! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Multimrnk (
talk •
contribs)
10:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell, thanks for your advice on providing a summary/reason for editing and I have changed my preferences as you suggested. Have learned a lot in the last few days. Best regards, Geeveraune ( talk) 10:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I see that we're going to have an ongoing relationship here regarding the page for A Different Drum. You seem to be infatuated with correcting my edits. Are you stalking me? Opticon98 ( talk) 22:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The early IBM HDs must have had some diagnostic information. Without an online manual one has to guess as to the parameters provided. Yet otherwise coverage of this improvement in the article is really lacking (separate from the SMART technology article).
In the modern era the S.M.A.R.T. HDD telemetry provides about 120 parameters out of 256, as for some reason the idiots that created the standard did not use UNSIGNED INT16 in the specifications. IBM's original HDDs must have provided at least 5 to 7 HD running parameters as a bare minimum.
Ergo, based on an average HD providing about 40 operational parameters ... this leads to a 7 times increase in provided data. Why anyone would want to censor this is beyond me, as HDDs are slowly verging towards the ash heap of history (due to the Flash Memory technology). Eyreland ( talk)
Please see here: Talk:Initiative_71#Rename_to_Cannabis_in_Washington.2C_D._C..2C_split_off.2C_or_what.3F
Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney ( talk) 23:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
There are probably many people like me who do not use this platform very often nor, because of other responsibilities and interests, do we have time to use it often, and yet we try to contribute meaningfully, fairly and even boldly.
My very limited experience of your editing style, limited to one page, and reading through this Talk page, is that you seek to be fair, to encourage neutrality in how people are editing, and you are interested in building the community.
That said, some of the ways in which you are interacting and your choices of editing are not aligned with these intentions you have.
My own experience of editing The Reader page included that my contribution was continually challenged and changed by you. Rather than seeing my evident knowledge on the subject as an asset, you viewed it, from the outset, with suspicion, and you continually eliminated my work. You justified doing so with a flourish of Wiki-regulations and jargon.
At The Reader and my personal Talk pages, I've taken much more time than I probably should have to explain where I believe you were wrong in your editing. I imagine some people, after reading through these notes, may find your editing unquestionably wrong, anti-collaborative, and alienating.
With your superior knowledge of this platform comes a responsibility to use this knowledge to foster the collaboration of others, and thereby build the community and the value of information on this platform, rather than use it to push them away.
Clearly, I'm not the only one who feels this way. Elsewhere in this talk section, another editor has experienced something similar in which s/he said, "I do think that your editing is very heavy-handed and somewhat arbitrary- and not always in accordance with Wiki Policies...The downside is that this approach is likely to discourage other editors from making new contributions."
I think it would be more fair and a wiser move to see others' contributions who have considerable knowledge on a subject as a result of place, proximity and experience and who are clearly trying-- as I have-- to live up to the ideals, rules and values of Wikipedia, to allow them their say. If you don't do this, and you use your superior knowledge of this platform to get others to do what you want, you're essentially pushing them away from the platform, which I know you don't actually want to have happen.
Most recently, although I'm not sure what the notification means, you wrote something at my Talk page to the effect that my role as an editor may be taken away if I don't comply with certain rules and that you will soon enlist other editors to make sure I comply with other requests of yours.
All of this you are directing at someone who rarely uses this platform and tries to use it fairly to the best of their ability. Is that not being somewhat heavy-handed and needlessly intimidating?
Thank you for reading this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBalandina ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Your editing choices and your interactions are more than "heavy-handed", they are pushy and reveal an overriding sense of your own rectitude and an incapacity to be influenced by others who disagree with your choices.
You have continually eliminated any possible positive statement made about The Reader Magazine, a sixteen year old publication in Southern California, which mostly as a result of your insistence, you have reduced to a single article written by a graduate student, who was subsequently sued for libel.
Most recently, you have argued that this article accusing the publication of plagiarism is so important that it be included in the second sentence of the entire entry on the publication, even though it is mentioned in the body of the entry. Your response is that it is proper to include it as it "summarizes" the publication-- according to who? You? You have eliminated positive, cited content to the point that the entry is so sparse that someone looking for information on The Reader Magazine-- because of you-- knows practically nothing about it, including information that is verified, cited and independent.
