User talk:Grayfell/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Grayfell. 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 7

→

Seb Gorka

Hi, I'm a reporter with CNN doing a story on Seb Gorka editing his own Wikipedia page.

I believe these four accounts are all possibly Mr. Gorka editing through different accounts, after his initial account Sk-Gorka was compromised and Wikipedia flagged him editing his own account.

I noticed you also noticed this and request a Sockpuppet investigation. Is it possible to trace if the accounts are linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNNKFILe (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@CNNKFILe: Hello. Short answer: yes it's usually possible, but only for some Wikipedia administrators.

For privacy reasons, only a subset of administrators have access to the software needed to determine if accounts are shared by a user. This tool, and it's users, are called CheckUsers (Wikipedia:CheckUser). Since it could be used to personally identify an editor, and Wikipedia allows and protects editors' rights to edit anonymously, this is only used in limited cases. Checkuser is only rarely used to link an account to a real person, but this might be an exception. It's complicated, and I'm not an admin (nor a checkuser), but those are the basics.

Since this is an unusual request, you could try Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting a CheckUser to see what they say. Hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNNKFILe (talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Lemelson

Hi Grayfell, appreciate your edits, but the stuff that was taken out of the Emmanuel Lemelson page was either unsourced or inaccurate - hope to improve the readability of the page and improve accuracy. Welcome discussion. Cypresscross (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cypresscross: If you welcome discussion, you should respond to my comments on the article's talk page instead of edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Just finished typing the response on the talk page, which I didn't see before. No intention of edit warring, which is why I reached out to you on this page and thanked you on the edit history for the constructive and positive edits made.Cypresscross (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cypresscross: If you are not interested in edit warring, you should revert until the discussion is resolved. Your revert also undid several other formatting fixes without explanation. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Larvatus v. Prodeo

Larvatus v. Prodeo is not a sock of Seb Gorka! Please leave the red link to Paul Gorka alone. As mentioned on the Talk page I am preparing a stub for him. He is noted in multiple sources. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Larvatus v. Prodeo: When the article is ready, then it can be linked. Currently your sandbox only has a routine link which utterly fails WP:NBIO. Without some indication of notability, notability is not inherited and the burden is on you to establish that through reliable, independent sources. Additionally, calling another editor a "nooby" and "annoying" is inappropriate, especially since that editor is more experienced than you! No personal attacks. That's a policy. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The hope is that someone else might contribute it. I mentioned on the Talk page I would prepare one when I had time.. That wasn't a personal attack. Stop being a pain. And that wasn't a personal attack either. Larvatus v. Prodeo (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Larvatus v. Prodeo: I get it, but as a practical matter, redlinks are extremely inefficient at prompting new articles. At least, by themselves they don't accomplish much. In this case, the link implies a greater degree of significance than is necessarily warranted. The burden is on you to provide sources for challenged material. I know it's a pain, but editing Wikipedia is often a pain, so... Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding MyPustak

Hi Grayfell, appreciate your edits, but can you please explain how the references of 3 different media channels (popular hindi news papers) are not reliable or independent? You can simply google about it and get enough information. I am associated with this company so I know about it. You can see its impact by reading reviews on site, news papers or you tube videos. You are very much experienced as I have seen your enormous meaningful editing on wikipedia pages, so you can guide me. May be I can find more reliable information to make MyPustak wiki page with more informative with independent contents. I am a wikipedia reader since more than a decade so I am aware that it's not a marketing place, rest assured that my contents won't violate this condition. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.191.35.24 (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, I don't have time to give a more thoughtful response right now. I will give this matter appropriate attention in a few hours, hopefully. In the mean time, please carefully read WP:COI if you haven't already. Thanks for bringing this to talk, and again, sorry for the brief reply. Grayfell (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: No Problem. When I said I am associated it doesn't mean that I am an employee or promoter of this company. Saw about them in newspaper and also donated my books to this company. when I found that it doesn't have a wikipedia page so created it. I tried to collect all relevant information from google. will keep adding if I find more. That's maximum I can do. You are most welcome to edit, remove or delete this if it is not meeting wikipedia guidelines. --Gelato7311 (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:MyPustak. To avoid confusion, it would be best to continue discussion there. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Following my edits

Greyfell I noticed that you have been following me around from place to place on Wikipedia, regularly making unconstructive comments and/or edits to various pages that I've worked on, which is beginning to be a disruption to the work. Can you please explain what your aim is, is there an overriding reason for this? Cypresscross (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have been keeping an eye on your activity. I am concerned by the promotional style of many of your edits. The Lemelson articles had a very disruptive history with sock-puppetry, personal attacks, and other disruptive activity. Many of your edits have been almost exactly the same as those past edits, including the using of "Religious leadership and philanthropy" for a section header. That you have been editing other topics is a positive step, but much of that activity has also been promotional, as I've explained at those articles. Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

What you are saying here, like the entry you made on my talk page, is neither true nor accurate. Entries that have been made on various different articles have been carefully thought-out, well referenced and supported by other editors. Occasionally those edits have been improved by other editor, but so far you alone have undone my edits, and you alone follow me from place to place on Wikipedia, making destructive and negative comments. Cypresscross (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted my entry on your talk page here. You need to review WP:3RR given what you have been doing to my edits, it is a hard line you need to be aware of to avoid being blocked for edit warring. You my also want to review WP:HOUND, which is a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Cypresscross (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You reverted twice without even leaving an edit summary. That's the start of edit warring, so I stand by that message. You posting something in two places, once to your own talk page and once to mine. I already responded once, and having the exact same thing in two places is totally redundant and almost certain to cause needless confusion. I do have some authority over my own talk page also, per WP:TPG, and reverting redundant content, once, isn't editing warring by any stretch.

Labeling something 'bad' doesn't make it bad. Your dislike of my changes doesn't make them destructive or negative. Improvement isn't confined to making articles more flattering, or to piling on more content. I know it might seem frustrating, but that's the nature of editing - knowing what to leave out, and knowing how to preserve WP:NPOV. If you want to add interesting info you've found about people you're following or admire, you have to prove that it's encyclopedic. That's messy, and sometimes very stressful. A glance at the older posts to Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson proves that.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. - Between past history of the Lemelson article and promotional content added, I believe that I have good cause to track your edits. I have not checked most of your edits, and don't intend to. Grayfell (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Labeling edits or content "promotional" doesn't make them promotional. I hope you understand that the rules of WP apply to you as well. Cypresscross (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I am happy to go into detail about why some of your edits have been promotional. I think the appropriate place would be the articles' talk pages, right? Grayfell (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding BAMN

Hi Greyfell,

I made an edit to the BAMN page regarding accusations of cultish behavior. You said that I didn't provide resources but I'm very sure that I did. In any case, here are the resources.

https://secretsurvivorsofbamn.wordpress.com/about/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQwfTPqn5kc&t=1475s https://www.facebook.com/confessionsucberkeley/posts/882903461742282?hc_location=ufi

This includes someone's personal account from 2014 of escaping BAMN (his words, not mine), a site that claims to speak for "survivors of the organization" and Sargon of Akkad's detailed look at BAMN itself and cross referencing it to several videos he did about cults a year before based on Dr. Arthur Deikman's book on cult behavior. I believe that should be enough to warrant the section going up.

Thanks. Life 185.120.125.29 (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Not just sources, they must be reliable sources, which has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. None of those you added are reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. Please find independently published sources (not self-published sources, like blogs or Facebook posts) which have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Sargon of Akkad is a popular Youtuber, but he isn't a recognized expert on any of this, so his opinion is not usable for this article. If there were good secondary coverage of his opinions on BAMN, it could be considered for inclusion with attribution, but I don't see any other way to add that to the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2015/08/12/detroit-teachers-union-president-ousted/31557069/

This is a record of how a close affiliate of BAMN failed to investigate abuse and physical assault of DFT members by BAMN members. I can look for other records but there are some seriously shady things about BAMN if we want to be nice about it.

