User talk:Grayfell

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Hello! Please leave new messages at the bottom of this page.

Don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.

Thanks. Grayfell (talk)

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]

---

   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]

OJMCHE

The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education (OJMCHE), in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host an International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Sunday, March 10 from 11am-3pm PDT. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter Jewish women artists into the canon. An experienced regional Wikipedian will provided will be on site to teach, support, and guide the process. Participants can select artists ahead of time or on site. Please visit this link to RSVP and the Wikipedia meetup page for more information. Thanks!

Art+Feminism

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."[1] 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)NgHanoi[reply]

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]

WP:SEALION / Gish gallop
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Now, I could do the same for almost every single political topic on this entire platform, but let's narrow ourselves down to a recent issue you have gotten involved with. Shortly after my various well-sourced additions to Eugenics, you made the following statement that clearly would have belonged on my talk page and not in that specific thread:[1] "Your apparent inability to understand the many problems your edits have introduced is not an excuse for edit warring" Obviously, I had not been engaged in this practice.[a] More relevant to the thread indeed, you leveled multiple accusations against me [2] – that I arguably easily defused [3][4] – all, without much of an attempt at answering me, leading up to a conclusive: "There are a lot of examples like this, and I'm not seeing a lot worth preserving. This really looks like it's headed towards a noticeboard." I find these almost entirely ungrounded accusations to amount to intimidation tactics and consider the lingo to be in violation of WP:OWN. Accordingly, I looked through your recent contributions just to find that you had begun focusing on the topic area once the aforementioned removal of content of almost 10k bytes – that you clearly found politically undesirable – didn't immediately go uncontested: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eugenics&diff=prev&oldid=1232922731 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eugenics&diff=prev&oldid=1232841002 This – I'd posit – led to various retaliatory strikes like the removal of definitively relevant and well-reputed sources that I previously happened to have used over at eugenics in my attempt at making it a GA again in various other places (*almost certainly using some Global Search tool to even find these all over WP...): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Agar&diff=prev&oldid=1232884051 (very recent) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medical_ethics&diff=prev&oldid=1232878284 (very recent) After that, more generally, I found that you seem to have a long history in this content area, pursuing quite similar tactics. Again, there are dozens of examples, but I'll only include the most shocking (*almost always peer-reviewed) ones that you have explicitly and inaccurately labeled as some version of "SPAM" (e.g. by IP, as self-advertizement without evidence, AFAIK indeed falsely designated as "just a blog" etc.) in your edit summaries...: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1041831109 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1041826122 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=947529868 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=860049388 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=860049307 ...and or as "POV", "Whitewashing", "COI", "FRINGE" etc. without providing any further reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=940149604 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medical_ethics&diff=prev&oldid=1232878284 (Doubly troubled) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1041826122 (Doubly troubled) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Savulescu&diff=prev&oldid=1232878516 (*note that the statement was not mine despite me having been the most recent contributor) (Doubly troubled) Now, please explain these edits in unambiguous terms. ^ I performed a single revert of your removal and did so not without updating the missing link you did, and some additional page numbers you didn't specify as reasons. More generally, it should be noted that the only reason I had to defend myself in this gigantic thread was my attempt at being transparent: I had indicated in an edit summary that one explanatory note I included was directly copied over from Thalassemia and, later, that I was inspired by German and Greek WP articles respectively, albeit without adapting them verbatim. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:38, 7 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]

Why do you think that the Joshua Project is not a reliable source when it comes to numbers of ethnic groups in each country? Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many reasons. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I responded there. Best regards, Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for Joshua Project, it is already used as a source in other Wikipedia articles, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambo#cite_note-1 Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Being cited on other pages doesn't inherently make a source any more reliable. Going by Special:LinkSearch, joshuaproject.net is linked to on over a thousand pages (many of those are draft articles or talk pages and other discussion pages, not articles). I might start a discussion about this website at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if I have time and inclination. Regardless, even if that website were reliable (which I do not accept), it doesn't appear to say much about 'white people', so it was not reliable for that article (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Context matters). Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misremembered. This has already been discussed multiple times at that noticeboard. See WP:JOSHUAPROJECT. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Grayfell, I would love to get some insight from you on how I can complete edits using good sources, allowing me to better my article, Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Thank you. George7236 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@George7236: Hello, and thanks for discussing this. The applications of artificial intelligence was already a mess before either of us began editing it, which is why it has the banner on the top.