The positive statements about The Reader you argued to eliminate (and did eliminate) include cited statements made on record and in an article about The Reader Magazine by "Mr. Magazine" himself, Professor Samir Husni, a globally-recognized thought leader in the magazine publishing industry. Why would you would eliminate his critique of The Reader but not a graduate student's critique? Your rationale for eliminating his cited article and statements drifts into absurdity: you claim that Mr. Husni's article may be self-promotional, or that it appears online only even though the article you center upon, in the Columbia Journalism Review, is also only available online, and never appeared in print.
Please stop including that The Reader was accused of plagiarism more than once, and it should not be mentioned so close to the beginning of the description of the magazine. It colors the rest of the entry-- and let us not forget that this was an article written by student sued for libel, which is not immaterial. The rationale for making it somehow a "summary" is totally subjective, and it is unfair.
Second, please allow for "Mr. Magazine" or Samir Husni's statements about The Reader to be seen, because he is a distinguished, recognized authority in magazine publishing. To assume that his statements and article are not independent is to not assume good faith and is irrational given his position in the publishing industry as one of its leaders, and the credibility he has earned over decades.
Finally, The Reader Magazine is one of only 1,961 companies globally that has earned the designation of B-Certified (along with Seventh Generation, Etsy and others). Why have you, again taken this cited information away from the description? What I hope others see here is that your editing has been heavy-handed to the degree of unfairness. How? You have stripped down the description of The Reader to a negative caricature or cartoon. You've done this, even though information is available from independent and even non-profit publishers and globally recognized third-party institutions. So your style is actually materially hurtful to others-- all done in the name of your ballyhooed (and actually non-existent) neutrality, wrapped in your generous use of Wiki jargon, and ultimately unfair.
Thanks WikiBalandina ( talk) 02:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First World privilege is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First World privilege until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsrestoresanity ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Grayfell. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no ties to this living person. I am a tenured Professor of Architecture and Sustainability at the NUS (National University of Singapore). It is my opinion that the article about Sheila Sri Prakash is adequately backed by the numerous inline citations, references and reputable institutions that she serves, not the least of which include the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Furthermore, as a woman who entered this field in the 1970s from Asia, she is undeniably a trailblazer, social innovator and pioneer. Would you clarify your credentials/extent of expertise, to comment on the field of architecture and disclose any ties to the topic of this post, along with any conflict of interest with any others, as it appears that you are repeatedly trying to undermine the reputation of this living person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.14.185.67 ( talk) 00:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Please bear with me. Trying to clean up this article. Need help removing bogus citations. Never done that before. Dlawbailey ( talk) 09:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The articles referenced about Steve Bannon do not in anyway substantiate the claim that Bannon was "influenced" by Evola. They merely refer to the fact that Bannon mentioned Evola in reference to Alexandr Dugin and Euroasianism. Referring to a philosopher is not the same as claiming to be influenced by them. The articles mentioned were but click-bait smear articles intended to smear Bannon for ideological reasons. Spenglarian ( talk) 18:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
But some on the alt-right consider Mr. Bannon a door through which Evola’s ideas of a hierarchical society run by a spiritually superior caste can enter in a period of crisis.- perhaps it should be reworded to better reflect this, instead of removed entirely. Seraphim System ( talk) 19:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Seriously you need a better photo.
Especially when yours is stolen from fucking flickr and cropped.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/farber/153592927
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.210.91 ( talk) 04:41, 29 November 2016
Thanks. Grayfell for sparing your valuable time on the article. However, every brand has different products and services and there are dedicated pages for them as well on Wikipedia. For eg. For Apple Pay and Android Pay. Hence, I created this for Mi-Pay. In future, I will pay heed to what you say, particularly, for products that are less noticeable. Gupta Dindayal ( talk) 12:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear, I want to know, whether this article would be moved to the mainspace automatically after being reviewed or I need to do it manually. Please help! Gupta Dindayal ( talk) 12:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell,
I've seen you deleted some of my edits and I would like to know why. I added some paragraphs + external resource to hack up my data, don't you like them or just being picky? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Becks ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. I think these sites are positioned as trustful resources on its industry/market, also their writers have strong presence in sex work field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Becks ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
