Grayfell

Welcome!

Hello, Grayfell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You appear to have dealt with the Saint Thomas Christian sockpuppeter before. I ask for comment on another suspected set of accounts for cross-reference: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qaumrambista ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I will take a look and comment if needed, but probably not until tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know. Grayfell (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can't imagine any reason why you'd need to rush. Thanks. ~ Pbritti 13:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

What do you think we should do about this editor? I’ve reported their five copyright-violating photos and they’ve been removed, but they continue to add copyrighted materiel to a draft page, as well as edit war—all while adding no comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think posting to the edit-war noticeboard was the next step. It looks like there is a language barrier, and I'm sympathetic to that, but this person needs to communicate more. I'll comment at AN/3, as well. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Grayfell, I noticed you had put a note on the Peter Brimelow talk page so I thought you might be able to help with a different article. I ran across True North Centre for Public Policy today, and in the edit history, saw that there's a user named Bigbluenet whose edits are almost exclusively to that article, and they appear to be designed to remove any unflattering information about the group, even if it's sourced. I reverted their edits to what I saw as the "last good version", and was almost immediately reverted back by the same user. As I'm not familiar with the group or the article (yet), I was hoping you could offer some input? Thank you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fred Zepelin: Hello. I have posted some links about WP:COI to that editor's talk page, and have asked for clarification. (The next step would probably be WP:COIN, eventually.)

I am not very familiar with that organization. If reliable sources are comparing them to Brimelow and Rebel Media, it makes sense to explain that in the article, but the article doesn't really do that, at least not yet.

I reject the other editor's implication that the CBC source cannot be used because it is "very biased", but WP:WEASEL wording should be avoided regardless. Without context, saying it "describes itself" as so-and-so is a form of editorializing which casts doubt on the statement. It looks like these descriptions are disputed, but we cannot just imply that via vague wording in the lead. We need to directly explain why they are disputed, and indicate why this is encyclopedically significant. The article sort-of does this, so the lead needs to follow the article.

I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

It does, thank you. I reverted the removals again. I don't see any problems with the material that Bigbluenet removed - it's sourced to reliable sources and I'm certain his removals were entirely POV-related. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I reviewed the articles I cited. These articles have been republished on 30+ websites. Would it make you more comfortable if I choose a Yahoo version of the article in the future, even though they're also a republisher yet they serve ads (and video ads!) throughout the page? I fail to see "spam" in the links I cited. Those pages don't even have AdSense. I fail to see what they have to gain by my minor citations.

I don't mind you changing the links. But labelling a website as spam just because they're not popular/commercialized by ads, even if the republished content is the same as commercial websites and written by leaders in their respective fields, seems disingenuous. Articles are republished all the time. The author is what makes them credible.

I appreciate your contributions to Wiki. I am also trying to help improve the page with more updated content. You don't seem to have an issue with the substance of my updates. But I also don't want the sources I find labelled as spam just because you haven't heard of them, when they're republishing quality content without annoying ads. This should be encouraged not discouraged. 104.158.121.12 (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, this is spam. The two links you added were both copied verbatim from theconversation.com, which is a non-profit organization which doesn't include advertising. Both links you added were to Canadian websites which do include advertising. Neither of those sites published any significant original content at all, meaning both exist to monetize other people's work.

Citing theconversation.com, which doesn't include advertising, is obviously the less "annoying" option. There is no legitimate reason not to cite the original source here. The complete lack of information on two commercial website those sites about who they are is also pretty damning, since reliability of a site is determined by its reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Your preferred websites lack this reputation, so they are inherently less reliable.

Comparing these to to Yahoo is misleading, but for what it's worth, I frequently remove or refactor Yahoo News links as well. Any use of Yahoo links should also be clearly attributed to the original outlet (the "via=Yahoo News" field or similar works well). Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I worked at a major news outlet for a long time. 99% of our content was from other sources such as Canadian Press or CBC. Yet there is legitimacy in our articles solely because of who we are. A smaller website can have the same rights to republish Canadian Press articles yet according to you, it would be labelled as "spam". You can remove it on the basis that there is a better source to cite. However, that does not make a smaller website "spam". Do you also label Yahoo, AOL and MarketWatch links as "spam" since they (like most websites) also monetize their content? If you're merely indicating that there's a better source to cite, but not also labelling them as "spam", then in this case, you are showing your own prejudice towards a name you don't recognize, not because they do anything differently than other, better known websites. 104.158.121.12 (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am following WP:RS. Neither of those websites provides the usual indications of reliability that Wikipedia editors typically use.

However, it now sounds to me like you have a conflict of interest. Please carefully review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may also find Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide helpful.

The two edits you made were both spammy. Other, hypothetical edits you might make in the future would have to be evaluated on their own merits. But yes, when someone is deliberately favoring a commercial website over a non-commercial one which publishes exactly the same content, I do also label that as spamming. Yahoo, AOL, etc. are both notorious publishers of churnalism and similar, and I aoivd them for that and other reasons.

Worse, it looks like your websites also publish undisclosed native advertising, such as this gem attributed to "Community Partners" which is obviously promotion for convexstudio.ca. This is yet another sign that the these websites are unreliable and should almost never be cited on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising.

You're not likely to convince me otherwise at this point, but feel free to take it to WP:RSN or WP:COIN if want a second opinion. I don't think you'll find a lot of sympathy for your cause there either, though. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not disputing that The Conversation is the better citation. I am disputing your reasoning. You and I clearly both use Wikipedia. We both have a vested interest in ensuring that it is top quality. However, just like I don't respond by saying you must be on the board of directors of The Conversation, you making unfounded accusations of conflict towards me is unnecessary. What have I gained from adding a Canadian perspective? This only deepens my concerns about your own personal biases when editing.

Would it surprise you to hear that Yahoo and AOL also have plenty of sponsored content on their websites? In fact, it must shock you to know that they each pay for content from other sources that will get clicks and ad revenue. However, does that mean everything from Yahoo and AOL should be labelled spam, sketchy and made for advertising? Or would you still assess each piece of content on its merits and authorship? How many Wikipedia citations point to pages that may have display ads? Are they all automatically marked as spam? You could have easily made the edit on the basis that there is a better citation. That is the role of an impartial editor. Instead, you feel the need to keep defending yourself while making baseless accusations at others.

As for "the need to convince you" or to get a "second opinion," if you've read anything I've said to date, you will know I am not disputing changing the citation to The Conversation. My problem is with you running around making baseless accusations, such as accusing others of spamming or being in a conflict, instead of remaining impartial in your reasoning. You had no basis of accusing me as such, and you know it. 104.158.121.12 (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

As I said, I am unconvinced, and trying to sell me on the supposed legitimacy of "sponsored content" when I specifically mentioned undisclosed native advertising does nothing to change my position here.

As I said I generally avoid citing Yahoo and AOL for multiple reasons. Wikipedia should not cite sponsored content for factual info, and any site which fails to clearly differentiate sponsored content from legitimate journalism should not be trusted. But even that is misleading, because this isn't just about "sponsored content" in the abstract, this is about a pseudonymous group of website that publishes undisclosed promotional mixed-in with random news stories taken from other, more legitimate, websites.

That said... In addition to spam and press releases, Yahoo! News does also publish some legitimate news content under their own name. Sometimes (not often) it is appropriate to cite Yahoo News, and context always matters with sources. I do not see any indication that it is ever appropriate to cite "e-radio.ca" or "earnwithsocial.ca". If there is a context when that is appropriate, I haven't seen it yet. Therefore, your behavior is indistinguishable from spamming. If you want to make a case for either of those two websites, you should do it elsewhere, such as at WP:RSN, but as I said, I think you'll be disappointed. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've already said from the beginning that The Conversation is the better citation. You keep coming back to the argument that somehow I want to "make a case" for the two sites instead. I don't know how to make it clearer to you that I do not.

I have said, and your response confirms, that you are making unfounded accusations under the guise of impartial editing. Your comments show bias. This is my concern. That being said, upon reading some of the other posts on your talk page, I understand now I am not the first person to raise these points. 104.158.121.12 (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

On your talk page, I said you were adding inappropriate links to pages, and I used a routine template to explain the problem and ask you to stop. I am "circling back to this" because that is literally the only interaction we have had, and as far as I am concerned, describing those links as inappropriate is not unfounded, and is barely even an "accusation". The foundation is that these websites repost content taken from other more legitimate news outlets and mix-and-match it with pseudonymous promotional content, and present both in the exact same way.

I described both of those links as sketchy in edit summaries, and I stand by that description. The undisclosed promotional content is sufficient reason to call them sketchy. If you agree that these links are inappropriate, then this isn't an accusation either, it's just a description. Calling this "a Canadian perspective" doesn't really make much sense and doesn't make them any less sketchy.