Honestly, give /pol/ about a week on this topic and they'll dig up the sources needed by your standard. Life 185.120.125.29 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure they will try, but the chans have a very uneven record with vigilante justice, if we want to be nice about it. Whatever they dig up, or claim to dig up, still has to be published by reliable outlets, and /pol/'s not exactly a trusted journalistic source.

That Detroit News source is a step in the right direction, but it's too weak for any grand claims of shady things. Be very cautious of original research. Whatever shady things you find need to be directly linked to BAMN by those reliable sources to be included in the BAMN article. If it's not spelled out by the source, it doesn't belong in the article. WP:DUE is also worth looking at. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon @ PNCA Library (April 29, 2017)

You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) Library at 511 NW Broadway on Saturday, April 29, 2017, from 11am to 4pm. For more information, visit the Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Alt-right

All I did was state facts about the situation based on content from a user's userpage. I get the impression you both try to persuade the public of your own agenda. I'm not fooled by your lawyerly rhetoric. I come to Wikipedia for truth and honestly, not for the opinion of some far-left activist. I called it and you know it. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 07:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

What facts did you state? "...persuade the public of your own agenda." How? What does that mean? As for lawyerly rhetoric, yeah, whatever. That's sort of how this works, like it or not. What did you expect? You misused "conflict of interest", which is term borrowed from law. Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

EvergreenFir has COI, which is what she stated on her page which almost definately curves her views on what she edits. She admits she believes in what she studies. The way you go around the bush like you don't know what I'm talking about makes me think that you do this for a living. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 08:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That's how Wikipedia works? Lawyerly rhetoric and all the bad things that entails? Does that make you feel proud? [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 08:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You guys are trying to shut me down because I disagree with your control of information in favor of both of your feminist leftist views. I'm not against you guys having your opinions, i'm against this control of information and public thought you guys enact. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 08:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@QubixQdotta: I'm not sure what you wrote over on Talk:Alt-right but I assume it was inappropriate because Drmies revdelled the edits. I closed your discussion because it was the same thing you complained about in January with a bonus accusation of paid editing from BuzzFeed thrown in. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

QubixQdotta, you are just flat-out wrong about COI. Interest in this phrase doesn't mean the same thing as when people say "that's so interesting". People have opinions, that's not the same as a COI. It's not even close.

I'm not paid by anyone to edit Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter, though. These unsupported conspiracy theories stir up a lot of shit, but they don't effect your complaints about the article itself. It doesn't make you right, or make you wrong. It just makes it so that others are way less willing to listen to you. It makes it look like you're trying to dox editors and start drama. Doubling down on this here, on my talk page, just makes it worse. If you keep it up, I would be very surprised if you aren't blocked again indefinitely.

We've had past conversations about how important reliable sources are. I wasn't making any of that up. If you choose to edit this topic again when your block expires, you need to find reliable sources about the topic and go from there, instead of attacking individual editors you don't agree with. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That's awesome good for you Grayfell, appreciate the honest editing. It wasn't my initial impression. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't really give a shit about what you guys believe, all I care about how the content is approached. WP:NPOV is very very important to me, especially in politics. If you read an article, you shouldn't be able to tell: This was written and controlled by two feminist left-leaning people that obviously bring their baggage into it. I don't give a shit about your personal political views, at least not until you guys made me give a shit, with your obviously biased editing and page control. This article is controversial and therefore should hold even closer to NPOV. I don't know how else to say it, just stop using "reliable sources" (which is what they but biased ones) to paint your narrative because it's against the spirit of Wikipedia. I mean really do you think you're convincing me I'm such a bad Wikipedian when I can carry out a very basic principle of Wikipedia? [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes editors do misuse reliable sources to push a POV, and sure, it should be held to a high standard. You think that's what's happening here, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot more to prove it. According to the article's info page, I've made about 5% of the article's total edits, and EvergreenFir has made about 1.5%. I bet most of that for both of us has been reverting petty vandalism or similar gnome-work. We didn't write it, and we're not "in control" of it. If getting blocked is the best strategy you can come up with to change the article, you're admitting defeat in a battle nobody else even wants to fight.

I don't think you're a bad Wikipedian; as I've said before, I appreciate some of the hard work you've done. I still do, but I think you're behaving pretty badly right now. It seems like a lot of other experienced editors, including at least a couple of admins, agree with me. You screwed up, and now it's time to try something else. I recommend starting with sources, but you do what you gotta do. Leave the personal attacks out of it, though. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care that I got blocked. Like what?, I just got taught a lesson by a bunch of Wiki elites that break important Wikipedia guidelines all the time? At least I'm doing what I believe in. Standing up against what I think is wrong: telling people what to believe. There's plenty of generalizations and stupid narratives going around and the last thing I wanna see is Wikipedia full of it. "All alt-right members are racist" is one of those things - yes, it doesn't make it sense, but with an open understanding of the world and not seeing it through a hate filled rage further instigated by propaganda - yes there is a "non-racist alt-right culture" (at least thats what conservative sources say and what weird LGBT conservative people like Milo say). It's assumed that Democratic sources want to have the worst out for conservatives, it's just the way it is. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos isn't a reliable source and doesn't get a pass on his obnoxious behavior just because he's gay. Using that as some sort of deflection shows a total lack of familiarity with the underling problem. Or was there some other reason you brought up his sexuality? "Not your shield" indeed.

This isn't about conservatives, this is about the alt-right. Conflating those two different things only undermines your argument. The alt-right is very, very specifically opposed to mainstream conservatives. That's just about the only thing everybody seems to agree on. Do you have any reliable sources saying that there is a "non-racist alt-right culture"? If you're quoting alt-lite sources like Breitbart, I'm guessing the answer is "no". There are plenty of Republican-friendly sources opposed to the alt-right, but even if the "Democratic" sources have the worst out for them... that doesn't actually make those sources wrong, does it? Scientists often speak out against pseudoscience. Governments often speak out against crime. Historians often speak out against revisionists... that doesn't make them wrong, it makes them useful. Labeling that propaganda is just saying "I don't think this is accurate". You're going to have to do a lot better than that. As for breaking guideline, I don't try and dox people. You're the only one of us who's done that lately, so don't pass this off like you're some sort of lone-wolf hero fighting against the man. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, amazing argument: Yiannopoulos is obnoxious and I don't like him so therefore he doesn't have anything worth mentioning. Totally NPOV towards alt-right. Underlying problem? When did I speak on an underlying problem? I'm just restating what people in the movement said. If I were to define an "underlying problem" that would mean I'm trying to share my own opinion, no? This isn't about my opinion, if it did that wouldn't be NPOV. That's great there's Republican sources that oppose the alt-right, those are good sources too. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 04:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but also somehow our worldview causes bias but yours doesn't? The issue is the reliable sources (primarily mainstream news outlets) describe the alt-right as white nationalists. You disagree, but as an encyclopedia we reflect the reliable sources, not individual editors. You want the depiction of the alt-right to change, better to lobby the news outlets instead of here because that's where we get out info. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a whole world of sources I don't agree with, or like, but which are still reliable. Many are Republican: The Washington Examiner has been popping up a lot recently. I will use that site as a source when it's important or helpful, happily, because it makes it a little easier to avoid pointless, distracting accusations of 'biased' sources. The underlying problem is that Yiannopoulos is a crap source in his own right. I don't like Yiannopoulos, but that has nothing to do with why he's unreliable. It has everything to do with Breitbart having an abysmal record for fact checking or accuracy. Here's a source from the Washington Examiner, which again, I personally dislike, which specifically calls him alt-right and explains why Breitbart had to fire Yiannopoulos. Here's another about how Breitbart is part of the FBI's probe into Russian involvement in the election. And so on, and so on, and so on...[1][2][3][4][5][plenty more where that came from] Obviously he is "worth mentioning" because his opinions are already in the article. So what part of this one unreliable, largely discredited tabloid journalist's opinion should be expanded on, and why? If many reliable sources are saying his "explainer" op-ed was kinda crap, why do we need to give it any more weight than its already got? Is he really the perspective you want to rely on to suggest that the alt-right isn't racist? I don't buy it.