"Let someone else add this if it's so important". Could you please reference which Wikipedia rule this falls under? TariqMatters ( talk) 19:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Trying to game the system with this edit of yours after you reverted my edit in this manner doesn't put you in the greatest light as it just proves that you are just trying too hard to push your POV. If you have further problems with my latest revert of your reversion, do be more constructive in your attitude and take them to the talk page first. Flaggerton ( talk) 07:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell, I identified a few of Peter Marino's notable projects and put a revision in my sandbox [ [1]]. How does this look? Thanks for your help! Emikey-34 ( talk) 16:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Which parts in particular should be removed or improved? Thank you for your help. A.s.jones ( talk) 17:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for your note. I have no affiliation with Mr. Shaikh or his company besomebody. I downloaded the app a year ago and love the concept. I also have been following the movement during that time. I am not paid in anyway nor would I ever seek to be. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm very familiar with the rules and guidelines. I understand you're doing your part as a community leader, but I must say I am shocked by the unsubstantiated assumptions you've made. I was excited to contribute to the community and spent a significant amount of time researching everything prior to publishing. I used credible sources, including the actual organizations that gave awards ("ie Brandweek") and media (USA Today). I did not use any sites directly affiliated with Shaikh or his company. Moreover, I studied other biographies of living persons on Wikipedia to emulate the style and format of "proper articles" such as Gary Vaynerchuk, Kathryn Minshew, SaulPaul, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. I believe much of what was removed from my contribution was unnecessary, however I will look at the sources again and make the appropriate edits. Thank you A.s.jones ( talk) 23:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, his birthdate is available on his public Facebook profile page, I had seen other articles reference birthdates in this way. I know now not to use those as precedent. Also, in one of the references you removed from a newspaper it referenced Shaikh as a Klein High School grad, also publicly available on his profile page. I appreciate this feedback and understand your concerns. It's cool how passionate you are about protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. I want to do that as well. I will be making some additional changes and then I will let you know. I would appreciate you letting me know if the edits/updates I make are in line with Wikipedia's ethos. I won't use other articles anymore as references." A.s.jones ( talk) 20:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Jtrrs0 ( talk) 15:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, your comment about reverting my edit was "see talk," but I saw no discussion there, other than the one I posted tonight. Amywestervelt ( talk) 05:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grey
I have been trying to create a wikipage with the name Creditseva since a week and i am facing issues in this process. I have been modifying and improvising the content quality everytime you have suggested changes. Inspite of doing this at a regular basis, i have been seeing that my content is a promotional content and it looks like an advertisement. I have referred all the guidelines mentioned by you after you have reviewed the Creditseva wikipage. I fail to understand the reason for the content to get approved by you without the tag of advertisement or promotional content
Could you please help me on this, as in what has to be exactly removed in the content provided by me. As you had mentioned recently, there are no peacock words in this content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mratnam176 ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response Grey. Sorry for asking the same question at two different pages. I am not accustomed to the Wikipedia page, so it was difficult to understand where i was going wrong. Thank you for giving me direction and showing me the correct path in such a clear way.I am working on the guidelines mentioned by you, after i have completed making the changes, i will update you on this talk page. Please review so that i can post it finally on the wikipage in such a way that it is free from any errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mratnam176 ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Grey
I have made the necessary changes in the Creditseva Wikipage by improvising the content quality and removing all those words that made you feel its a promotional content, kindly review it and please remove the promotional content tag. Mratnam176 ( talk) 09:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller
talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Thank you Grey for looking in on the page I created - I have seen all your edits and agree with them - I took off the Advert warning as I thought you had done a superb job of returning it to it's former glory - if you disagree - please let me know what else needs doing and I'll get on it - still learning the correct form! Commanderjameson ( talk) 11:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you have made a revision to the how tag that I added to the article on Cuckservative. I've added a section to the talk page highlighting some of the questions I have with the accusations of racism. Feel free to comment here Sawta ( talk) 21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and have been editing low stakes pages. I do not understand how that content appears to be promotional. If so, please help fix the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveDorf ( talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Thank you for your patient and diligent work on Arsh Shah Dilbagi and related edits. Wikishovel ( talk) 10:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, I noticed you reverted the edit I made to Red pill and blue pill on the grounds that "Women's hypergamous nature" is a fringe opinion and should not be stated as a simple fact. I understand that the issue of hypergamy is very controversial and that the opinions of /r/theredpill are a minority. I apologize if my edit came off the wrong way but my intention was just to point out one of the primary issues/opinions that the subreddit discusses regardless of whether they are generally considered to be true or not. 99.252.156.13 ( talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
With regards to your reversion, the language "real or perceived" is literally more neutral than the innate assumption that all systems in which white people hold the majority of social or financial capitol are operating under deliberately manufactured white supremacy. Consider a country like Sweden which until recently has not even had the chance to practice white supremacy politically due to its overwhelming native Swede majority: as its immigrant population increases the state has been incredibly accommodating. The notion of white supremacy is not a system of government, it's an ideology with various implications depending on social climate and history. Therefore, implying that suggestions of its existence in all given systems are automatically true is the biased stance. Saying "real or perceived" prevents generalizations in the global context.