If you think my behavior is inappropriate, feel free to discuss it at WP:ANI. Understand that those admins are probably going to look closely at both those two links, and your comments here, when evaluating your complaints. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I am a random wikipedia fan who does not contribute. I just wanted to say thank you for fighting the good fight w/r/t racialists and pseudoscientific enablers of White Supremacy. I saw many of your talk page posts and admire your candor and persistence.

71.175.33.102 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC) mitchReply

It's only tangentially related to True North Centre for Public Policy, but I made a few additions (sourced) to the Lindsay Shepherd article. I was quickly reverted by someone named Springee. I took a quick look at Springee's contributions page and I saw they are very experienced and often weigh in on right-wing figures' articles, usually to remove things that might be considered negative, whether sourced or unsourced. I though I might ask you to take a look at my additions and offer an opinion. Thank you! Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fred Zepelin: Hello. I sympathize with your frustration (see #Edit summary above).

As for the content itself, I would avoid using quotes in the first paragraph. Adding new citations to the lead is not wrong, but it is a red flag for experienced editors. Sources really should be top-quality for BLP articles, also. Is Canadian Dimension a reliable enough source to be included? I don't really know, but it's obscure enough that any subjective quotes from it should be contextualized with attribution. The lead is usually not the place for that kind of thing. So for contested content like this, changes to the body should precede changes to the lead. Not everything in the lead absolutely must be in the body, but it will almost always belongs there too.

That is not a defense of the article's lead as it is, though. It's not a good summary of the body at all. I think that's a separate issue, however.

My advice is to wait a bit and make incremental changes with descriptive edit summaries. That way improvements can be preserved while deeper changes are discussed. Springee has started a discussion on the talk page. Sometimes those discussions are actually productive, so it's worth a shot.

I also should mention WP:CANVASS. There is really no way for anyone to know if you are coming to me because I am an experienced editor who's tried to be helpful in the past, or because you think I am ideologically sympathetic. I trust you are acting in good faith, and I certainly don't want to chill discussion, but it is something to be aware of and it's best to be totally transparent about this kind of thing to avoid the appearance of "tag-team" editing. Grayfell (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Affiliate marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good call there. But should the {{cn}} tag also be removed too? DMacks (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that make senses. I dug through the history, and my modification is closer to how it original was, but it never had a source. I've added some sources that seem reliable which explain the overlap more, but the entire article obviously needs more sources, so there's no longer any reason to focus on that one paragraph. Grayfell (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. DMacks (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Heads up, I removed the multi-level section of Affiliate marketing after I noticed that 2 of the original paragraphs were borderline copyvio from a self-published source, and that of the two sources you added, one doesn't back up that they're truly related (merely that they have similar scopes), and one (Ze Zook) was later updated to remove the claim that MLM and AM are equivalent. Since I no longer see any source tying the two subjects together, and given the context that MLMers have been trying to claim the (better) reputation of affiliate marketing for themselves for years, I've removed it. I'm absolutely inclined to discuss this (I promise I'll be concise!) on that talk page. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am restoring the content. The book that this was supposedly a copyvio of was published in 2020, meaning the author likely cribbed it from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Wikipedia isn't a platform for reputation management in either direction. We are a tertiary source so we are mainly looking to summarize reliable, secondary sources. The article's talk page is the place to discuss this further, but based on your comments on the Andrew Tate talk page, I think you should review WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RS more closely, first. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Unity games 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/List of CryEngine games until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Respiciens (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&oldid=1114696668

Cryptocurrency do not have a formal ISO 4217 alpha-3 code (See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/BTC#Translingual for more context.)

“SOL” like other cryptocurrency tickers BTC, ETH etc. are informal only, though used widely across all platforms that track cryptocurrency, like https://coinmarketcap.com/ as well as products like https://coinbase.com/.

It seems important to include this basic detail on Wikipedia, so people know which ticker is the correct one (so they don’t buy the wrong cryptocurrency).

Thanks,

Aarongillett (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Aarongillett: Well, neither Coinmarketcap nor Coinbase are reliable.

But that edit wasn't about the ticker "SOL". Please look at the diff for the edit. That edit (back in October) did not remove the ticker SOL, it removed the symbol ◎. Crypto websites don't typically include this symbol. I think it's likely that was the wrong symbol anyway. ◎ redirects to Bullseye (target), but the symbol is visually similar to ☉ which is used in astrology to indicate the Sun, which makes more sense. But either of those symbols would still need a reliable source. Including either of these symbols in an article for an unrelated cryptocurrency is potentially confusing, at best. If you have a reliable source for the use of either symbol feel free to discuss this at the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification 🙂 Aarongillett (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Greyfell, (I'm pretty new to making edits to Wikipedia)

I have a question regarding the following revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StepMania&oldid=prev&diff=1127284429

Stapmania hasn't seen any recent updates, but the fork known as Project OutFox is in active development. (And therefor this may be relevant information for new players)

Since the Project OutFox page does not exit yet, I figured changing that internal link to an external link, may have been better.

If that's not desirable, then it's probably better to make sure the Project Outfox page *does* exist. What are your thoughts about this? Thanks in advance! Frankkie12345 (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Frankkie12345: Hello! Those are good points. I removed the links because (with few exceptions) external links don't belong in the body of an article, per WP:EL.

As for being a 'redlink', I have a question: does Project OutFox meet notability guidelines? Specifically, does it meet Wikipedia:Notability (software)? If the project is independently notable, meaning it is covered in multiple reliable, independent sources, then a redlink is appropriate per WP:REDYES. If it's not 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense, then a link doesn't belong either way.

The related issue is that the article's current sources are not great for this. Generally Wikipedia shouldn't rely on projects as WP:PRIMARY sources without support from a reliable independent source. While Project OutFox looks interesting and relevant, this should all be explained by reliable sources first and then summarized by editors later. If that cannot be done, it should be kept as brief as possible to explain this project's relationship to StepMania without unduly promoting it.

I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your clarification! I'll go have a look at all the articles you've linked. Frankkie12345 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I like it. Bishonen | tålk 22:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC).Reply

 

 

Happy New Year!

Grayfell,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please don't get me wrong here, I didn't want to amplify anything. My intention was to simply notify you about that comment, which I recognized as a personal attack as well, and give you the opportunity to respond to it. Nothing more, nothing less than that. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I understand that and appreciate that your intentions were good. In that particular case, I don't think anything productive can come from pinging that editor to my talk page. Since that comment was a personal attack disguised by pseudo-civil language, I don't think there's a whole lot I could even add if I wanted to. On the other hand, better editors than me are a lot more willing to assume good faith in situations like that. If it's even worth continuing that discussion, pinging me at that talk page seems like a better approach, rather moving the low-key harassment to my own talk page. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The information provided in the page https://dasfinance.info/frontrunning-laws-and-penalty/ has been properly sourced and contains no factual errors. Dhirendra Chandra Das (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The name of the author of that page matches your username. It appears to be your blog. It doesn't appear to be a reliable source per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, so that link is spam, which is inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here is how Limits to growth got into article - first it was added without source (just because no good English source), but the flow of events is easy to comprehend - first there was a Limits to growth report, which caused discussions in Russia too, then someone (Tsikunov aka A.Kuzmich) decided to turn discussions into conspiracy theory. In his writings he does not mention specifically Limits to growth, rather some vague UN documents which were produced after Limits to growth caused widespread discussions. Then someone correctly added rather limited mention of theory in English language book, that theory become very popular. So you wrote - it's unclear why it was there. Hope now, after deleting something about which you have very vague idea, you understand, why the mention was in the article. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

as for references - some variation of justification with references for removed wording is in Russian wikipedia article, something is in https://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/7328/ . In other words - the article in English on Golden Billion is far from being good. But it's better to make it better, adding references, rather than making it worse by removing relevant information, taking into account - that the term itself is not much discussed and just assumed as conspiracy theory, but it's importance is due to use by Russian state as an information weapon. So the better people against which the weapon is employed, understand nuances, it's for the better SergeyKurdakov (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

I think you misunderstood my comment slightly. I did review the history of the article before making that edit. Context would be needed for that sentence to be placed there, in that paragraph, and that context would also need sources.

Importantly, the information predates the citation. To include a citation which doesn't support this information is not acceptable. This misrepresents sources and makes further research more difficult. Since it doesn't belong in the paragraph and isn't supported by the source, adding a 'citation needed' template would just be making it someone else's problem. There is also a related WP:EGG issue.