You're going to have to do actual work here, like find new sources, or specifically explain why already used sources are misused, or something other than accusing us of being too opinionated. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay first of all the fact that Yiannopoulos's source information/Breitbart is unreliable is completely aside from the point. What he has to say about the culture is what matters, I could care less about whatever weird Alex Jones shit he has to say. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 19:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And second of all, I never said the alt-right "isn't racist" - but your extreme "is" is exactly the problem here. It's just as racist as any other major political movement of a racial majority of anyone. Take Black Lives Matter as an example, there's tons of racists in BLM that are apart of racist organizations such as the Nation of Islam, but that doesn't mean everyone in BLM is a racist, they just believe in their cause. Alt-right is a lot of people that hate the way the government works and have nationalist views, naturally that attracts a lot of really extreme thinkers which ironically are no more extreme than NOI or Louie Farrakhan if you want to draw parallels. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 19:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's completely beside the point, why did you even bring it up? You said there was a non-racist alt-right culture... according to Yiannopoulos. You "never said", but you specifically tried to use him to support your point. I'm not the one who brought up Yiannopoulos. You're admitting that he's unreliable, but still want his opinion that the alt-right isn't racist to be included anyway? Wikipedia doesn't validate WP:FRINGE perspectives. If the point is that some people don't accept that the alt-right is racist... who cares? People think lots of things, but we present them in proportion to reliable sources. He's not reliable, but other sources -reliable sources- discussed his opinions, so we included that in the article, but only as it was contextualized by those reliable sources.

I don't particularly want to draw parallels, but I'll follow up on yours, anyway. The alt-right was named and originally promoted by an actual-factual white nationalist specifically to make his racist ideology more palatable to people who didn't know better. It was part of a specific tactic to promote his viewpoint to angry white people who were not willing to embrace white nationalism. It was an advertising stunt for racism. That is, as an origin, "more extreme" than BLM. That organization was started by academics and labor organizers with the goal of campaigning against the disproportionately high rate of killings of unarmed black people by police. If BLM's founders' get their goal, black people will be shot less, and will be arrested and sentenced the same as white people. If the alt-right's founder gets his goal, white people will live in an strictly regulated "ethnostate" and non-white people and Jews will dwindle to extinction in a "peaceful genocide". I don't accept that those two things are even similar, much less just as bad as each other. It's inane to point out that any large group can contain extremists. Everybody already knows it, and it's not that simple anyway. Reliable sources, news, opinion, academic, and other, again and again hammer home the racist origins, racist actions, racially charged harassment campaigns, racist immigration policies, and so on, of the alt-right. The only people talking that way about BLM are op-eds, mostly in fringe sources, and they rarely if ever seem to actually have any evidence or policy positions to back it up. That's what matter here: sources.

So, with that in mind, do you have any sources? Are you more interested in proving that the alt-right isn't entirely racist? Find reliable source. You think there's extremists in BLM that we need to be talking about? Find reliable sources. I don't know any other ways to say this. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Sefaira page

Hi Grayfell - thanks for your good work on Wikipedia. It looks like you might have put a banner up on the Sefaira page, but it wasn't immediately clear why. It looks like most (all?) of the article has external references. Was there anything in particular you thought needed editing? 07jen (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I have responded at Talk:Sefaira to make it easier to keep track of and for others to contribute. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Cartoon pornography

After the discussions on the talk page, I did look at some of the sources I could find for cartoon pornography, and suffice to say, I can understand why people choose to not work on that page. A lot of them tend to be actual prosecution of people in an underage context, which is already mentioned in the article, but little about the actual history of cartoon pornography. You mentioned on the talk page that you had some books on the subject. Could you find the time to report on the talk page some findings of said books, assuming they are reliable sources? Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a closer look when I get a chance. Unfortunately, at a glance most of them looked like passing references, and all of them are specifically about comic books as an art form, which is just what I have on hand. I'll see if I can find anything useful, though. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I've found some interesting details, but nothing very helpful to the larger topic. I'll list a couple of them here and figure out if they belong in some article later:

A one-page article describing a comic called Sweeter Gwen, and the use of mail-order in fetish material. Apparently in 1962 a single issue of the comic cost $5, when most comics cost ten cents.^[1]
Comics about women's sexuality were judged more harshly than men's, unsurprisingly. Wet Satin, published in 1977 by Kitchen Sink Press has difficulties with distributors who had previously published sexually explicit material written by men. The printer described the male-focused book Bizarre Sex as satire, while Wet Satin was serious, and therefore no good. It was eventually printed elsewhere, but the second issue has similar problems so they dropped the title.^[2]

There are a few more, but I'm not sure what to do with any of this, so... yeah. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

References

^ Stanbury, Peter; Gravett, Paul (2009). Holy sh*t! : the world's weirdest comic books (1st US ed. ed.). New York: St. Martins Press. p. 36. ISBN 9780312533953. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
^ Robbins, Trina (1999). Girls to grrrlz : a history of [women's] comics from teens to zines. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. pp. 94–95. ISBN 0811821994.

BAMN again

I notice that you reverted my edit noting that BAMN was founded by members of the trotskyist Revolutionary Workers League. That had actually been a long-standing part of this article, and I frankly fail to see why it is at all controversial. If I'm not mistaken, this is confirmed by such intra-left sources as Broadleft.org. Nonetheless, I'll try to find a clearer source for this.

My worry here - there's a tendency among certain overzealous WP editors to treat any and all edits concerning left-of-center groups that might be considered unfavorable to be part of a massive 4Chan conspiracy and to revert such edits on sight. I'm hoping that when I come back with a citable source for the RWL affiliation of BAMN that I'm not going to have to deal with tendentious rules lawyering about this edit.

I've been a Wikipedia user for over a decade, and I'm well aware of rules concerning verifiability and NPOV, and seek to adhere to such policies faithfully. I will assume good faith about this last revision, and I ask that my edits be taken in good faith as well.

Cheers! Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Experienced or not, that edit was a mistake. The reason I didn't leave any comment on your talk page or similar is because I thought it was a straightforward one that was fully explained in my edit summary. The content you added to the lede was already there. It had been commented out for lack of a source, having a CN tag dated to June 2016. As an experienced editor I'm sure you know that contested, controversial, unsourced content doesn't belong, and I'm sure you also know what to do about it. Your edits will, as always, need to stand on their own merits. Insinuating that I'm overzealous, tendentious, or rules-lawyering is not assuming good faith. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have cited journalistic sources for this. When I restore a clear, citation-based edit, I ask that I be treated as editing in good faith. It is not my intention to single you out in particular, but given the contentious history of this article, I have reason to believe this key WP principle may be being overlooked generally. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Where have you cited journalistic sources? This edit is the only recent one you have made to the article, and it does not contain any citation at all. Likewise when you added it last year, it had no source at all. That edit was tagged within minutes with a request for sources. Between that and being commented-out, it's not unexpected that this would be challenged, so if you're surprised it's controversial, you're not paying close enough attention.