Since there are so many issues at the article, picking out anything specific is difficult. Here are a couple of examples from your edits:

Even when you cite 'green' sources, you have not been summarizing those sources neutrally. for this edit, where does the source you added mention real-time video captions? It doesn't, so that edit was not appropriate. Please take a loot at WP:BACKWARDS. Instead of adding stuff and then looking for sources, summarize only what reliable, independent sources are saying.

More broadly, the goal of these Wikipedia articles isn't to list bland factoids. Our goal is to provide context to readers. If you want to talk about Google and Gemini, don't just recycle corporate buzzwords about how it will "enhance" something-or-other. To demonstrate what I mean, here are some additional sources about Google's use of AI in search:

• Orland, Kyle (24 May 2024). "Google's "AI Overview" can give false, misleading, and dangerous answers". Ars Technica.
• "Google makes fixes to AI-generated search summaries after outlandish answers went viral". PBS News. 31 May 2024.
• Clark, Alex; Mahtani, Melissa (20 November 2024). "Google AI chatbot responds with a threatening message: "Human … Please die." - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 8 December 2024.

This is just a tiny, tiny sample of sources which have documented major, major problems with Google's use of AI to "enhance" search. If your only going to say that 'Google uses AI to enhance search' or similar, you're not saying much of anything at all, so what is the point?

Just for the hell of it, here's another source:

• Tangermann, Victor (27 July 2024). "Investors Are Suddenly Getting Very Concerned That AI Isn't Making Any Serious Money". Futurism. Retrieved 8 December 2024.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article cannot only exists to talk about how AI is going to make everything better. That's not what reliable sources are saying at all. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to improve this article and you reverted everything while I was in the middle of it. I don't agree with your reasons for doing so - sourcing issues, promotion. I am trying to improve the article and bring WP:NPOV to it. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comment on the article's talk page. Your edits were absolutely not appropriate, regardless of how much effort you put into them. I'm sorry I didn't notice sooner or I would've stopped you sooner and saved you some time, because if I hadn't reverted you when I did, someone else would've a little later. The article's talk page is the place to discuss this further, not here. Grayfell (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok thanks. Should we continue this there because I would like to improve the article and would like to know what exactly was wrong with the edits. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wells served on the boards of Cleveland Clinic Florida and the Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park and has been refered to as a philanthropist.^[1] Never refered to as "political activist". Rochambeau1783 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A press release from an involved organization is very poor for this, especially ones which are also obituaries. Over-reliance on such sources introduces more problems than it solves. Being on the board of charities is a routine activity and is not necessarily encyclopedically significant merely based on a press release. If reliable, independent sources consistently defined her as a philanthropist, and these sources can be neutrally summarized in the body of the article, it might belong in the lead, but not before that time.

To avoid common misconceptions, while I'm sure there are plenty of other articles which also have this problem, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Consensus is built on a per-article basis, using sources specific to the article as a topic. Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to avoid WP:Consensus nor attempting to WP:Promote, but the article is still in review and there's nothing on the talk page, so far. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is built from edits. You just created the article, now you will have to build consensus for that article. That's how articles are built. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think philanthropist should be used, but political donor would probably be more accurate than political activist. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs better sources. Political donor redirects to campaign finance. I do not agree that a link to 'campaign finance' is going to help readers understand what she did. The article doesn't even mention her financing any political campaigns. It mentions "causes and organizations" and "think tanks and advocacy groups" but not candidates or campaigns. I accept that political activist is also less than helpful, so I've rephrased the lead to remove either link. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That totally fair enough. I'm not trying to be difficult, but in "External links" there is reference to her personal Campaign contributions, which links to numerous FEC filings. I can separately add her contributions to the article and add further FEC filings as sources to help readers understand. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be very careful of using WP:PRIMARY sources for such things. The listings on the Public Accountability Initiative is a primary source in this situation. External links are fine, but the article should mainly focus on summarizing reliable independent sources / secondary sources.