Nerdcatcher ( talk) 13:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Re. your reverting my edits, there wasn't a word of original research. All fully referenced as David Benatar as I was just in the process of adding. Balance is needed in this section as there are scores of points on the good in life and one line on the bad. Perhaps you could add this balance? Pipkin2.0 ( talk) 00:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've taken it from the same text as referenced at antinatalism David Benatar. Sound reference, if a somewhat unpalatable subject for some. Pipkin2.0 ( talk) 00:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You made some minor edits to List of sports team names and mascots derived from indigenous peoples (thanks) without commenting on my proposed split/renaming. Since it has been a month since I placed the notice I will proceed with the process.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 16:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell, Thank you for your advices. I have removed the promotional words from the page Rajdweep Dey. Please remove the advertisement tag as it is not an advertisement. Rajdweep is a famous playwright, lyricist from the state of Assam, India. I have given some reliable sources also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axomiya deka ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
If you say so. Personally, I feel such summaries fail to accurately capture what the person was trying to convey for the sake of shortening an article by a few characters. Cheers, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
"I think the next step is for women to reach inside of ourselves and find that courage and run for office to change some laws."or
"It's so imperative that people of my generation, native to technology, that we step up and make our voices known."(I do not believe any of those quotes belong, in case that wasn't obvious.) It's clear from the source that her decision to run was not just about Trump, so using that quote while ignoring the larger context provided by the article is non-neutral. That's why quotes are so tricky. So to answer your question, yes, I believe my summary addresses a POV issue introduced by your direct quote. To extend this to an "in general" sense, this issue comes up pretty often. For several reasons, I feel that if a short summary works well, it's almost always (but not always) going to be more neutral than using a lengthier quote. Grayfell ( talk) 06:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to wait on secondary sources that will be coming regarding the reckless driving criminal convictions. But why remove the entire paragraph including the weapons charge and upcoming sentencing of Feb. 3, 2017, which is well sourced? (I can and will add two more sources, including the WSJ and the Hill) This charge is quite relevant. Where do you propose this paragraph go on the page then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon3579 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of patience |
Bless you. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 02:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC) |
Thank you for the input on why the material I added on my company's page was removed. I have a question, however. If I follow the procedure for giving copyright approval for the material from our website, will the OTRS pending template show up for all viewers, or only members of Wikipedia? Logan!1989 ( talk) 01:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you consider that Brittany and Nicole Pettibone should be merged into one article named T.S Pettibone? They are working with
Lauren Southern,
InfoWars, and are heavily influential in the alternative right movement. It would seem that it would carry a Wikipedia page, but it definitely requires work on independent third-party sources. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Can1r53 (
talk •
contribs)
04:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:SOCK
Would you consider Brittany Pettibone as starting with alt-right or conservative in the description? I've seen both listed, but she seems to be freely associated with the alt-right movement. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Can1r53 (
talk •
contribs)
04:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:SOCK
Hello Grayfell, Thanks for the welcome, Hope its ok saying Thank you here! Picnicin ( talk) 02:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell, is there a means to reach you privately? If yes, do let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggie Olubunmi Atere ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Discuss at
Talk:Warren Farrell, not here.