Using Google to search Broadleft.org, I find no mention of BAMN at all. At some point in the past this was cited to This blurb from Mother Jones, but it's not clear who is making this claim or why. I think it's a letter-to-the-editor type thing, which is obviously not RS. The links it includes are similarly broken, unreliable, vague, or conspiratorial. Before that someone tried to use a letter by Ward Connerly published in National Review which calls BAMN a "communist, Saul Alinsky-type organization". This is asinine, as Saul Alinsky wasn't a communist, and it's not a reliable source for something this basic anyway. If this is a legitimate point, and I am not denying that it could be, it should be possible to find real sources for it which establish it as belonging in the lede.

If you're not singling me out in particular, why were you mentioning this on my talk page? What does that have to do with me or my revert? Using vague generalities to insinuating something about me is still not a assuming good faith. If you can't be bothered to talk to me like a real human being, why are you even bothering posting here? Grayfell (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I misstated that first sentence. I mean, I have found at least one solid source so far [6] and I'm looking for others. I am taking it up with you mainly because you did a quick revert of my previous edit, and based on previous threads on the talk page, it seems like you see the page as the target of right-wing attack sites that need to be guarded against. Therefore, I am bringing the issue up, rather than risk making edits only to have them immediately reverted because you simply assume I'm some sort of single purpose account. Now as for talking to someone like a real human being, I'm doing my best, but that's a two-way street, isn't it? I'd appreciate the same consideration. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Describing my revert as quick is dismissive, and you're still making assumptions about my motives. The comments above this are another editor specifically saying that 4chan will "dig up" sources about something or other, which was based on a conspiracy theory pushed by Carl Benjamin on his youtube channel. I specifically said that such sources would still have to be held to the usual standards. Does that really seem like I'm "guarding" the page to you? If you don't think I can tell the difference between blogs, youtube rants, and well-sourced content, than again, you're either not paying particularly close attention, or you're not assuming good faith.

So again, I don't really understand why you brought this up with me. You've repeatedly tried to add controversial, unsourced content. For a new editor, that would call for a welcome template and an explanation of RS and V. For an experienced editor, it's a mistake which can be explained in the edit summary. As an experienced editor, you should know the best place to discuss any future edits would be the article's talk page.

That 16-year-old op-ed in a local paper says BAMN's ties to RWL were "alleged", an "open secret", and used to "hide its members' affiliation". Not exactly meaty stuff, is it? If you think this belongs in the article as a statement of fact, make your case at the article's talk page, but I think you can guess what kind of response you're going to get. Grayfell (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I will bring up any further points on the talk page of that article. Cheers! Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Duke

I have started a thread at WP:BLPN. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

After sifting through the many sources you provided, I finally came upon a quote from Duke himself. I don't see why this wasn't just added to the article in the first place. It makes his position much more clear. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to ignore that personal attack. How am I supposed to discuss this with you if I think you're going to act like that as soon as it gets tense? Grayfell (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Say what now? Personal attack? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

C'mon now, you just doubled-down and restored the edit. I'm not going to ignore it just because it's not directed at me, that would be asinine. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That's up to you, but it was decidedly not directed at you. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Gee thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Reported Joefromrandb at WP:ANI. I have proposed that he be blocked unless he accepts that Talk:David Duke is for discussing the article and not for directing abuse, nonsense, and uncivil comments at other editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Voat

Hi! If you can, please make your edits more atomic. I.e. don't change things related to A in the same edit where you change things related to B. This way we can stay at 1RR+discussion unlike our current situation. I'll wait for you to finish your edits. Thanks. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The article was a complete mess. Granular edits are nice when possible, but that's an unrealistic burden in this a case. If you're interested in 1RR, the article's talk page is the place to start a discussion. I will start one there in a moment. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Tim Pool

Excuse me, but what kind problem do you have with Tim Pool? When you took away my eddits in the article about the Antifa network you have claimed that he's not a reliable source, without any more argumentation for your point. I understand why you don't like Carl Bejamin (because he atleast have an outspoken ideological agenda that provokes many people), but Tim Pool is so far as I know not a MRA. So can you explain what's so wrong about him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12Dagge (talk • contribs) 09:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with this content.

Tim Pool is not a particularly reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. Reliable sources have editorial oversight and fact-checking, which is not provided by self published sources like Pool's youtube videos.

Additionally, citing a single example from coverage of an event to imply that something is significant to the entire movement is original research.

Finally, it was very, painfully clear from the wording you used that you're attempting to alter the tone of the article in non-neutral ways. Wikipedia isn't a platform for far-right advocacy, even if it's couched in superficially moderate terms. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Brittany Pettibone

Yo! I uploaded it via Wikipedia's system. Did I do it right? If not, feel free to lemme know what else needs to be done in order to get the thumbs up here. PressFartToContinue (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Please see response at Talk:Brittany Pettibone. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 18:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is the article's talk page, as you've already figured out. Grayfell (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Gamification

Thanks for your review on the Gamification page. Playlyfe is not a notable platform in the space and the start date on the article is actually incorrect (they were not founded in 2011 but rather in 2015 as their Wikipedia page also states), not to mentioned they no longer provide a gamification platform and are therefore not relevant. BigDoor also no longer exists so it's also no longer relevant. Mambo is mentioned on e-learning.nl and Enterprise Gamification which are both reliable independent sources (http://enterprise-gamification.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256:results-gamification-platform-leader-matrix-2015&catid=2&Itemid=250&lang=en). The fact is that Mambo is the first on-premise platform so there is merit to be mentioned. Agiannone (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Agiannone: Hello. Gamification is a buzzword, and as a buzzword, the article has a lot of problems, including old spam that fell through the cracks. Old spam is not a valid excuse to add new spam. Enterprise Gamification is a commercial consulting service, not a WP:RS. Not even close.

More importantly, It's obvious from your username and previous activity adding a promotional link to SambaStream that you have a conflict of interest. If you are compensated to edit this or any other Wikipedia article, you must disclose that fact on your user-page. Please carefully review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide if you'd like) and respond indicating that you understand. This is not optional. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Fair point. Can I at least correct the article and remove BigDoor and Playlyfe as they are no longer relevant? Agiannone (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Hi. Not sure if you edited out BigDoor. I took out Playlyfe too as they no longer offer a gamification service. Agiannone (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Agiannone: (FYI, you do not need to template:ping me on my own talk page.) Yes, I removed Bigdoor. After you declare any COI, I encourage you to remove spam. Always! I'm looking at Playlyfe's article now, and it needs a lot of work. Far, far too many of these company's article's need a lot of work, unfortunately, and help is greatly appreciated.

Keep in mind that articles should take a long view to avoid Wikipedia:Recentism. If these companies used to be relevant but are not anymore, and sources support that perspective, it's worth including that in context. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this and putting my edits into perspective. Agiannone (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being transparent and understanding. There is room for COI editing on Wikipedia, but a long history of spammers and other bad actors have made it more frustrating than it otherwise would be. In the future, if you would like to propose any edits you are connected to, please post on that article's talk page with Template:Request edit. You're also welcome to post to my talk page or ping me. I can't promise anything, but I'll try and take a look. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Economy of the United States Edit

Hi Grayfell, I was just curious as to why you undid my edit on the business culture section of the article Economy of the United States? The reason why I added this edit was because that was the original text on the article for many years and seemed more relevant to that sections topic. I'd love to hear feedback from you as I'm pretty new to the Wikipedia community and want to help improve the quality of the site, not harm it. Thanks JaredEnclave17 (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@JaredEnclave17: Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia.