As I often do, I recommend looking at the essay WP:BACKWARDS. Start from reliable, independent sources, cautiously fill-in details from less independent and primary sources when necessary. Resist the urge to add what you personally know to be true, or what you feel is obvious. That's a form of WP:OR. It's not an unforgivable sin or anything, but it causes many problems in the long run.

Incidentally, if you are affiliated with these organizations, you should also look at WP:COI immediately. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the advice, WP:BACKWARDS will help. Didn't quite realize it was primary, mostly beacuse it takes from the primary (FEC), but I'll accept wiki policy. No affiliations to any of theses organizations. Mostly feel like it's kinda obvious, but again I accept the need for WP:Consensus and nor WP:OR Rochambeau1783 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Upon his death, Thomas E. Wells' will provided for the "erection and maintenance, under jurisdiction of the Old People's Home of Chicago" of ten cottages to be known as the "Richard Arthur Wells Memorial."[3] I believe this is philanthropy and should be included. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference and so that others can more easily join, I've responded at Talk:Thomas E. Wells. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that you were the one who tagged it for notability. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Grayfell,

I appreciate your commitment to maintaining Wikipedia's standards and policies regarding external links and promotional content. I would like to address the recent removal of the edits I contributed to the page.

1. Content Credibility: The information I added was thoroughly sourced from credible publications, including Binance, Circle, Forbes, Coinsholder, and Binbits, among others. These sources directly reference official announcements and updates from the respective companies, making them highly relevant and valuable for readers seeking accurate and authoritative information. Coinsholder and Binbits have covered these updates with verifiable direct sources, ensuring the news is accurate and traceable to its origin.

2. Alignment with Wikipedia Policies: My intention was to enhance the article's comprehensiveness by including verified details from reputable sources. I understand Wikipedia is not a promotional platform, and I was careful to frame the content in an encyclopedic tone, avoiding any marketing or biased language. The edits were solely aimed at improving the quality and depth of the article.

3. External Links and Relevance: The external links I added point directly to official announcements and primary sources from the companies involved, as well as to Coinsholder and Binbits, which provide detailed analysis and coverage of the news based on these verifiable sources. These links offer users a deeper understanding of the topic and ensure accuracy and transparency. They are neither promotional nor unrelated but are instead integral to ensuring the article is well-supported by relevant citations. If any of these links appear to contravene Wikipedia's guidelines, I am open to reviewing and adjusting them to better align with policy.

Given that the content and links were directly relevant, supported by credible sources, and aimed to provide verifiable context, I kindly request a reconsideration of the decision to remove my edits. I am more than willing to make any necessary adjustments to ensure they fully comply with Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for your understanding and for your efforts to maintain Wikipedia as a reliable and valuable resource.

Best regards,

Sharifwiki331 Sharifwiki331 (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, did you write this yourself or did you use ChatGPT or similar? The source you've been adding are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and edits like this one are indistinguishable from spamming. Further, the information you added to articles was bland public relations. Do not use Wikipedia for advertising. Do not add bloat to articles. Grayfell (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I included, such as Binance, Circle, and Forbes, are globally recognized and credible in the cryptocurrency industry. Coinsholder and Binbits reported on these developments using verifiable, official announcements. The edits I made were factual, relevant, and neutral—not promotional or "bloat." Dismissing them entirely without specific examples is unjustified.

If there are particular issues, I am willing to adjust, but the content was added to improve the article, not undermine it. Sharifwiki331 (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s frustrating to see that the effort and research I put into improving the article have been dismissed without proper justification. The edits were factual, neutral, and supported by credible sources. If the page itself is dedicated to a company like Circle, then including relevant and verified news about their developments shouldn’t be an issue—it directly aligns with the purpose of the page. Removing such context-rich contributions undermines the completeness of the article.

I’m open to addressing specific concerns, but blanket rejections without constructive feedback are neither collaborative nor productive. The goal should be to enhance the article, not dismiss well-sourced and relevant information outright. Sharifwiki331 (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your 'effort and research', as judged by edits like this one, are indistinguishable from spamming.