|
---|
Here are my complete edits and reasons. Please reinstate my changes... Eliminated: Before writing further about men's issues and empowerment, Farrell spent years researching incest, including the ways people who commit incest justify their actions and (controversially) the potentially positive impact on family life. In a 2015 article in Mother Jones magazine, Mariah Blake summed up his findings and quoted him on the topic: "In a 1977 interview with Penthouse, Farrell explained that some saw incest as 'part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection.' The magazine also quoted him as saying that 'genitally caressing' children was 'part of a caring, loving expression' that helped them develop healthy sexuality." These ideas threatened his reputation; as Blake reported, "Farrell maintains that he said "generally caressing" and that the magazine conflated his ideas with those of his subjects. "'The question is, how does a man or a woman justify having incestuous relations?' he told me. 'I was reporting how people justified it. In most cases the article made that clear, but in some cases what the people I interviewed had said got mixed up with what I said.'" In the face of reputation-damaging public reaction, Farrell ended up not publishing the book.[16] Reason: The only sources, pornography and a radical feminist magazine’s attack whose purpose is to discredit the men’s issues movement’s leaders rather than report what is being said, is not a source worthy of Wikipedia. Re; Mother Jones, the comment section documents how people attending the conference covered by Mother Jones reported a completely different experience, such as half of the keynote speakers being women, including women of color, such as Senator Cools of Canada. Eliminated: Not all responses have been positive, as Mariah Blake notes in Mother Jones, and some readers have taken Farrell's claims to an extreme degree--using them as justification for violence, for example. As Blake notes, "It wasn't until recent controversies drew attention to the men's rights movement that Farrell began to feel his ideas were having a real impact. During an interview on NPR's All Things Considered in September (2014), Farrell suggested that men's rights activists were tackling the very problems that may prompt young men to go on shooting rampages. 'We're all in jeopardy,' he said, 'if we don't pay attention to the cries of pain and isolation and alienation that are happening among our sons.'[60]" The audience for his Twitter feed has found some of his tweets problematically sexist, such as "Does the [new edition of] Myth of Male Power start with a naked woman? See Warren Farrell's 2014 ebook. #mensissues."[61] Replaced With: While Farrell’s 2015 TEDx presentation on The Boy Crisis, [2] and his interviews related to his Why Men Earn More [3] have received broadly positive responses, he has also been controversial in both liberal and conservative circles. His support of Clinton in interviews with worldwide media also The Fiscal Times http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/05/10/Hillary-Plays-Woman-Card-More-Men-Are-Being-Dealt-Out; Yahoo https://www.yahoo.com/news/men-rights-pioneer-backs-hillary-000000407.html were protested by some men’s rights advocates [4]. Conversely, his statements on media such as NPR catalyzed the objections of some feminists. Farrell reminded feminists of the man-hating of some early feminists, such as Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men), and that it didn’t block him from finding feminism’s best intent. He argues that this compassion needs to be applied to men--that “it’s important to understand that anger is often vulnerability’s mask,” [See both http://www.npr.org/2014/09/02/343970601/men-s-rights-movement, and http://www.ttbook.org/book/men%E2%80%99s-rights-movement-then-and-now] that it is better to hear anger than to allow a volcano of repressed emotions to explode into school shootings. The 2016-17 release of the documentary, The Red Pill, [FN: http://theredpillmovie.com/ ] depicting feminist producer Cassie Jaye’s journey from her initial intent to do an attack piece on men’s rights activists, to her documenting why men’s issues should also be feminist issues, has had an impact on the popularity of Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power. It features The Myth of Male Power as the “red pill” that, once read by feminists, led to many becoming men’s rights activists. [FN: Besides Farrell, Fred Hayward, Harry Crouch, Paul Elam, and Steven Svoboda are featured, each originally feminists who became disillusioned.] The Red Pill also features Farrell as supporting the portions of feminism that expands women’s options, but objecting to the portions that he feels demonize men and undervalue the family and fathers. Reason: Re: the eliminated paragraph, there is no evidence of anyone taking Farrell’s claims as a justification for violence. Re; Mother Jones, the comment section documents how people attending the conference covered by Mother Jones reported a completely different experience, such as half of the keynote speakers being women, including women of color, such as Senator Cools of Canada. A radical feminist magazine’s attack whose purpose is to discredit the men’s issues movement’s leaders rather than report what is being said, is not a source worthy of Wikipedia. The eliminated paragraph only cites Wikipedia’s general page on NPR, which says nothing about the show being referred to. The replacement is the actual quote and a summary of the two NPR shows in which Farrell and NPR dealt with this issue. It is now in the context of both criticism and praise, in Wikipedia tradition. |
Brittany Pettibone is an extensive editor of the website. But there is no non-primary documentation that I could find about her and the website. Would it be okay to include a primary source due to its importance and the lack of current mainstream attention to it. She has a huge influential following, notability, and in my opinion should be included in it. Same thing with Lana Lokteff of Red Ice. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
YorkvilleFan (
talk •
contribs)
01:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Editor is a sock puppet
I noticed you removed Breitbart as an unreliable source. Is Breitbart unreliable on this article in particular because they supported the film, or has Breitbart been deemed unreliable in general? If the latter, please point me to the discussion page where this was decided. Thanks, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 04:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I am contacting you in regards to the article, Cuckservative. There were a number of recent edits/reverts regarding whether or not Richard Spencer should be listed as either a Nationalist, Supremacist, or Identity Activist.