Your edit had a subtle, entirely understandable problem, but it was significant enough that it wasn't going to work. It was saying that the the U.S.'s encouragement of science and innovation directly resulted in it being "the birthplace of 161 of Encyclopædia Britannica's 321 Greatest Inventions". This is a plausible claim, but it's not what's being said by the source you included. That source from Encyclopædia Britannica was just a flat list of inventions (or collections of separate inventions in some cases). Since the attached source makes no mention at all of the U.S. being especially significant, nor of why it would be significant, this is what's known as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Additionally, you removed the existing source (National Innovation Systems by Richard R. Nelson) which supported the first half of the paragraph. Even if both sources were used, this would be combining two different sources to make a single point which neither of them makes on their own. This is known as "synthesis of published material", and is also considered original research.

I know that's a lot to digest, but I hope that answers your question. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. p b p 01:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This is just procedural because the editor you were conflicting with has resumed edit-warring following a block. I consider it unlikely that any action will be taken against you, but I would recommend you explain your edit at Talk:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama. p b p 01:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Your request for notation regarding Cat Communication

I'm not sure if this is the right place to leave a message, but here goes: I recently added info to the Cat Communication page. In the section that describes why a cat stretches & pats his front paws on something before he lays down, the actual word is not shown. The process (which mirrors the action a kitten takes to stimulate milk flow from the mother) is called "Smurgling". It does not have a specific point of origin. There is no info on where it came from or that it is the scientific word. However, I am a Feline Behaviorist & this is the word we use. Most people only describe the action as "making biscuits". If one were to google it, instances of usage are given, but the only dictionary listing is in the Urban Dictionary. TheVioletArcher (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)TheVioletArcher (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC) TheVioletArcher (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't call editors trolls

You cannot call editors trolls and delete their content *on a talk page* just because you disagree or find it embarrassing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_call_editors_trolls

You cannot threaten to block people just to get them to shut up without engaging with them on the substance of the discussion at all. See WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE and WP:NOPUNISH .

81.191.115.125 (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Gee, you sure seem to know a lot about Wikipedia. Strange that you don't know not to call other editors scumbags. So yeah, that behavior is trolling. You're venting or wasting time trying to rile us up. That's not trying to improve the article, it's using it as a talk page to bitch about people you don't like. That's trolling. Grayfell (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride at PNCA: Tuesday, June 27

You are invited to the upcoming Wiki Loves Pride edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway) on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, from 5–8pm. For more information, visit the meetup page or Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for filing a report.

Thank you for filling a report as it saves me some time. I look forward to the administrators reviewing both edits/reverts, yours and mine. As others have pointed out, those sources cited are used throughout wikipedia, and never really challenged. And regarding the information that I removed, all of it was speculative in nature. The information removed was citing quotes regarding speculative commentary, or just in itself speculative commentary. Thank you for starting this procedure for us both.Akw-de (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Tinker Brothers Page

Hi Grayfell, It's probably obvious I'm a newbie. I am still figuring things out, so my apologies for any inconvenience caused by removing and adding content. Thanks for your help! Cheers User 20 22 19 (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

re: Social justice warrior and Progressivism

I wanted a better understanding of progressive politics so I put some questions/suggestions at Talk:Social justice warrior and Talk:Progressivism.

If you could review my input/comments, it would be appreciated. The reason I ask is that you were active on the talk page of the Social justice warrior article. Knox490 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Patagonia

Hi Grayfell, I am obviously another newbee on Wikipedia - got started today. Could you explain what you mean by 'soapboxing' when commenting on my Patagonia (clothing) additions? I am a researcher and practitioner in the area of branding with 25 years experience and simply wanted to share some of that expertise on wikipedia, since I use it often. I do not and have never worked for Patagonia and the sources I cite are articles and books published by authoritative publishers or posts that draw on the latter and clearly indicating their sources. Or they simply store them online (vs paper version). Can you explain how that constitutes spam, advertising and the other labels you use? I saw that sites like MarketingProfs, StrategyInsider or Ueberbrands are used frequently in citations across Wikipedia. Thanks for your help.Markaestus (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Markaestus: Hello. I will post a response on your talk page in a moment. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell - it seems you deleted all my additions because I used masstoclass as a source and you consider that spam. Would the addition and citation be acceptable to you if I replace the reference to masstoclass on wordpress with the journal article, etc. that is stored/reviewed to on that wordpress site. For example: instead of linking to https://masstoclass.wordpress.com/2017/07/10/article-how-modern-prestige-brands-create-meaning-through-mission/ I cite "How modern Prestige Brands...", Journal of Brand Strategy, Henry Stewart Publishers, Spring 2017, Vol 5 Nr.4, pp. 395-409, etc.? Thanks for your help. Markaestus (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the same basic issue as above, and I already said I would post an explanation on your talk page. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand now "admired and outstanding" are the language issue and the masstoclass blog not being a primary source is the other. How can I take out that language and change the citation then? Or is it all 'wiped out' and I have to start from scratch? I can cite articles from FastCompany, The New York Times, The Guardian or books by Godin or Stengel and many many more that talk about Patagonia as an early mission led and activist company (examples: https://www.fastcompany.com/1749656/patagonia-power-brand-transparency ; https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/patagonia-values-led-business-benefit-corp). This aspect is not mentioned in the Wiki entry and is a fundamental outage when it comes to explaining the success of this company. Markaestus (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This discussion should not be split between two pages. I'm copy/pasting this to your talk page to consolidate. I will respond after that. Grayfell (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

/r/The_Donald

Your recent editing history at r/The_Donald shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh huh. Good luck with that. Grayfell (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Vidme

Have a look here. What is the first date, aside from "Private beta" being 2009-2010, do you see that has anything archived that remotely relates to the site, as is? 2014. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh, okay. I have no strong opinion on this, the PR-ish sources said it was launched in 2010, and that's... sort of accurate. Looks like this should be explained, or at least discussed on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Antifa removal

Okay sure, let me add more reliable sources then. Thanks ThePlane11 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahh another Trump hater, no surprise you do not want the Antifa page to look bad. This is extremely petty. They were involved in acts of crime among others. I or anyone else could go onto Youtube right now and watch an Antifa member committing a crime at the inauguration. Pathetic. Where is this "democracy" you preach. You are silencing me. ThePlane11 (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh huh. You want to discuss how to improve the article, do it on the article's talk page. You want to whine about censorship, do it on reddit. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Article

hi:w:मनन_शाह and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manan Shah (Ethical Hacker) are same person. What should be done? The person had contacted me on social media to have his page which I had declined citing guidelines, policies and past deletions. I discovered his page in Hindi language Wikipedia.-Nizil (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: Hello. Oh this guy again. Thanks for letting me know. I don't know what to do about this. I wish I did, though. Each language has its own notability guidelines. Having an article in once language doesn't mean anything for another. I don't read Hindi, unfortunately, so I cannot comment on that one. Are you familiar with Hindi Wikipedia's guidelines? I've nominated Simple:Manan Shah for deletion as spam. The arguments were very strong here that its spam by a self-promoter. That should carry weight everywhere, so I would suggest nominating it at hi.wikipedia also if you think that's appropriate. I am not surprised you have been contacted by this person. If I can help, let me know. Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits Reverted

I am contacting you in regards to the reverts made, Omnichannel and Online_marketplace. Please note the links added were from SellerPrime Blog, Amazon Web site, Harvard Business Review. All are relevant links, if you feel otherwise, please point out the specific, happy to re-write and update. Thanks! Dilpu123 (talk) 5:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. SellerPrime is not a reliable source. It's a commercial blog which exists to sell services of unestablished value. Citing it in multiple articles is indistinguishable from spamming. Additionally, much of the content you added was not neutrally written, such as calling services "solutions". Buzzwords like that are a very poor choice for an encyclopedia. Finally, your edit to Omnichannel directly stole the wording of the source you used. copying/pasting directly from sources is not acceptable. Please see WP:COPYVIO for more on this. Paraphrase reliable sources in your own words according to due weight. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, i will make the same edits neutrally in a distinguishable way. Will provide the changes summary once done. Please review. Good Day! (Dilpu123 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)).