Wikipedia is not part of the crypto industry, and most of the sources you cited are not credible outside of the crypto industry.

Your edits were not neutral. Calling your own contributions "context-rich" doesn't explain anything.

Grayfell (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback, but I believe there’s a misunderstanding here. The edit you’re referring to was my very first attempt at contributing with links, and I fully acknowledge it wasn’t done properly. That’s why I neither republished it nor raised any questions about it further.

However, my current concern is unrelated to that particular edit. I’m specifically discussing other edits I’ve made, such as those on Circle, Tether, and Crypto.com. I would genuinely value your input on those contributions if they still seem to fall short of Wikipedia’s standards.

Let’s keep the discussion focused on the relevant edits so we can work collaboratively to ensure high-quality content for the community. Sharifwiki331 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The links should not have been added at all, and your edits were not appropriate. Coinsholder and Binbits are not reliable, and your repeated attempts to add those sites appears to be promotional. If you are compensated for editing or paid to promote those sites, read WP:PAID. If you own cryptocurrency, see Wikipedia:EXTERNALREL

Focus on reliable sources, mainly independent sources. Press releases are not independent and are only reliable in some situations. Not everything which can be sourced belongs in an article, and Wikipedia shouldn't cite press releases merely to promote routine business. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Our goal is to summarize neutrally according to reliable, independent sources, not via euphemisms, slogans, and cliches." Almost all the sources for the claims in the edit you prefer are from anarcho capitalists, hardly independent if you ask me. If you could explain in detail the problems with the current revision I would be happy to find middle ground but edit warring won't help the article. RealLibertyEnjoyer (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RealLibertyEnjoyer: My reverts were an attempt to move the article back towards the status quo. The burden is on you to gain consensus on the talk page (WP:BRD). Even when sources are biased, our goal is to summarize them neutrally. The article already has many related problems which should be fixed. This is already mentioned in the banner across the top of the article. The problems with the article are not an excuse to make the article even more promotional, which is what your reverts appear to be doing. We should also avoid euphemisms and jargon when possible. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using these words jargon and euphemism. Please indicate where the changes are jargonny or euphemistic. You just assert without any reference to the text that the edits are "promotional". RealLibertyEnjoyer (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Johann Hari's page lacks balance as well as a proper emphasis on more recent works, in favor of an unjustified emphasis on plagiarism and other scandals that date much further back in Hari's career.

For example, with an edit I made at 3:18, 13 January 2025, I undid an edit by MedianJoe that they made at 18:31, 1 January 2025. MedianJoe moved information on past instances of plagirism to the second sentence of the page introduction on Hari. MedianJoe's stated reasoning for their change was that information in the page introduction should be presented chronologically. It is my understanding that the first 1-2 sentences of a Wikipedia entry should discuss the subject's most important and impactful work, and the work they are best-known for, and not necessarily the subject's earliest work. I therefore undid MedianJoe's revision to move Hari's most notable and best-known work back to the top of the page introduction. But that revision was then undone by Grayfall, and I was directed to this Talk page.

I am requesting that my 3:18, 13 January 2025 edit be reinstated to once again place Hari's most impactful and best-known work at the top of the page introduction. This will begin to develop the current page into a better example of overall balance, although I believe significantly more work is needed, given that the books Hari has published in since the mid-2010s have experienced significant commercial success and won so many awards and other recognitions. Tlupick (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page would be the place to make your case.

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, and your edits have introduced WP:TONE issues, such as promotional and vague language. I have fixed some of these problems, but more work will be needed.

You may also find WP:BACKWARDS helpful. Instead of looking for sources to support your personal opinions about how much "significant commercial success" the books have experienced, or mentioning the "many awards" the books have won, look at reliable, independent sources and summarize what those say about them. Brevity is especially important for those books which already have their own articles. Grayfell (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you have reverted one of my edits on masturbation page. I have already opened a discussion on talk page. Livingstonshr (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have already responded to your comment on the talk page. It appears that the material you've added was previously contested. Please take a look at WP:BRD. Further discussion should be held at the article's talk page, so that other editors can more-easily participate. Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grayfell! I noticed you reverted my edits on tres leches, my source is indeed scholarly, its a paper that was published by the UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AGRARIA LA MOLINA, in Peru. Thank you for all you do.