Please take a moment to review the talk section I have generated here and provide whatever information you wish to convey on the matter. Thanks. Sawta ( talk) 17:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I am looking to understand the basis upon which you continue to revert edits to Bhargav Sri Prakash, as you repeatedly revert edits that have references to recently peer reviewed publications at Stanford Medical School, as well as a recent article on CNBC-TV18, as "puff". Both of these would be considered reliable sources for reference per wikipedia standard. Would you consider editing the contribution instead of just reverting it without even a discussion. It appears that your interpretation of the evidence presented in the scientific literature is inconsistent with the facts, as you assert that such research is based on psychology. Would you please disclose any conflict of interest with this subject and/or the need for misrepresenting the work of a living person? I am not a seasoned wikipedia contributor or power user but I am just a researcher. Should such baseless reverts of contributions prevail because of your administrative privileges, without as much of a willingness for a discussion on the talk page, then I guess I would just be more inclined to stop contributing to wikipedia. 2601:647:4D01:1100:95B6:66C:8B0F:C260 ( talk) 04:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
You disagree with me, and then threaten to block me and accuse of an edit war, which is also what you are doing. I don't understand why you accuse me of original research when I GAVE YOU THE SOURCES, THEIR VIDEO, WHICH WAS RACIST. Stop reverting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Williscroft ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, you seem to disagree that an individual who has been on a Disney Channel program counts as a notable member. This seems to be a bit subjective, however, and simply because you do not feel this program is as notable as others, I ask that you avoid letting your opinion get in the way of sharing this information. Furthermore, a clip of the program is accessible online, but it is hosted on Vimeo and is not permitted to be linked in the Wikipedia article. If you simply perform an internet search of "maddy snow globe girl show us your stuff", the first video result is a clip from the program. There is also an Instagram post with thousands of likes and comments regarding the program, ( https://www.instagram.com/p/77kWxbHMB-/) but I suspect that is not an ideal source either. Her linkedin profile as well as the Rhodes College Tri Delta facebook page both corroborate the fact that she is a member of the chapter. As such, there are independent sources proving that she is both notable, and a member of Tri Delta. Therefore, I ask that you stop removing her name and info from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.249.55 ( talk) 03:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
When you have a problem with part of an edit, fix it, instead of lazily reverting the whole thing and throwing away hours of someone else's work in five seconds. Jwray ( talk) 02:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Because of a multiplicity of new options, I've withdrawn the RfC you participated in and replaced it with this one Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell,
I'd appreciate it if you stopped defacing Lancaster Country Day School's page by removing my contributions to notable alumni. If you would like proof of the validity of the edits, I'd be happy to chat about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.53.74 ( talk) 01:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (415 Southwest 10th Avenue #300, Portland 97205) on Saturday, March 18, 2017 from 10:00am – 5:00pm. For more information, visit Eventbrite.
Hope to see you there! - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks like someone from the corporate side of Thrillist (Grp9) is trying to delete public information about the CEO of TMG and now Group Nine Media, Ben Lerer. Thank you for handling that. Lerer is currently in a public battle with employees over unionization efforts.
Carlstreator ( talk) 22:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)carlstreator
@Grayfell Hello, please specify what you mean by copyright. I work for Isagenix and everything (perhaps with exclusion to the Dr. Oz fact) that I updated is facts from our website and/or from our health blog in which we have permission to use.There is a ton of misinformation in all sections on the page that needs to be updated, this is not self promotion. Melizdean ( talk) 03:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Megan
@Greyfell Hello, I had seen you had revised my edit to the Pampers page and I understand why some was taken off however the UNICEF portion was written exclusively by me and there should have been no issue with the copyright there. Sorry about that, thanks.Sorry I believe I signed correctly if not my apologies.-- Cmitham ( talk) 13:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC) @cmitham-- Cmitham ( talk) 13:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell,
Thank you for the warm welcome. Twice now. I was not aware of the username policies when I created my original name - MSFocus.
This is about the page for * Multiple Sclerosis Foundation
I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia. I do work for the organization and wanted to maintain that transparency with my usernames.
I did not intend for the changes to be promotional, I just wanted to create an informative page, since our page in it's current form does not provide a lot of information.
Please let me know which changes I have submitted that need to be re-written in order to comply with Wikipedia rules.
Thank you
Tony at MS Focus ( talk) 18:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm new to this but I can see you keep reverting the additions to PJW's page. I don't understand how someone's own YouTube videos are not valid sources? I will continue to push to have these links as I think they provide an important aspect of PJW
Thanks
Tom230184 ( talk) 20:54, 28 March 2017 (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. |