If you have sources, and those sources are reliable per the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then add those sources or discuss on the article's talk page. (Each language has its own guidelines for sources). We use reliable source to determine how relevant this information is. Especially for conspiracy theories, we need to use sources to explain details to readers, and we should be especially careful not to include original research. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

let me describe a problem which you do not see. That the author of the term is A Kuzmitch is wrong. I mistakenly written this information in the article many years ago, then somehow that slipped into book which is now used as a reference. Apparently author of the book used Wikipedia article without attribution. Now using this source you back delete some clarification to the term - and originally 'golden billion' appeared in discussions in Russian after excerpts from Limits to growth appeared in the press. Now regarding source https://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/7328/ - this is an archive of the most popular Russian scientific magazine in the past (which is offline due to being out of business now).

So I'm not against - let it be as is. Just be sure - it's a funny caricature.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Regarding blockchain.com... I get why blockchair.com has gotta go.. but why is blockchain.com not a reliable source? Who in the industry would be reliable, if not blockchain.com. Thanks!

Haxwell (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, good call removing a quote I added regarding "no intention" to ban bitcoin. (for posterity, it was: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/09/30/fed-chair-powell-says-he-has-no-intention-of-banning-crypto/) As I looked into the transcript for the meeting, he seems to be talking more about CBDCs and stablecoins than anything else, and certainly didn't mention Bitcoin. Some irrational exuberance there, for sure. https://www.congress.gov/event/117th-congress/house-event/LC67940/text

Haxwell (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

All sources are judged in context. But generally, blockchain.com and blockchain.info aren't going to be reliable the vast majority of the time.

The very simple answer is that blockchain.com isn't a reliable source. It is a commercial service provider, not a reputable news outlet and not an academic publisher. It lacks the positive reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that Wikipedia expects of reliable sources.

As a very superficial demonstration of the problem, the website's about page doesn't include anything about an 'editor' or similar. It does, however, spell out their intentions to promote cryptocurrencies and of course also their own products and services.

Specifically for using blockchain.info as a source of primary data, any interpretation of information needs to come from a reliable, independent source. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, so it's not appropriate for any individual editor to dig through charts to find info that they, personally, think is relevant. If this information is important, we need a reliable, independent source to directly tell us why it is relevant. It might seem obvious, but this isn't enough. Our goal is to provide context to readers. Our goal shouldn't be to dump factoids in their laps and expect them to figure it out themselves.

I would also add that there are several industry-specific reasons to be wary of using an exchange to paint a picture of the health of bitcoin. So even if the information being supported is true, our goal isn't to include arbitrary information based on our own understanding. Our goal is explain to readers why some information is important, and also to leave-out information that isn't important, and the way we do all that is by summarizing reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I go to the school so I know how many people are in the student body. TheRuinsOfAlpha (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@TheRuinsOfAlpha: Hello. First-hand info is not verifiable, and on Wikipedia it's also known as 'original research', which Wikipedia doesn't publish. The article will still need a reliable source that has been published. If you know of a source like that please update the citation in the article, or let me know here or on the article's talk page. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I saw on the article talk page you were wondering where the SPA's were coming from, and asking "who tweeted about this".

The solana developers tweeted about it, [1] and got 40k views, they are also offering a bounty to whoever "fixes" the article [2].

This has got picked up in the crypto "news" websites, and is not spreading around social media, e.g. reddit [3] [4].

Hope this sheds some light on the situation, 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I noticed that on the ANI board, but I didn't notice the part about a "bounty". That's bad. Someone mentions the rules about disclosure to him, but doesn't address the WP:TOS issue. His response of "Absolutely! I’m just talking about the tech" suggests he doesn't understand any of this at all. Must be nice to be able to throw other people's money around like that. Grayfell (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is Sean King. I just wanted to apologize about engaging in that edit war and my poor conduct five years ago with you and others regarding Gab. I've realized since then, Gab isn't actually pro-freedom of speech and has gone in an absolute editorial direction that inadvertenly proves you are right. It is an alt-right site. Moreover, I'd personally argue a publisher and not a platform.

Going forward, I will do my best to have better ettiquite in any discussions. Moreover, I hope to bring better contributions to the Wikipedia community. SeanKing.TheReboot (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your edit to Philosophy, politics and economics is inconsistent (unless it's lazy). The article is very much a list of institutions that offer the program. If you don't want those few names listed and your reasoning is that it's "name dropping" you might consider removing the other universities named in the article or editing it to list them differently. I could be wrong, though, I don't really know your intent or perspective. ProofCreature (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article is not a list article of schools which offer this program, it presented as a prose article about the degree itself, with a list of schools later. The goal of any prose article isn't just to arbitrarily list facts, it is to provide context. The way to do that is with WP:IS. A school's own website is a WP:PRIMARY source, and should not be used to indicate some factoid has encyclopedic significance. We use independent sources to explain why something matters, and then involved sources to fill in details. Therefor, a primary source could be used to mention the school in the list subsection, but emphasizing that specific school without context is arbitrary and promotional.

This problems was made worse by calling the schools "distinguished", since this is a WP:PEACOCK word.

Wikipedia is a work in progress, so articles are improved incrementally. Whether it was lazy or not, it was still an improvement since it removed arbitrary information which wasn't even supported by the attached source. If the edit was lazy, your revert was even more so, as it took even less effort, but I'm not too worried about that, and you shouldn't be either. Grayfell (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

My edit was lazy, yes, and I thought about mentioning it, but whatever - this is the internet it's no big concern. My reply was less lazy. ProofCreature (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm still learning this whole Wiki thing, your notes have been helpful, if but a little aggressive. Hope to get better, let me know if I can do anything more to get better at this. ThePetroglyph (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smile Lee. Grayfell (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please consider reading WP:ROWN before major reverts and give a clear and proper reason for each removal of an addition. WP:ALTREV, WP:BABY & WP:RV would generally be helpful reads in this context.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

All of those reverts were necessary to prevent damage to the article. The burden is on you to gain consensus for your changes, and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Both your use of obscure and unreliable sources, and your choice of wording, are inappropriate across multiple articles. See Talk:Axie_Infinity#Recent_edits for a sample of the problem. Grayfell (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I fully understand and sympathize with your reaction to any potentially promotional or in any other way harmful attempts to disrupt or misuse articles on Wikipedia. But this is not such an attempt. Most of my changes and additions to articles have revolved around crime and other issues in relation to blockchain.

Instead of continuing to research topics in order to improve articles, I'm now spending the restricted time I can devote to Wikipedia in arguments about explaining my intentions. It seems like we both could use our time and energy far more productively, especially since we both aim at improving Wikipedia, and I’d much rather cooperate with other users than work against eachother.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not particularly interested in your intentions. As I said, there are many problems with your edits across multiple articles. I have responded at Talk:Non-fungible token#Recent reverts. I will add that, since you mention it, I see a lot of problems with your linked additions to Ponzi scheme, also. If I have time and inclination, I will bring that up on the article's talk page later. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your first line of argument consisted of accusations of cherrypicking content ("Any use of a source for flattering content like this which ignores the less flattering content is cherry picking") and promoting crypto/projects ("extremely promotional statement", "promotional filler"/"Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy").

Now you're alleging to not be interested in my intentions but criticize things that could have been improved (specific wordings) instead of removing them and anything remotely related to the content in question outright.

Rather than considering their relevance in the respective field according to purely academic standards relative to the size and current quality of the field(s) involved as I've cited them, you're dismissing all sources used due to your POV of the content/background of 1-2 of them ("if you tried to add NFTs to a 'traditional' video game like Tetris, it either wouldn't matter in the slightest, or it would no longer be Tetris") and allegations about the (religious?) intentions of their respective authors.

Based on vaguely formulated examples you simply wipe out entire articles worth of content.

When asked for specifics you continue to formulate vague sentences about the very nature of my edits instead of providing some or any sort of constructive criticism: "the source is poor by Wikipedia's standards" - I am, in fact, quite familiar with those standards and trying to uphold them to the best of my abilities. I provide highly specific reasons for using and including a source when asked for and needed.