PoppyVert — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoppyVert (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PoppyVert: Hello. I would suggest starting a new discussion on the article's talk page. (Old comments are probably not worth responding to). Please keep in mind that not everything published by a university is a reliable source, and even if it is reliable in general, it may not be reliable in context. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Grayfell!

I know that you think that Coindesk and bitcoin news are unreliable sources, but they were the only non-primary source i could find on the subject. The topic in question (monero bans) is notable, but a niche topic, so there aren't a lot of sources covering this.

I hope that you will accept sources from Cointelegraph and Thestreet.com. They may not be the most well-known sources, but they are used in hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, including Tesla, DOGE (government department), and Elon Musk. Unfortunately, these sources are the only nes available (other than primary sources). Squ1rrelwithagun (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the sources in question:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/kraken-ends-monero-support-european-economic-area

https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/news/dubai-bans-all-privacy-coins Squ1rrelwithagun (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Sorry, I don't accept that. Being used on other articles doesn't make them reliable. For one thing, all sources are judged in context, and for another, it doesn't set a precedent since other articles usually also have plenty of problems that need to be fixed. Sources are evaluated based on their reputation for accuracy and fact checking, which is not the same as how popular they are.

If the only sources are unreliable ones, this information may not belong in the article at all. The article's talk page is a better place to discuss this. Since you do not have consensus to cite unreliable sources and now two editors have reverted you, you should self-revert and continue to discuss this there. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Grayfell!

Someone made what appear like promotional edits to the Algorand page earlier today ([4][5]). What do you think is the best way to proceed? Auditoshi (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edits and left a message on their talk page. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. They appear to have ignored guidance regarding the talk page and WP:COI. Auditoshi (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell, I was in the middle of doing a WP:EWN report, but then decided to simply reach out to an active admin to ensure I was posting in the correct venue, but then that user got involved and hijacked the conversation. When it was suggested it might be a 1 vs 1, that is why you were pinged to show that it really was more of a WP:1AM issue going on. I've been tempted to reply to bits of filibuster baiting, but instead have decided to simply let their own behavior on the talk page speak for itself. BTW, did you see they tried to report us to SPI in a desperate attempt to formshop and was admonished on their talk page. While I'm not expecting DC to handle the matter directly, I am hoping that he can advise on the next venue to bring this do as NORN has gotten completely out of control with their filibustering and rehashing of the same arguments for months on end. Cheers... Oh and for what it's worth keep Moxy in your thoughts, apparently our neighbor to the north had to run off to a funeral across the pond... TiggerJay (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good call on letting them speak for themselves, with the SPI being a choice example of that. "Filibuster baiting" is a good phrase. I keep taking the bait, and I should be better about not doing that.

At some point (I can't find it anymore) I noticed that an experienced editor suggested that the wider topic might be a candidate for Wikipedia:Contentious topics, but they didn't know how to do that. I don't know enough about that process to say. The topic's problems are pretty obvious, at least. I dunno... Grayfell (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the ANI now and will ping you when its done. TiggerJay (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened the ANI, here is the link for your reference: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Pob3qu3 disruptive editing via OR/SYNTH against consensus TiggerJay (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell, please stop taking the bait over at ANI, and let his comments stand on their own. I am confident nothing good will come from engaging with this editor directly on the ANI and it is at risk at turning into what happened over at NORN. My advice is to simply respond to the admins (or other non involved experienced editors) who ask questions over there, and as for other talk pages, don't get baited (as hard as it can be) to engage on the exact same arguments. At this point, short of something extremely new being introduced, I think any one of us simply "objecting per prior discussions" or something similar is all that is needed. If we don't give him any ammo, he cannot continue to lawyer his same case over and over with new words. TiggerJay (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh. Pop the popcorn and enjoy the show. There is light and the end of the tunnel. TiggerJay (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Looks like they also spammed a previous book of theirs when it came out in 2017. DMacks (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]