Corrected for one of the pages - Private_label , removed 3 links (Dilpu123 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)).

Again, do not copy/paste from sources. Your addition was the exact same sentence as the Forbes source. You need to paraphrase.

The source you lifted from is not reliable, either. This is a common problem, but Forbes' "Contributors" are essentially bloggers. Most (but not all) of the articles on the site are only minimally edited and not consistently fact-checked. This content fails WP:RS, specifically as WP:UGC. For this reason it's best to avoid this site if you are not certain that it's from their journalist side.

Thanks for removing the Junglescout sources. I appreciate that. Grayfell (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Noted will avoid Forbes contributor articles in the future (Dilpu123 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)), will update after making the change

Golden Dawn/Neo-Nazism

Hello would like to ask why you reverted my edit on golden dawn?96.29.161.12 (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I reverted your edit because it was editorializing which didn't belong in the infobox. Infoboxes are designed to be a simple, brief overview of a topic. The body and lede of the article already explain the party's denial. Many very reliable sources link the party to neo-Nazism, and Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, also. The place to discuss this further is Talk:Golden Dawn (political party), not here. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits reverted for Vector Marketing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Several independent sites support the claim that Vector Marketing is a single-level marketing or direct sales company. In addition, the sources you say support the claim that Vector Marketing is a pure multi-level marketing company do not, in fact, say that. The only mention of Vector Marketing in citation #2 is "Since the mid-20th century, a multitude of companies employing variations of this business model have established themselves, with some of the better known being Amway, Avon Products, Herbalife, Mary Kay, Tupperware, and Vector Marketing." The industry on the Herbalife page says "direct selling," the industry on the Avon Products Wikipedia page says "Personal" and lists them as a "direct selling company." The Tupperware Wikipedia page makes no mention of multi-level marketing at all. The Mary Kay Wikipedia page says the industry is "cosmetics and personal care products," and says it's a direct sales company. Citation #3 is equally problematic. It contains the claim that Vector Marketing is a single tiered direct sales company, but then presents the following: "Loyola’s Jackson explained that Vector is a multi-level-marketing company (MLM). An MLM pays its salespeople commission from the sales of people it recruited, according to Investopedia, an online resource for finance." Nowhere in this article does it actually show that Vector pays salespeople from the sales of people that they've recruited. The citations you're saying support the claim that Vector is best described as a multi-level marketing company do not support that claim! I also think it's absurd to ignore that in the Vector Marketing Wikipedia page, under Business model, it says "Vector Marketing is a direct sales company." If you're going to immediately disregard every article and page which support my assertion that they are a single-level marketing company by saying that it's either provided by the company or unreliable/non-neutral, then you should explain to me how the citations you're choosing are any more reliable or neutral.NoYellAtMonkeys (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Having this discussion in two places serves no purpose. The correct place to discuss this is Talk:Vector Marketing, where I have responded in greater detail. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert for Brian Dunning

Yes, this is Stitcher (the podcast aggregator). Brian really did win that award, and I would say that it is significant. MichiHenning (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Me bad, he was nominated for the award, but did not win it in 2014; he won it in 2012: https://skeptoid.com/about.php MichiHenning (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@MichiHenning: Hello. I'm not doubting that he won the award, but I'm not clear on why it would belong in the article. Looking into it, it appears this award was only given for two years (skipping 2013?) before Stitcher merged with other companies and the award was abandoned. The Stitcher Radio article doesn't mention the award, and neither does Stitcher's website, at least not that I found. Since Dunning's Wikipedia article provided no way for readers to assess the important of this short-lived award, nor are there any reliable, independent sources for Dunning having won this award, this award doesn't provide any significant information about Skeptoid or Dunning's career. Skeptoid's site is not independent (obviously), and it doesn't provide any useful context for what the award signifies. The archived Stitcher site previously used in the article was not neutral, nor did it explain anything about the award itself, either. If it is significant, we should be able to explain why it is significant. If not at Brian Dunning (author), then somewhere else on Wikipedia. It doesn't look like good sources exist for this. Grayfell (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Side note on that anon IP at Jared Taylor

I'm seeking a block against that IP for edit-warring at an entirely different page; when I checked out his other edits I read the Terrell Owens page, which had an inordinate amount of unsourced original research on it (most of it not even his doing). I started working on it, and he just started mass-reverting my edits, whether I had edited something he had added or not. So I finally filed the report here. I mention this because those mass reverts appear to point to the fact that he's not looking to be a productive editor, and likely never will be, on the Jared Taylor page or anywhere else. Rockypedia (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Yeah, makes sense. I noticed the report, but didn't look too closely. Perhaps I'm just wasting time by treating this nonsense semi-seriously, but, at very least, there's a block of past discussion to point to for the next time 'reasonable' points are raised. ("I don't mind most marine mammals, but sea lions? I could do without sea lions.") Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I said my last two cents in that thread. I'm done with it. Rockypedia (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Saul Alinsky again

Please stop your disingenuous labeling of my edit. If you continue to baselessly attack contributors, as you did at Saul Alinsky, you may stifle and kill the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.209.150 (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding unsourced editorializing to the lede and lashing out at anyone who challenges your edits (such as calling another editor a fascist) is not productive. If you cannot make your case using civil language on the article's talk page, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Nationalist Front

See Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Google Memo article

Hello, you recently removed content that you characterized as "...editorializing..." and that needed to be "...re-written w/ clear attribution to reliable sources." While I strive to "assume good faith", I need to ask if you took the time to read the actual sources. The content you removed has 2 source references from Vox and the UK Business Insider - both what most would say are reliable pubs. Furthermore, the content that I authored is supported directly from the references. Please comment further justifying your removal - if none is received, then I will presume you removed the content in error and re-add the content. Thanks. airuditious (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aleding: The content was not removed in error. I don't personally disagree with the statements you added, exactly, but it included disputable, broad comments as fact. What Americans do and do not incorrectly believe, for example, should be presented as an expert opinion, or in some other way contextualized as a subjective claim. If "this recent event shows" something, we should indicate who is making that connection instead of using Wikipedia's voice to present it an indisputable example. This is a form of editorializing language along the lines of WP:NOTABLY. The Civil Rights act connection would also have to be much more clearly laid out by reliable sources before being mentioned to avoid original research. Both of those sources are clearly opinions. Nothing wrong with that, but they should be contextualized as such. I think the place to discuss this further is on the article's talk page, not here. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you been advised...

Of the discretionary sanctions place on all BLPs? If not, consider this your notice for Jared Taylor. You really don't want to get into an edit war or appear as though you are tag-teaming - I reverted poorly sourced material in that BLP. It won't be pretty at AN/I when the policies support the argument to not add contentious labels and derogatory poorly sourced material knowing it is a highly volatile article about a living person. Do you want more restrictions placed on that BLP or are you more inclined to seek consensus and act like a collaborative editor instead of somebody who just happened to show up and decided to be controversial? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Veiled threats cloaked in pseudocivil language. I didn't "just show up" and you know it. You have not raised any new issues in your defense of Taylor, and repeating the same points will quickly become disruptive. CRYBLP and bureaucratic tedium are not valid ways to improve any article, especially not one about a white supremacist. Grayfell (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Kinda watching this debate for learning purposes and need to ask, is the fact that the BLP subject is a white supremacist relevant? Doesn't Grayfell's statement at the very least indicate some possible bias? airuditious (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aleding: Am I "biased" because I have opinions? Having views and being willing to recognize those views doesn't disqualifies me from editing Wikipedia. We don't demand all editors pretend to be robots. Likewise Atsme's very different approach to BLP doesn't disqualify her. Maybe she is an admirer of Taylor, although I don't really think so. It doesn't matter that much. She's free to hold whatever views she wants. It becomes a problem when an editor's views interfere with consensus. Although I think it's definitely a possibility, that hasn't happened yet.