Can you provide any suggestions with regard to improving the edits you've reverted?--JasonKryptonite (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I said, there are a lot of problems. I have been focusing on specific examples because that's the most practical way to provide suggestions. There is not enough time in the day to address every single problem with every single edit. If you think my suggestions are vague, please spend more time trying to understand what I'm saying, because I am confident that these problems are significant. If I thought it would've been worthwhile to preserve the content I removed, I would've preserved it. The sources are bad, and they are not being neutrally summarized. The simplest suggestion is that you need to find much, much better sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would like to thank you and DDMS123 for helping to combat the vandalism that was done to my edit of the May 13 page. Rorr404 (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure, happy to pitch in! If that happens again and nobody notices, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (shortcut WP:AIV is the place to go. Grayfell (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Over at Neo-Confederates, OgamD218 has once again reverted to removing the See Also links they don't like, hasn't achieved consensus for any of those changes, and has basically just stopped discussing, preferring to revert instead. I'm honestly out of ideas. I don't know where to go from here. I'm asking for some intervention because you weighed in at the discussion earlier. Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I share your concerns. I'm not really sure what the best course of action is here, and I would have to look over it all again. I'm going to sleep on it, and feel free to ping me about this later if you want, especially if this goes to WP:RFC or WP:ANI. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I started one RfC. As the editor in question has been simply mass-reverting all of my additions to the article, I'm taking it one topic at a time. It's here. Wes sideman (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's starting to get exhausting. The one user in opposition is now asking "where in the source do you see these claims" when the page numbers are right there and it's simple English. They're basically just trying obfuscation to get their way. I'm not into that. Wes sideman (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I suspected as much for a while now, but hadn't quite gotten around to putting together the evidence and filing a report. Thanks for doing all that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sir, you revert change made by me by giving reason that it don't have reference. Can you please tell me which type of reference should I add? Vishwa6421 (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Is this the right place to ask a question? Thank you. Fikos (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Fikos: No, use the Help me tag and put your question on YOUR talk page... not Grayfell's. Unless its about something Grayfell has done, in which case, click 'Add Topic' at the top of the page and do NOT use the help me tag - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 12:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

User has been blocked for spam. See also WP:BOTTOMPOST. Grayfell (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking of putting Enshittification into mainspace. It’s an important topic, particularly with what is going on at Reddit. I am happy to keep it in draft if you want to work on it more. Best, Thriley (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Thriley: I wouldn't move it, it's really not ready and would probably be sent back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I expanded it a bit. A bit more fleshing out with some more sources would cement it. It is certainly has the source material to demonstrate notability. Thriley (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do think it should get out there soon as this topic is getting so much attention right now. Thriley (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, but I also agree it's not ready yet. I will try to work on it more soon. Feel free to remind me if I forget. Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reminding you about the draft. I may flesh it out a bit today or tomorrow. Thriley (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for restoring the page back to normal. I kept trying to restore it to normal, but that link filter blocked my attempts. $chnauzer 04:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

No problem. What a hassle, right? Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

An edit-summary by the IP 2001:2D8:6264:4BC:2C63:28F5:DF72:3525 on the article Vox (political party) reminds me a bit too much of those of User:Storm598 and his sockpuppets. Coincidentally, the IP originates in South Korea. Would love if you would look into this. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vif12vf: Hello.

Oy, what a mess.

Yeah, I agree, that's almost certainly the same editor based on behavior as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Storm598. I'm not an admin and in my experience SPI are of limited use for IPs. I notice that User:Favonian has blocked 2001:2D8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from an unrelated article. Perhaps he can weigh in but it might not be worth the hassle. If this is a recurring thing, WP:RPP at the relevant articles is a simple fix, since this editor doesn't seem particularly sophisticated. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

You recently advised that ,rather than make direct changes to this article, I should leave proposed changes in the Talk tab -- which I did. There has been no response. The information in the article continues to be misleadingly out-of-date and inaccurate. If I can't make changes directly due to my affiliation with the company, could you kindly advise how to correct the issues with this entry?

Thanks. Fmcevoy (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Fmcevoy: Hello.

First, most of your proposals are still far too promotional. I will briefly explain more at Talk:SoundHound

Second, in the future, you can use Template:Edit COI to attract the attention of uninvolved editors, but again, make sure any proposed changes are neutral and are supported by reliable sources. Generally these should also be independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I saw you put a copyvio-revdel template on Data science. Based on this [5] there appears to be very little, if any, copying from that site. There are a few similar phrases but most are common terms, are used differently, or are part of cited text. May I know if you have some specific areas you think are copied? I'm tempted to just remove the template but no doubt there was something that concerned you so perhaps you could explain. Oblivy (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I saw you reverted a block of text. Yes, the template appears proper - my bad. Oblivy (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

No worries, it's an easy mistake to make. Grayfell (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

On 23 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Enshittification, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to Cory Doctorow, enshittification is how platforms die? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Enshittification. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Enshittification), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 23,458 views (977.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 06:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's best I just ignore that IP editor right? Whether or not they are sealioning, trolling or WP:RUNAWAY, they seem to be mispresenting what I said (and their own edits) on purpose (WP:TALKNO). I could warn on their talk page, and if they persisted take it to a noticeboard, but that's kinda pointless given the SPI right? Zenomonoz (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I filed an investigation because it seemed plausible based on the edits themselves, but there are also reasons this may be unrelated. The IP's current behavior doesn't seem to match the sock, either, so this issue should be discussed on its own merits. As I said on the article's talk page, your approach does seem too restrictive. Sources which discuss Demographics of sexual orientation are very often going to also discuss trans people. That doesn't make them unreliable in this context. Sources can and do discussing both the demographics of sexual orientation and the demographics of gender identity. Obviously, the place to discuss this is the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I. will take that into account. Some of the original sources likely include a full breakdown of LGBT, so the original data could be used as a source alongside it to for the orientation figures. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The neutrality of the Godot Wikipedia page has been disputed in the past. Having a "criticisms" section is reasonable. The sources used in the criticism section are the same as the sources used elsewhere on the page ABetterTomorrow101 (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Godot (game engine)#'Criticisms' section is a much better place to go into details. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for your note about the source on that section about the Brave Dissenter Fork. I'm frustrated with myself for getting too distracted with improving a bad section to actually think about what the source was that was being cited—that I added a second obviously poor source is just the icing on top. A lesson in not editing while tired! I've done a search for any reporting on anywhere with even a whisper of reliability, and there's nothing I can find. Taking a step back I think that probably that section should just be entirely removed, and I wanted a second opinion if you have the chance. Handpigdad (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yup, makes sense to me. I also could not find any sources, but I admit I didn't look too hard. It appears from the project's github page that it has been three years since its last update, which seems like a very, very long time for a browser. If it didn't have reliable sources when it was active, it seems unlikely to have them now that it's dead. So I agree, the section should be removed pending better sources. Grayfell (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello "Grayfell"

I have reverted the changes you've made to Jonathan Bowden's article due to the fact i think it was a poor edit and you are obviously biased.

Sincerely, Dork. DorkNorkem (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Uh huh. Wikipedia isn't a place for hagiography. Stick to what reliable independent sources say about Bowden. Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I understand you removed my edit, but I would think it's because the formatting was messed up. However, you said it was because there was no such article, and then linked to a page that talks about redlinking. But there was no redlinked article in my edit. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, I misread the edit because the formatting was messed up, but I should've looked closer. I'll fix it now. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can't you understand the analogy? Theophilus of Antioch has the same relationship with Turkey as Kant had with Russia, the relationship is from the current regime occupies the territory of former countries. Theophilus of Antioch was a Greek-speaking Christian, not a Turkish-speaking Turk. Ho Pak-chuen (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I understand the analogy, I just do not find it compelling in the slightest. Kant has nothing to do with Theophilus of Antioch. Wikipedia Portals are for broad subjects, including historical information, natural geography, food, and other topics which are related to Turkey but have nothing to do with the modern country as a political entity. Portal:Anatolia redirects to Portal:Turkey, because portals are indented to be very broad. For example, the front page of that portal currently include a painting of Mehmed II, who died hundreds of years before the modern country existed, and yes, it also links to Classical Anatolia and similar. Grayfell (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Grayfell I wanted to ask if a Wikipedia article has a line appended with a source that is an opinion piece, doesn't it has to be removed. For instance, in the Douglas Murray article, in the Criticism section first line's last sentence. "His fans have described him as a defender of free speech" It probably is in contravention to WP:NOTOPINION and WP:RS. 182.183.58.243 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Since we've not interacted before (as far as I know) please review WP:CANVASS.

I think you likely knew from my comments on that article's talk page that I would be sympathetic to you position. I am, but that creates a problem. Asking me here makes it a lot harder for me to get involved directly. You're asking a loaded question, and I cannot make that edit on your behalf, if that's what you're hoping.

To attempt to answer your question, all sources are judged in context. Opinion sources are sometimes usable and sometimes not, and what is and is not an 'opinion' isn't always clear-cut. For that specific issue, Springee's comment on this issue on that talk page, that it should be preserved "as a counter point for impartiality" is nonsense. That source is very flimsy for this specific point. His "fans" likely say many things about him, many of which are purely subjective, false, or contradictory. The significance of any of these claims would need context from a reliable, WP:IS, not a passing mention in a softball interview conducted by a restaurant critic.

Again, to avoid canvassing issues, I am not interested in discussing this here on my talk page any further. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

 

Happy New Year!

Grayfell,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Grayfell's_edits_at_Erik_Voorhees Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, I noticed you self reverted after I filed the ANI. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Grayfell! Why did you think this was likely spam? Valereee (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. The linked article was authored by Mario Lucero, who has (openly) previously edited as Smile Lee and has a long-term issue with spamming his own writing. This is documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smile Lee, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2023 Archive Apr#Heaven Sent Gaming and aywv.art, and several other pages. That Weekender article was added by an IP in a (very broad) range which has also added related spam. It might be a coincidence, but I doubt it.