If you've been looking at the Google memo thing, you may have noticed that the author of that document has repeatedly emphasizes how logical and rational he is. In addition to being kinda sad in its own right, this reveals something about discussions on Wikipedia. People who have experience with debate and consensus generally don't do that. The problem is that everybody thinks our arguments are rational. By extension, we all think that rational policies must therefor agree with us, and policies which disagree with us must be irrational or 'biased'. This is human nature, but it's a garbage way to approach consensus. ESPECIALLY on Wikipedia, where policies and guideline are often vague, and often don't even agree with each other. This is a feature, not a bug, because this isn't a procedurally generated encyclopedia. The project is better because it challenges us to use our minds.

I believe, obviously, that I'm on the side of the angels, and I'm sure on some level so does everyone involved. We have to work it out, but at some point, re-litigating the same tired points strictly through subjective interpretation of policies becomes disruptive, because there has to be room for discussion. If the only recourse is to say 'this is against consensus', then that is saying 'stop talking about it'. I've done that, and I'm sure most experienced editors have as well. So if Atsme gets to do that for the changes she doesn't like, why don't we get to do that for the changes she wants to make that paint Taylor more favorably? I certainly feel that we've already discussed this to death multiple times.

Threatening to take this to a noticeboard for a single revert demonstrates a very poor understanding of consensus, and leaving this notice seems more about priming the pump for future litigious action than a good faith effort to discuss the issues. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a million Grayfell - really good discussion. And of course I don't think being robots is realistic nor anything that would be productive. Also, while I initially interpreted the phrase "...especially not one about a white supremacist..." to possibly imply bias, in thinking about it a bit more, I now take it that you are emphasizing that extra care must be taken to ensure our policies are followed...not that anything different would apply but rather to just double\triple check to ensure diligence in following our existing polices. Thanks again. airuditious (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, my pleasure. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am offended by your comment about me to a new editor, and consider it an aspersion. Your behavior is beginning to represent a pattern of disrespect toward living people who don't share your views. You have wrongfully criticized me, made unwarranted threats and accusations while you are the one being noncompliant with WP:PAG at Jared Taylor, a BLP that requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States. You keep saying "consensus" but I'm not seeing even one RfC in the archives that has been called. Where is the consensus you keep referring to? Local consensus among a few editors on the TP? You can't be serious. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to offend you. What threats and accusations have I made? Your comments insinuated that I was 'tag teaming' by restoring edits made in good faith, and very strongly suggested that I would be brought to ANI or similar if I continued, all based on a single revert. Those, to me, seem like disproportionate threats and accusations.

Reverting something because there is no consensus is meaningless without any other context. You are saying that something should not be changed because you are opposed to it being changed. That's not, by itself, productive, and I'm glad this has moved to the article's talk page. I doubt I had anything to do with that, but my revert did establish that consensus for reverting wasn't met, either.

Expecting a prior RfC for consensus is excessive. Discussions have been held, and are still being held, and formalizing every discussion as an RfC should be held-off until necessary. The talk page of this and neighboring articles is full to bursting with discussions of how to apply BLP. It has never been a simple issue, and repeating that this is how it's applied over and over doesn't make it an objective truth. That's what I was trying to explain above.

Similar RfCs have been held at related articles, however. Talk:Richard B. Spencer/Archive_2#RfC: White Supremacist vs White Nationalist is one good example, and still there is a steady trickle of editors who ignore that and revert anyway. RfCs don't solve all problems, nor should they be required for every controversial topic. Is that precedent? No, every article needs to be evaluated on its own, as we both know very well. Having already repeatedly debated very similar issues for multiple articles makes this seem pretty tedious, so when you say I "just happened to show up" it ignores both past contributions to the article's talk page, and the bigger picture of how this is has been handled on Wikipedia in the recent past. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Conflict box

Why does he keep adding that to every section I open? I've raised it at NORN. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Link for my own convenience. Weird. Like I said on the talk page, maybe some people just like to collect trading cards? Grayfell (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Antifa

I guess you know I took Clown to 3rr. Do you want to start a discussion at npovn? I'm off to sleep. Doug Weller talk 21:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I really should be doing other things also. I'll keep an eye on it, though. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

My Apologies - Rocketfueled/ Gamification

Hey Grayfell, I was not intending to be overtly promotional when I created my initial account - to be honest, I was trying to pick a name that would be accepted/ that I could remember. My goal was to add to articles where I have experience (I have an MA in Humanities Computing and over 14+ years in eLearning and gamification). I am not intending for my edits to be promotional, and I wrote a book specifically to help educate on the subject, and I provide copies of the book for free. I would legitimately like to contribute to the community and would appreciate my edits to Learning Pathway and the inclusion of my book Office Arcade included in the Gamification article reinstated as references. I completely understand why the inclusion of Trajectory IQ was removed based on my username. Would you suggest that I update or change my username?

Thank you.

Rocketfueled (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rocketfueled: Hello. I appreciate your transparency, and I accept that your edits were made in good faith. I do not think they matched the project's goals and guidelines, however, so I will not be restoring them.

I did not remove the Trajectory IQ thing because of your username. I removed it partly because it was unsupported by the source you used, and also because that source was trivial and clearly derived from a routine press release. Sources must actually support the content they are attached to. Press releases and similar do nothing to explain a lone company's encyclopedic significance to the larger topic, which makes this strongly appear to be back-door spam.

Simply adding your book as a reference to Gamification was not appropriate, either. The information being sourced was already included in the article, so this is functionally spamming as well.

Regarding Learning pathway, the content you added was entirely about yourself, and was written in an inappropriate tone. Putting common terms in quotation marks isn't a valid replacement for an explanation. If there are reliable secondary sources about this perspective they could be included to explain why it's important

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not personal expertise. Expert editors are always welcome, but not necessarily for the reasons you might think. Your expertise is demonstrated by your familiarity with reliable sources and ability to explain those sources. this edit does not really explain very much. Who are Jim Williams and Steve Rosenbaum? "Pinpoint accuracy"? That's a bold, broad phrase which is completely lacking the necessary context to be informative. Etc.

After looking into it, I do not think your book meets Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Lioncrest appears to be Tucker Max's business. Setting aside his infamous promotional style, this appears to be a self-publishing label through Book in a Box.... right? If I'm wrong, please find reliable sources explaining Lioncrest's editorial stance/guidelines/anything. The few sources I can find on this publisher do not fill me with confidence.

Since this is the name of a company you are closely affiliated with, you absolutely should change your name. To put it simply, if your edits had been even slightly more promotional, you likely would've been blocked as a username policy violation. The template I posted on your talk page was a courtesy which explains how to change your username, but that is not the only problem here.