Based on past experience cleaning up Lucero's spam, I would be very cautious of that Weekender article's reliability, also. It is unlikely to be as well-researched as it may appear at first glance, and his past behavior on Wikipedia itself also casts doubt on the reliability of his work. Grayfell (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Got it, thanks! I looked at WP:RSN and didn't find any discussions of Weekender, but the site itself looks like it might contain paid advertising. Valereee (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't quite agree the ideas expressed by the spokespeople were of little value, but your edits are a reasonable compromise. Wpearce1983.k (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. Since the source appear to be derived from Starbucks own press release, it's arguably verging into churnalism, but maybe that's a bit harsh. That doesn't necessarily mean this doesn't belong at all, but I would hope that better WP:IS are eventually found which provide more context to explain why this has lasting importance. Starbucks is very proud of this store, but it's still just one store, after all.

If you want to discuss this further, Talk:Starbucks is the place. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Grayfell, I notice you have some experience with a topic I'm interested in. Currently, there's an editor trying to whitewash the lead of Blake Masters. Was hoping for a third opinion on this, as you appear to be unbiased in this arena. Thanks, Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Grayfell - I noticed you reverted my date edit on Off-White company page and labelled it as "poorly sourced" BUT I would like to re-iterate that Off-White is the Brand name and not the Company name (Company name is Off-White Operating or OWO). And it was incorporated in 2013 and not 2012. PYREXE VISION was incorporated in 2012, and OWO in 2013 (you can verify on their official Corporate Journal available in their website (HERE https://www.off---white.com/en-us/customer-service-feed/corporate-information for their corporate/company name AND THEN HERE https://www.off---white.com/static/offwhite/public/pdf/EN_ModelloOrganizzativo_ParteGenerale.pdf for the complete history/breakdown/specifics). I just wanted to justify/backup my update here to make sure there is not confusion. Thank you! Streetwearwizard (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Streetwearwizard: Thank you for citing sources for the updates you've made.

However, that wasn't why I reverted your edit. The 'poorly-sourced' comment was from a different revert I made shortly after. The poorly-sourced content was added by a different account. (If that was also you, that means you're using more than one account, in which case please review WP:SOCK).

As for why I reverted your edits, you added this paragraph: Unlike other Streetwear brands, Off-White plays a slightly different role than just defining what’s hip on the streets and elsewhere. The brand is cultivating a sort of avant-garde and cult apparel that merges streetwear culture with premium fashion, like reaching a common ground between the two extremes. This is far too promotional and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. To repeat what I said, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy. Neutrally summarize reliable independent sources without editorializing. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ohhhhh I see - Thank you for the clarification! Makes sens. As far as the "'poorly-sourced' portion, it wasn't me I guess cause I only have this account :) Thanks again for taking the time to clarify my original questions though. It is helpful as I am getting familiar with the platform. Streetwearwizard (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Glad I could help. If you have any questions, I'll try and answer, or Wikipedia:Teahouse is a good resource. Grayfell (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey Grayfell, thank you for editing the hoodie article and editing the edit my friend put trying to prove me wrong about zip-up hoodies just being long for a jacket, if you could let me write about hoodies with zippers commonly being referred to as zip-up hoodies that would be nice to keep that in there, thank you. :) 01:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC) HoodiesWithZippersAreCalledZipUpHoodies (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@HoodiesWithZippersAreCalledZipUpHoodies: Hello. Sorry, but nope! You or your friend would need to find reliable sources for that kind of thing. You can call zip-up hoodies whatever you want, but Wikipedia isn't the place to change how other people describe things. Instead we just try to collect and explain what sources say about things. Grayfell (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thank you for letting me know, I wasn't fully sure about the editing system, so thank you! HoodiesWithZippersAreCalledZipUpHoodies (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of employment websites, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of employment websites (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with your deletion of the extensive History I've written and sourced for.

1. You removed the mention of "Pace news media" which is indeed the copyright holder of The Political Compass tool. The website itself indicates it is the copyright holder. Multiple sources state so. I think it's important to include a mention of Pace news media.... I believe you are mistaken there. https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/political-science/political-compass

Using "opencorporations" is indeed a valid tool for citation, please refer to the countless Wikipedia articles that use it as a citation, including the pages of Instagram, Apple, Meta, and BBC. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=opencorporates&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1

2. You removed when the domain was actually registered, which is I believe an important aspect of describing the history of the website. You ask for a reliable source and I believe "whois.domaintools.com" is indeed a valid source.

Refer to the multiple pages on Wikipedia, such as Dictionary.com, duckduckgo, and RedTube. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=whois.domaintools.com&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1

I believe the page is a good starting point and it could use more development. However, I believe deletion and not discussing about it is detrimental to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

3. That "obscure journal mention" as you mention is the Journal of Social Philosophy, a Peer-reviewed journal since 1970, published by Wiley. It appears you don't like how much detail is include, and I believe its important to be accurate to say what he thinks.

One of the many corrections I made on the page is that the website is "British" and should use British English, which I disagree. The source from opencorporations says it's registered in New Zealand. Without the proper context we are consequently creating inaccuracies.

I ask you to reconsider the revision what was created and deleted without consensus.

Gameking69 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gameking69: Hello. First, sorry there is a lot to go over here, sorry if I miss anything:

I do not accept that The Decision Lab is a reliable source. Per its 'about page': "The Decision Lab is an applied research and innovation firm. We use behavioral science & design to help ambitious organizations create a better future."[6] Nothing about that website demonstrates a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.

For OpenCorporates, any use of a WP:PRIMARY source should be supported via context from a reliable secondary source, ideally also a independent source. As for other articles which cite that website, see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The same applies to DomainTools.

The Journal of Social Philosophy article is still included in the article. I didn't mean to imply the journal itself was obscure (nor would that necessarily matter), but the article itself is relatively obscure. This one article from 2008 doesn't appear to be especially significant. Giving it its own subsection is disproportionate, and using redundant language only serves to pad it out and further over-emphasize it. The way to show that this opinion has lasting significance would be to include a WP:IS which provides context on this specific article. Lacking that context, this journal article is just one of many, and using it to justify a 'positive' subsection is a subtle form of editorializing.

I would suggest starting a new section at the bottom of the article's talk page if you want to discuss this further, since that will make it easier for other people to find and respond. Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Refer to Ignore all Rules

If you are such a stickler for the rules, I IMPLORE you to correct thousands of articles that use open corporations and domain tools as a sole citation including popular pages such as Instagram. (BTW gets thousands page views)

Wikipedia has acknowledged that the rules are not firm and should follow the "spirit of the law". Refer to Five Pillers (Wikipedia has no firm rules)

You are correct in the assessment that some of them don't follow the rules HOWEVER there is a reasonable argument to be made to bend such rules as there's very little sources about The Political Compass website, and therefore dictates unconventional methods.

I also propose you to prove me wrong by conducting your own research, until then, I promise you will come to the same conclusion as I did.

I believe my information is quite reasonable, accurate, and well articulated to make it not a bad faith edit. By leaving this information out we deliberately exclude information which is the SOLE goal of Wikipedia.

I will be making my case in the talk page as well. Please reconsider your position. Gameking69 (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, a lot of articles have problems. I don't think bending the rules on this article will make any of those other ones any better off, and I also don't think it will make this one better off. I have edited about 25,000 pages with the intention of improving their usefulness to readers. So with that in mind, I reject the notion that we should bend the rules due to a lack of sources. Many, many, topics with articles articles would benefit from more and better sources. Content about politicalcompass.org in partciular doesn't, as far as I can tell, warrant special treatment. At least not without a specific reason. The article's talk page would be the place to discuss such a reason. Grayfell (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only reason it was written the way it was before was people kept changing it in the past, and it seemed like the only acceptable text which won't get users (mainly IP addresses) to vandalize the page. I'm fine with the changes you made in that regard, its just that it may lead to some IP addresses trying to change it to be "correct." That's my prediction of what will happen... or maybe not, as those days may have passed behind us. I sure hope so. Historyday01 (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh for sure, agreed. There's always room for compromise, but vandalism is still vandalism, so I think WP:RPP would be a better approach at this point. This pattern seems like a recurring problem for a lot of pop-culture topics. It's unfortunate but not surprising. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's probably a good idea. If it gets bad, I'll definitely put in a request. Historyday01 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, before the making the edit I checked out Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin these pages don't have citation for the sign. Then now just read Solana (blockchain platform) Symbol conversation in your talk page and your edit comment which you asked for citation.

Now I'm confused about what determines for requirement of citation and how can I cite a sign?

And not sure if we should talk this on your userpage on Monero talk page. Throat0390 (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

Yes, the article's talk page would be a better place for this, but briefly, it appears that bitcoin does include a source: https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode10.0.0/

The bitcoin symbol was designed specifically to be used for bitcoin.

From past experience, on of the problems with using other symbols for various cryptocurrencies is these symbols have other, prior uses. This gets confusing very quickly, and as an encyclopedia we don't want to cause confusion. At least once I have found examples where someone added the wrong symbol from what they intended to add, but neither symbol was actually supported by any source at all.

That's in addition to WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems, which would also be solved by citing a reliable, independent source.

So for your addition Ɱ, that symbols was designed to be used in the IPA, but it's also visually very similar to the symbol for Scorpiio (♏︎) and Virgo (♍︎) and probably many others. I hope I don't have to explain why this would be a huge source of confusion.

So if you have a source for this, please propose it to the article's talk page instead of editing the article directly.

Oh, and thank you for declaring your COI. I sincerely appreciate it.

Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development and improvement will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hiya! I see that you included this in the summary in an edit after my edit: "Like it or not, DnD is consistently defined by reliable sources as the most influential example." I just wanted to let you know I wasn't criticizing Dungeons and Dragons being part of the examples, just that I didn't understand why it was abbreviated (shortened to DnD instead of Dungeons & Dragons). That's it! Happy editing! EdoAug (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I agree that it shouldn't have been abbreviated, nor should it have been a bulleted list. That comment was more to indicate why I was moving D&D to the front of the list of examples and removing Blades in the Dark, which is barely mentioned and comparatively obscure compared to the others. I also removed The Dark Eye, since it is not mentioned in the body at all. If sources cite it as a notable example, it would be better to summarize those in the body first, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In my last edit that I just made, I removed the section about abortion that you seem to have such an issue with, but I restored the additional sources that I had added to other sections of the article - sources that you had no business removing, as they had absolutely nothing to do with your "flattering language" complaint. In that regard, what, exactly, is "flattering" about the language that I used? I didn't say "Brendan O'Neill is a stalwart defender of a woman's right to choose". I stated that he was adamantly pro-choice. There's nothing "flattering" about it, and you refuse to go into any real detail about how my language violates WP:NPOV.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said, the article's talk page is the place to discuss this. I have started a section there to discussing this. Regardless, do not edit war to restore your preferred version. The burden is on you to change consensus. Grayfell (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, how about "Brendan O'Neill considers himself to be pro-choice and is in favor of abortion rights"?--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said, the article's talk page would have been the place to discuss this. Grayfell (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion involving a topic which you have previously been involved in at Talk:True North Centre for Public Policy. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the tip, I did miss the "tag" portion of that. I added the rfc-pol tag now. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - ImmersiveOne mentioned you in the notice board, but didn’t notify you. Raladic (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mr. Grayfell, what kind of attitude is it? I was coming in good faith and expected you did the same, and I lost my words to describe your actions. Are you acting out of rage, maybe? Here are your actions:

+ Without reading the source, undid my summary of the source. This was the first source on the article and it has been on the article forever I just carefully read and summarized it. What did I do wrong to deserve the undoing?

+ I preserve my right to undo your unjust edit, and then you immediately gave the "instructions" to discuss on the Talk page.

+ The funny thing was that when I tried to post on the Talk page I realized that you have issued a block of my IP. Then how to heck am I gonna post any reasonable discussion on the Talk page? (and you must give me the credit of posting civilized discussions on the Talk page). So your instruction to the Talk page thing was just a disguise or what?

+ Then when you have a chance to read through the reference source (I assumed), you immediately put an edit on the main page to claim that was an error, and proceed to remove that reference source. The problem is that this source IS actually a reliable journal source - it even has a meta-analysis of a bunch of peer-reviewed researches. And since you don't like its conclusion (that it validated MBTI) or it doesn't fit the "theme" (of naming MBTI pseudoscience) that you're joining force of pushing, you just erased the source from the article and persecuted the other editor.

So much for Wikipedia's moto: "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." — Valjean

NgHanoi (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)NgHanoiReply

Your behavior is only superficially civil. I am not interested in whitewashing a fringe topic. As has already been explained to you, the article's talk page is the place to discuss this. Grayfell (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You Said you need a consensus for Godot Vaquero3 (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have responded on the article's talk page. Do not restore the content again until consensus has changed, as that would be edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you removed a number of sources on this new page, on the basis that they are unreliable. Can you please explain your rationale for determining that these are unreliable under WP:RS?

For example, you removed a scholarly paper that was presented at a conference - certainly there would be an argument this isn't something which should count (or count heavily) for notability but unreliable? Also, The Block is an editorially independent publication which appears to have fully supported the claims in its article. Removing all these sources will leave a reader unable to seek out more information and assess the quality of those sources for themselves. Oblivy (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per widely-supported consensus, cryptocurrency outlets like The Block, Decrypt, Coinbase, etc. are unreliable for multiple reasons. One such reason is a lack of a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Another is a general lack of consistent editorial oversight. Yet another is ubiquitous conflict-of-interest issues (which apply to both the Block and to Decrypt). Much of financial journalism has these problems to some degree, but cryptocurrency outlets are dramatically worse and so they almost never stand up to scrutiny from the wider Wikipedia community (such as at WP:RSN or similar).

Conference proceedings need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and just as with journalism, crypto-spam is a recurring problem in academia and pseudo-academia. To put it simply, if the only source for something is in a proceeding from a niche industry conference, it's not obviously important enough to include in a general-audience encyclopedia article. Further, that conference itself has several yellow flags.

Additionally, the PDF you linked says nothing about the 'The 4th Workshop on Decentralized Finance'. The only mention of these workshops in that link is from the authors citing their own work at the previous workshop. If this is a pre-print and has not been published yet, it should not be cited, but again, even if/when published and peer reviewed, it is still very weak by itself.

There are other issues, but the gist is that when a source has some yellow flags like this, readers and editors shouldn't have to hunt around to determine if a source is actually reliable. Grayfell (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response. Can you show me evidence of the widely supported consensus on The Block and Decrypt?

Note that both sites make financial disclosures. Just saying "ubiquitous conflict of interest issues" without something to back it up isn't going to cut it. Especially since this is basically an article about a trainwreck of a project with little to gain from writing about it.

I can accept the conference paper isn't the greatest source. It's not that important for the factual basis of the article. It's from the conference page as I had to click through a workshop papers link to get it, but I'm on a different browser and having trouble finding that now. Oblivy (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Start with Wikipedia:COINDESK. If you really think that such sources are reliable and necessary for the article, propose specific uses at WP:RSN. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't cite Coindesk. I did ask you to point me to evidence of claimed consensus about two other sources - can you back that up? Oblivy (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said, start with Wikipedia:COINDESK. There are many, many pro-crypto outlets, and as far as I can tell, none of them have gained traction on WP:RSN. I'm trying to explain the situation, based on my experience with these sources on Wikipedia spanning many years.

Per WP:RS: 'Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' These sources do not have a positive reputation (for anything, really), usually not even within the pro-crypto bubble.

For specifics, The Block's history is not inspiring. Per TheBlock.co's 'about' page, "At The Block, we see digital assets as a ubiquitous part of the future." The rest is similarly insipid. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy, so as an encyclopedia, we absolutely do not see "digital assets as a ubiquitous part of the future." The problem is not just that this is an advocacy site masquerading as journalism (although that is part of the problem), it's that they have no reason to hire journalists (or purported journalists) who do not share that 'vision'. Further, TheBlock's owner is Foresight Ventures which owns multiple DAO-related projects such as "DAOMaker" (which looks shady AF). The problem here is that a truly impartial outlet might report on an individual DAO's failing as it reflects on the concept of DAOS in general. TheBlock has multiple incentives against this kind of impartial journalism. This lack of a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking means we cannot assume that the work is impartial, or even accurate. Even if Foresight is not influencing the outlet's reporting, they are still a nakedly pro-"digital asset" outlet without a lot else going for them.

To be clear, I do not think that everyone who writes for such outlets is a shill or is a bad journalist. I have cited authors who have also written for these outlets in other articles- almost certainly more often than I know. The problem is the outlets themselves. Grayfell (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is all very slippery. It starts with a claim there is a "widely supported consensus" around particular sources, then the idea that I should seriously consider that some other publication is the basis of a consensus, and that I should seek permission to add a source? The idea that we have to seek permission to treat a source as reliable has no basis in policy and guidelines (see WP:RSPMISSING)). And the idea that every RS possesses a reputation for reliability is certainly honored more in the breach.

Regarding the pithy language on The Block's website, every outlet has its niche. Is Bloomberg Businessweek so pro-business that they can't be trusted to report on business? Also, Foresight only bought The Block last year, and this is from the prior owner.