As a next step, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I say please, but this isn't optional. You may also find Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide helpful. Grayfell (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Jason Innocent spam

there is not promotion on this page. there is no false advertisement. Tice89 (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tice89: I didn't say the article is false advertising, I said it is advertising. That's bad enough. You recreated an article which had already been deleted. You used the exact same sources, and even tried to use the exact same navbox. That article is about an obscure book by an artist who has a Wikipedia account (Jasoninnocent) and tried to write an article about himself and one of his own projects. Then another account (Max556) comes along and also only ever tries to write articles about Jason Innocent. And a couple of IPs, at least one of which was blocked for spam. Now you, doing the exact same thing. This really, really appears to be spamming and sock puppetry. Do you think we're stupid? Grayfell (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

i dont know nothing about that??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tice89 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

So in other words, yes, you do think we're stupid. Got it. Grayfell (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tice89:! Hello. I'm a friendly talk page stalker. Wikipedia records all of your edits including this one, which Grayfell had to revert. It's a bit annoying for people, especially since you or one of your friends have done it a few times now. I can see some potential here though. If you have time to dedicate to Wikipedia that's great. I happen to have studied art and can set you up with some sources on notable artists who don't have wikipedia pages yet. If you'd like to pop over to my talk page and leave me a note we can have the conversation there. That way Grayfell can get on with performing secret administrator rituals. Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Edaham: Your patience is commendable. For the record I am not an administrator. I don't think I could handle it; those nefarious robes they wear seem too itchy. Grayfell (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Easy assumption to make! It was the long beard and pet crow that led me astray. Not entirely sure why I'm talk page stalking you, I think it was something to do with when I started stalking Doug Weller. Edaham (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your notification. Although it's unlikely, converting someone with lots of time on their hands to make socks away from the dark side and into a productive area of the encyclopedia would be cool. Unless of course the socks all get taken out and destroyed. Edaham (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Pet raven, eh? Funny you should mention that, I'm debating writing an article for Canuck the crow (or should it be Canuck (crow)?). There seems like enough reliable sources out there, but maybe not.

As for the dark side, I sympathize, although I have mixed feelings about trying it myself. I feel like I have helped some editors like this, but not often. At least a couple of times in the past I've carefully tried to walk editors through complicated areas only to find out they were socks I had previously explained the exact same issue to. That shows contempt for editors and Wikipedia, and it's hard not to take that personally. If nothing else, I tend not to explain something like this twice for that reason. Since this editor has the exact same minimal communication style as the suspected socks, I think that's likely what's happening here. On the other hand, there are a surprising number of good editors who are recovered sock puppeteers, so... maybe? I dunno. I sincerely wish you luck. It's far, far to easy to lose perspective and get caught up in 'gotcha' mentality, or trying to punish editors. That's no good. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Reading through the whole edit history SPI etc I have to say that a few of the sources are RS for that industry in NY and do transfer notability to the subject. There's huge quality issues on that page as well as the fact that the page creator is probably the artist himself, not to mention the sock puppet issue on which I have commented.... however the speedy has been declined and I kind of see the reason after having performed some perfunctory searches for the name of the artist. will continue to investigate. Edaham (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Chatbots Link Reversion

Hi Grayfell! I noticed that you didn't think my link was appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I read through the page you linked about external links but noticed that it specifically said that the guidelines contained within it didn't apply to inline citations. Following that I read through the pages about detecting reliable sources and inline citations.

Within the identifying reliable sources page it discusses news organizations as potentially reliable sources based on several criteria such as author identity, linking to scholarly articles, and credibility of publication. With respect to author identity, the author of the article I linked is an industry expert in artificial intelligence and machine learning with the proper knowledge and credentials to disseminate information about research in the field. He has written numerous articles in the past about other advances in the field such as [spam redacted], and breakthroughs in [spam redacted]. Additionally, in the article itself there is a link to the primary source, Emotional Chatting Machine: Emotional Conversation Generation with Internal and External Memory. Finally, with regards to the publication credibility, IoT for All is one of the largest and most respected IoT publications that I know of, and was ranked in the top 10 IoT publications by feedspot, a popular news reader application.

I'm hoping this clarifies why I believe the source I used is appropriate, but I am happy to answer any additional questions, or talk more if you think I haven't fully covered my bases.

Thanks! James122693 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @James122693:, @Isa0303:, and @Hannah0whit:

One of the things Leverege lists on their site under "We Believe In" is "transparency". Did you notice the cute little icon of a transparent cube underneath it? Clever. Iotforall isn't clearly a news outlet, but it's definitely part of Leverege's marketing division. The "Editor-in-Chief" is Leverege's "VP Business Development and Marketing". The "Managing Editor" is also "Director of Business Development", etc. I suspect you all know this already.

It looks like you are part of a concerted effort to add iotforall.com to Wikipedia, and the only reason I can see is spam. Within the last couple of days, three brand new accounts (at least) have been adding references linking to this site, while making no other substantial edits at all. The use of promotional language doesn't help, either. Calling a blog with a readership in the mid 10,000s (per Medium) "one of the largest and most respected IoT publications that I know of" and calling Feedspot "a popular news reader application" are not appropriate communication outside of a sales pitch. Who talks like this who isn't getting paid to? Wikipedia is, as part of its core philosophy, not a platform for promotion or advertising, and biz-speak like this is not compatible with this mission. Nor is it particularly civil, for that matter.

Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia damages the project, and James122693's edit was no different. This was just strange enough to cause confusion, while also not providing any neutral means to resolve that confusion. It's not remotely clear or intuitive what emotional detection means in that context or any other. The only recourse a reader would have would be to read the attached blog, which is pretty obviously the point. The edit didn't explain anything, it just added bloat. This damages the article for entirely promotional purposes.

Reliability is determined by multiple things, one of which is editorial oversight, which is not well-explained on iotforall.com. According to Feedspot, the blog publishes about one post a day, which isn't often enough to establish much of a reputation for anything. The are unlikely to develop this reputation also. The articles are largely anecdotal ("I went axe-throwing this weekend, how can I monetize that?" which was reposted from LinkedIn), mostly bland ("What Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos Wish You Knew About Tech Startups" could be summed-up as "you need to explain to customers why your product is good"), and entirely routine (no signs of journalism, such as having broken stories picked up by other outlets). It also looks like several posts are from Leverege's own people, such as Hwang, which seriously undermines editorial credibility, especially since it's not well explained in these article. This really, really looks like a blog, not a reputable news source. If it's claiming to be a journalistic outlet, there's an ethical problem with this lack of clear disclosure. Again, Leverege claims to believe in "transparency".

Another requirement, and this is a big one, is that sources must have an established reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Notice that "popularity" isn't part of that, so rankings among RSS readers are meaningless. If Yitaek Hwang is an established expert, then his opinion could be included with attribution, but there would have to be a very good, independently sourced reason for doing that, and no such reason has been presented.

Please let me emphasize that Wikipedia has very strict guidelines for how it handles paid editing: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Any editor with a conflict of interest should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This is not optional. Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide may also be helpful. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Lauren Southern

Just ran across this article. And that led me to Les Identitaires. I'm wondering why the lead starts "The Bloc Identitaire" - which is it? We need to figure out which term is used in English. Here[7] is the edit that created it. Thus[8] calls it "Generation Identity" - which is or isn't a separate group, the article claims it is but this Telegraph article, a year old I admit, says it's the youth wing.[9] I can't keep up with all of these articles. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche as a reliable source! How could anyone keep up with all this? Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

We've got a rush of new editors coming in, not bothering to read any of our policies or guidelines and who probably wouldn't care about them if we did. It's a problem. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting but not published. [10]. I'm sure I saw something similar about a study of racism yesterday but didn't keep it. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You have

never insulted me. We have an honest difference of opinions over at that Confederate Monuments list. Carptrash (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate that. Your hard work has greatly improved the article, while my interest is largely due to recentism. It's too easy for me to lose that perspective. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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. The thread is "Mansplaining". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard

There is a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard that might pique your interest. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, okay, thanks. This is the exact same notice as the one directly above. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Here, a happy goat for you!

Arvindl1989 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)