I do appreciate your efforts to explain yourself. I'll use my judgment about what to do with sourcing in the article, and I'll explain myself on the talk page. If necessary I'll link to a diff of this conversation. Oblivy (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Slippery" eh?. I'm not trying to sneak one past you, I am trying to explain why these sources are so often rejected by experienced editors. As I said, I suggest proposing these sources to WP:RSN to see what the wider community has to say, but I don't think they are going to be impressed. As WP:SOURCE says, "The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Where is the scrutiny for The Block?

Bloomberg is intensely scrutinized for its reporting. As just one example, look at how journalists discussed and analyzed its coverage of Michael Bloomberg's run for president in 2020. Even with that scrutiny, it still needs to be weighed in context, same as any source.

Reputable independent sources on journalism do not, as far as I can see, bother to scrutinize The Block or treat it as a serious journalistic outlet. If I'm wrong, let me know and I will add them to The Block (website) myself if you don't want to. As you mention, Foresight only bought it last year... after the company laid off a third of its staff and the CEO went bankrupt due to FTX. As I said, the company's history doesn't inspire confidence. Does that mean it's perminently unreliable forever? No, of course not, but what else is there to go on? What, exactly, does it have going for it reputation-wise?

Wikipedia is built on consensus. Instead of framing this as "seeking permission", it might be more productive to view it as collaboration. Grayfell (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear, I said it's slippery because you started with an assertion about widely supported consensus and then shifted to post-hoc justifications for calling the sources unreliable. In my experience, a claim of consensus about sources often means something was discussed once on a talk page once, without resolution. That appears to be the case here. As you say, RS is contextual and if consensus is necessary over this source, I think in the first instance it should be at the talk page of the article rather than at a noticeboard. Oblivy (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are no shortage of past discussions of pro-crypto outlets on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies didn't come about because of this was "discussed one time". If you do not accept or do not understand my explanation of this history, than a noticeboard is the next step. Grayfell (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did ask you for an example, but you decided to talk about WP:COINDESK instead. Oblivy (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

When you say it like that, it sure sounds to me like if I did provide an example you would move the goal posts and say this "was discussed once on a talk page once".

But sure, I'll bite: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_357#Crypto-focused_news_sources_that_are_considered_reliable. This was in 2021. Multiple editors describe Coindesk as "the best" of a bad bunch, and The Block and Decrypt are specifically described as advocacy press which are beholden to their funders. If Coindesk is "the best" than what do you think the opinion of its competitors is going to be?

You don't seem to accept my assessment of this situation for whatever reason, but my experience has been that patience for pro-crypto outlets has only gotten thinner since then (even before FTX). You can see for yourself: Search for 'cryptocurrency' at WP:RSN and you'll mostly find people saying something similar to what I'm saying now. Just because these crypto sources are convenient doesn't mean they are also reliable. Grayfell (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was, of course, aware of that thread because I'm a good faith editor who takes claims that there is a consensus seriously. That was not far from mind when I said "a claim of consensus about sources often means something was discussed once on a talk page once, without resolution." I certainly wouldn't dispute that is an example of the patent hostility towards sites that regularly report on cryptocurrency (calling them pro-crypto is a straw man - if they didn't take digital assets seriously they would devote their efforts to something else).

Even assuming that one thread represents consensus on theblock.co (again, I've done the searches, that seems to be all other than a few pages which cite it), consensus can change and three years is a long time. It's not going to change here, so I appreciate your attempts to explain, ask you to think seriously about WP:AGF in your future dealings with me, and suggest anything else on this topic needs to happen on the article talk page. Oblivy (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even if calling it pro-crypto is a straw man, it's also just a basic fact. As that linked discussion mentions, there is coverage of cryptocurrencies in mainstream financial news outlets (such as Bloomberg). These are not merely niche or technical journalism, they are also advocacy.

Raising this on the article's talk page, especially for a new article, will at best be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If you think something has changed with these outlets and these sources now have a positive reputation for fact checking and accuracy they didn't before, you should make that case in a place where other interested parties will notice it. Grayfell (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Please see said "talk" page. While it may be the norm, considering his continued change in party and for other reasons I detailed, I think it should simply state the office. The line as it is written may confuse the reader. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Grayfell

After you placed a suggestion that I was edit warring on my "talk" page, I removed it and included in the edit summary my opinion it was "hypocritical nonsense." Looking back, that was wrong. As another editor pointed out, you seemed to think that that I had done what some other editors had done. Additionally you kept reversing anything anyone else did. However, if you really believe that consensus wasn't there, then that is irrelevant. Since it was a mistake, I think, I shouldn't have assumed hypocrisy on your part. I apologize and hope we can bring the article to a good synthesis. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.

Since this involves edit warring and the article was fully protected, I am going to go into a bit more detail here just to make things clear.

From 16 June (when recent activity began) to 19 June (when the article as protected) you made seven blocks of edits, all of which have now been reverted (by five different editors, if that matters). This was starting to get close to the WP:3RR bright-line rule. Regardless, it was because of edit warring that article was protected. Obviously, it is much harder to change consensus and improve the article if you are blocked for edit warring, so the notice I posted was intended as a honest warning, because that's where things were headed.

Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I definitely agree with the editor who said things are confused as to who has edited what right now because there are multiple disputed changes. When the protection ends (in a week I think?) I think we need to look at each of the three issues that we are disagreeing about individually. TanRabbitry (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've created several dozen articles over the years, so I take advertisement tags seriously. What content would you change, if you are concerned there are ad elements? BOTTO _(T•C) 14:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

The first paragraph introduces traits which are not explained in the body, thus it isn't clear that the game's narrative is vitally important and belongs in the very first paragraph at all. This is a form of editorializing as it emphasizes one aspect of the game, but this aspect is not emphasized by reliable, independent sources.

Further, it appears that most of the non-churnalism sources which are cited emphasize the game's use of cryptocurrency ("...Potentially great MMO, but worries about Blockchain...", etc.) so to only say the game is "powered" by Ethereum in the lead misrepresents why the game is notable at all. "Powered" is also one of several examples of WP:TONE problems. Articles should avoid business cliches.

The 'Gameplay' section is entirely derived from a single unreliable and promotional source, and uses vague language to explain an upcoming game in the present tense.

There are other examples, but the article's talk page is a better place to continue this. Grayfell (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your timely response and helpful feedback. I've done a bit of work on the page, plus have started a talk page discussion. If you have further thoughts, I'd be happy to receive them. BOTTO _(T•C) 23:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Just wanted to pass along a note that I've replied to your three messages on my talk page. I very much appreciate you reaching out, especially about the "minor edit" confusion. Very helpful. Otherwise, I sure hope it doesn't come across like I'm being compensated for my edits to Josh Gottheimer! Of course I take no offense, but my whole point of doing this is to provide a more robust and trustworthy resource for those interested in Gottheimer -- and I wouldn't want to undercut that with a sense of there being a conflict of interest. Appreciate your work - LateNight LateNightWanderer (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For taking articles like Ember Sword to task, ensuring that content on this site is clean, neutral and reliably sourced. Your cooperation is appreciated. BOTTO (T•C) 01:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your capitalization made the tone feel hostile. I don't know if that's what was intended but it felt hostile to me. I'd just like to clear that up so there's no negative feelings:). Lordkhain (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I guess this must be about this comment from several weeks ago. I used capitalization to emphasize an important point which is a very common source of confusion among Wikipedia editors. It was not intended to be hostile. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Biohistorian15 reverted your edits on Dysgenics, insisting the the material they added in Further Reading was not fringe when it came to the topic at hand. Is this actually how it works when it comes to adding such sources? It does seem questionable to just add work by Richard Lynn and Seymour Itzkoff as just uncritical "further sources". Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Per Wikipedia:Further reading#Reliable: Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation. None of those added sources are reliable, much less high quality, and we're not going to tell readers to read obscure pseudoscience. Arguably Lynn's work is historically important, but this is already sort-of explained in the body of the article.

As you've likely noticed, that article has a long-term problem with fringe advocates attempting to legitimize the concept so that eugenics seems more palatable. Based on these article's histories and past discussions at WP:FRINGEN, this often involves sources which are not about 'dysgenics' at all in addition to unreliable and fringe sources. This appears to be more of the same. Grayfell (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Modern English Version - 2014 Thinline Reference Bible.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Kishi (folklore), would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I think you may have added advert and/or puffery tags to Lynne Franks. I've edited the article to the extent that I think the issues are now resolved. Would you agree? gilgongo (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No I do not agree. The lead still uses vague and promotional filler language. It uses blandly positive language which fails WP:TONE and this vapid language avoids saying anything of substance. The body unfortunately follows that precedent. It looks like paid editing, in other words.

Since you are a paid editor, as a reminder, if you are paid to edit that particular article, you must disclose that fact per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, and should propose changed on the article's talk page instead of editing it directly. If you are not compensated for these edits, but have some other conflict of interest, please carefully review WP:COI. Grayfell (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK sure. I'll leave it as is in that case. I'm not being paid, just thought I'd have a go at getting it back on track. gilgongo (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you stop by at Talk:Bitcoin Cash when you have time and join the discussion. Dealing with looks like a re-hashing of old issues from a few years ago with a new editor and wanted to get a 2nd opinion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Who can close this RfC? I have seen vague advice on this on a couple of help pages. Thanks. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really sure the best way to go about this. Since the RFC expired and was not closed, and there is more-recent activity, you (or someone else) could reopen it, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Restarting an RfC.

I've never done that before, and honestly, it looks needlessly confusing. I think the way to do that would be to restore {{rfc|pol|rfcid=FBE8530}} to the top of the section, followed by a new signed comment explaining that you are reactivating the RFC. It is important to include a time-stamped signature after the existing RFC statement but above any other signatures in that section. Something like "this RFC expired and has been reactivated ~~~~" would work... I think?

You could also go to Wikipedia:Closure requests.

I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit intrigued by the sudden flurry of activity on the Sam Hyde article, especially from a couple of accounts that do not seem to be very active until very recently. In my mind, the sources and quotes presented in the lead in this version are rock-solid - how many sources does a lead need? I don't know where to go from here, but I'm sure there's some coordinated white-washing going on. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no coordination, and it is not whitewashing to challenge editorialising in a lead. And I am sure you can't be talking about me as not being very active until recently. And yeah, I think Grayfell does a good job too, which is why I have stalked this talk page for four or five years. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I find this edit to be unsupported by any sourcing, or text in the body, but more than that, I noticed that the account making that edit has been pretty dormant over the years, and only recently woke up in order to mostly edit the Hyde article. Is that a cause for concern? Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hi Grayfell,

First off, thank you for your work in ensuring the quality and reliability of content put forth on Wikipedia; I enjoyed using Wikipedia as a reader because of the standard enforcers in the community.

I only recently created an account and tried making a couple of edits to the Algorand Wiki page only for most of the edits to be reverted due to unreliable sources. The sources I used for citations were not part of the WP:IS so I can see why they were removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algorand&oldid=1254188686) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algorand&oldid=1254188794).

With all that said, I was wondering if you have any advice for adding content and citing usable sources when there are not any (from the WP:IS list). As an example (looking at one of the reverted edits):

I added that Lofty.AI is a property tokenization company that runs on Algorand in the “Adoption section.” While I know Lofty was founded in 2018 and uses Algorand, there were no specific articles from the reliable sources list stating such so I used Y Combinator and Crunchbase as sources as they show when the company was founded. I don’t believe I am able to reference Lofty.AI’s site as not an independent source but a self-published one (if I read the guidelines correctly).

Again, thank you for your efforts! I look forward to hearing back

ObsceneOwl (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy. Further, if own Algorand tokens, you have a conflict of interest, and should read WP:COI. If you are compensated for editing in any way, you should read WP:PAID.

Wikipedia cannot and should not document every use of any particular blockchain. If you cannot find a reliable source, that is a very strong indication that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all. Additionally, it is not enough to find sources for Lofty.ai in general, we need to be able to use sources to provide context to readers for why this matters to the blockchain the company has decided to use. As an aside, I would hope that such a source would explain why a company would need to use any blockchain at all for what is very, very obvious a security, but take that as you will. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Grayfell,

I did happen to buy some ALGO tokens recently so thanks for pointing me to WP:COI! Looks like for the future, I should be using the proposing changes feature. You'll be happy to know that I am not compensated in any way for my edits (so I will be skipping past the WP:PAID).

For my reference, could you clarify why what I wrote was promoting or advocating Algorand, Lofty, or HesabPay? I worded my statements neutrally along the lines of in this year, this platform built/migrated itself on Algorand. Is there a better way to include these information (provided proper sources are cited)?

I think you make a great point that Wikipedia is not a place to document every use of any particular blockchain. The mention of Lofty and HesabPay were to highlight significant events on Algorand. Lofty, to my knowledge, was the first property tokenization platform to be built on that network. The HesabPay migration is a platform is used for humanitarian purposes in Afghanistan, simplifying transactions between its users and businesses.

Additionally, a tangentially related question: would it make sense to create/propose an entry for Lofty and HesabPay to better summarize these platform/organizations? It seems like it would be easier to detail what they are in a separate page/entry and have it link to the Algorand page or other relevant pages.

Thank you, again, for your response!

ObsceneOwl (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I trust that you are smart enough to understand why adding poorly-sourced information about non-notable projects is promotional. As for being "the first property tokenization platform to be built on that network" If reliable sources, independent sources do not explain why this is "significant", than it isn't significant.

Regarding HesabPay being used for humanitarian purposes in Afghanistan, many, many things are used for humanitarian purposes in many places. If reliable, independent sources explain how this scheme is any different from the countless other cryptocurrencies which have attempted to bank the unbanked, (or more cynically, to exploit other people's poverty as a prop) let's see those sources and we can go from there. Grayfell (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Grayfell,

Thank you for your input! I'll look around to see if there are proper sources that can be cited and make proposals from there! I understand your skepticism regarding some of these things and appreciate you bringing them up.

If I have any other questions, I'll shoot you a message here

ObsceneOwl (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notes:

• Earlier this year, the CMO of the Algorand Foundation asked investors to "identify and correct any wrong or outdated info about Algorand anywhere on the web": https://nitter.poast.org/marcvl/status/1796656087321739415
• A few days ago, the Algorand Foundation encouraged investors to check the Algorand Wikipedia page every day: https://nitter.poast.org/AlgoFoundation/status/1850228408862842976

Auditoshi (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I can understand if you disagree with some given edit of mine. The one concerned was, indeed, ill-considered in retrospective and I would remove some editorializing language the next time around... On the other hand, you have a pattern of immediately finding other edits and or even just wholesale articles you disagree with from such users' recent contributions. Doing this, as far as I'm concerned, should only ever be done when there is vandalism going on; this is not the case here. It is obvious that getting heavily involved in articles the other user has worked on recently, imposes unacceptable costs on editing certain articles. That's not good practice, please stop. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not a platform for pro-eugenics advocacy. I had already explained the problem with the wording you added to new eugenics, because you previously tried to add it to the eugenics article. Copy/pasting this material, which was completely inappropriate for multiple reasons, demonstrates a pattern of disruptive editing. A glance at your recent editing history confirmed that this was not an isolated incident. To say that you would remove "some" of the editorializing language shows that you, once again, do not understand the problem at all. Grayfell (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I very much understand "the problem" here; obviously, editorializing should be avoided wherever possible without compromising relevant and sourced content.

The de facto hounding furthermore did not quite concern "pro-eugenics advocacy"; whatever that actually amounts to in detail.

I think it is intriguing that I cannot find a single statement of "Oh, I didn't think of that. Sorry, I'll fix it/Self-rv" throughout years of disputes you have been involved in. I'll look more carefully next time, but that just isn't great conduct. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you understood the problem, you would've stopped adding badly-sourced, essay-like ramblings in defense of pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I already stated that I would do that one particular edit differently in retrospective. Besides, this thread is not about my conduct. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This isn't about "one particular edit", but sure, for convenience, let's look at that edit. The last time I removed this content from a different article, I explained the problem at Talk:Eugenics#Liberal humanism and deontology. You did not address that. This time, the edit summary was misleading, as the content you 'imported' was not in the history of eugenics article. At 'new eugenics', you added even more pro-eugenics editorializing and synth into the caption of some arbitrarily-selected images, supported by a source which doesn't even mention IVF nor the term 'new eugenics'.

In the same paragraph you say you understand the problem, you imply the content you added was "relevant and sourced". It was neither. As I've explained to you multiple times on multiple talk pages, this also involves WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and misuse of sources. I specifically mentioned this on Talk:Eugenics.

The content you added to Genetics of obesity had many of the same problems. For example, the single study you used to imply that fat people have genetically lower IQs was a single study from 1992 which merely says "other mechanisms, possibly genetic, may be responsible." This absolutely doesn't support the loaded wording you added, and also fails WP:MEDRS for being a primary study as well as WP:OLDSOURCES. The other paragraph in that edit has similar problems, and the sources were misused there, also. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will naturally adress these concerns before reintroducing anything. At the same time, it would be quite easy to find something objectionable from your recent contributions and perform multiple reverts/removals of text. I will not be doing this and neither should you. Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you do address them this time, it would be a welcome and surprising change. As I said, your inappropriate additions have been part of a pattern of disruptive editing. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply