User talk:Grayfell/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

All-white jury

Hello, Grayfell. Regarding your recent edit. I think the definition you provided might be too restrictive, since it excludes civil cases. While criminal cases get the most attention, justice (or lack thereof) is still an issue in civil proceedings. I'm not sure if a civil case is cited in the article, but racial discrimination in jury selection in a civil matter might still be an appealable issue. I would hope that you might share your thoughts on that. Also, with regard to the all-black jury reference... that came from some of the extensive research done on the racial compositions of juries, and how that may effect outcomes. Not one source. Some surprising results. Gulbenk (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have responded at the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi Grayfell. Thank you for your comments. I am obviously new at Wikipedia editing and still finding my feet. I am a student at the university in question, but was never asked to edit the page and I am in no way benefitting from these edits, bit do not wish for any information on the page to appear biased. The previous page on the university was about two paragraphs long, outdated (did not even have the correct name of the university as a heading) and was therefore inadequate for anyone to gain any information on the institution. My goal is to provide a proper overview of the university that may perhaps assist potential students and others in future. Also, hopefully others will contribute and fill in the gaps on the page.

On various forums the question has been posed what type of company/university would hire gradates from the institution as it is not very well known. To answer that question I thought a sample of gradates employed in academia and business will allow readers to form an opinion on whether the degrees offered has sufficient utility. For instance, if someone with a PhD is only a lecturer it may not have enough utility in academia, while if someone with an MBA serves on a board it may have enough utility in business, etc. The purpose therefore is not to find the most notable alumni. Can you let me know how I can change the section to be acceptable in terms of Wikipedia policies?

Thanks again. Brian Tomlinson (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brian Tomlinson: Hello. I will reply here, but continue this further, I would strongly suggest posting proposals to the article's talk page.

Regarding the examples of alumni, that was not consistent with other Wikipedia articles, nor with Wikipedia's goals. While I'm sure your intentions are good, this was still promotional, because it highlighted information you, personally, wished to share. This is not a neutral sample of students, this is a small, curated set of examples specifically chosen to suggest a point. This might be acceptable coming from a reliable source (although this is unlikely), but Wikipedia editors like you and me are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, such as compiling resumes from Linkedin. Instead, we summarize points which have already been made by reliable sources. If a reliable source doesn't make a specific point, we probably shouldn't either.

It's common for articles about schools to include lists of alumni. These lists are, unfortunately, often vandalized or misused to include vanity edits or spam. When they are handled properly, every entry on such a list is either notable enough to already have a Wikipedia article, or has a clear, sourced explanation why the person is significant enough to give special attention to.

In general, Linkedin is not a reliable source, because it's user-generated content. Linkedin doesn't sufficiently verify that user profiles are accurate, and these profiles are also not neutral or independent of the school.

I hope that answers your questions. Please carefully review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and propose changes on the article's talk page. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Planned Obsolescence

I respectfully request that you actually read the excised portions of the article before you blindly restore them. Here's a point-by-point explanation for you.

https://www.technewsworld.com/story/79385.html Everyone quoted from this article in support of the claim “Apple devices, such as the iPhone and iPad, are notoriously difficult to repair” runs a repair website, including Kyle Wiens, cofounder of iFixit.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/01/apple-screwing-new-iphones-out-of-simple-diy-repair/ “"This screw head clearly has one purpose," iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens told Ars. "To keep you out."” Blind speculation. “infamously adopted” is also not neutrally phrased.

“According to Kyle Wiens, co-founder of an online repair community, a possible goal for such design is to make the cost of repairs comparable to the replacement cost, or to prevent any form of servicing of the product at all.” This is the CEO of iFixit again, speculating with a conflict of interest.

https://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/cease-and-desist-manuals-planned-obsolescence/ The author of this article is, you guessed it, the CEO of iFixit.

“Some products, such as Apple mobile devices, contain batteries that are not user-replaceable after they have worn down. While such a design can help make the device thinner, it also makes it difficult to replace the battery without sending the entire device away for repairs or purchasing a replacement (whereupon the original item then becomes waste that must be disposed of).” The claim at the beginning is unsourced, but perhaps this section could be rewritten to rescue this reference which is at least not to an iFixit marketing piece.

So almost every claim in this section is sourced to the CEO of iFixit, who is obviously not a neutral source. The whole section is very weak and overly focused on essentially one company's product, the iPhone, which shares these characteristics with almost every phone on the market. The preponderance of phone repair stores in the world serves as simple refutation of the idea that phones can't be repaired. They are likely, in fact, one of the most repaired products in the world.

211.28.146.134 (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You should discuss this on the article's talk page, instead of here. There are some problems with what you're saying, specifically regarding how Wikipedia identifies reliable sources. Being the CEO of IFixit doesn't, necessarily, make this person unreliable, nor is it properly describes as a conflict of interest. He has a vested interest in promoting his company, but promoting the concept of repairable products isn't a COI, and the Wikipedia article did not mention IFixit specifically. WP:NPOV doeasn't mean we require that sources be neutral in the way you are implying, instead we attempt summarize sources in a neutral way, even when those sources may have a specific point of view.

If you have a reliable source that iPhones are the most repaired product in the world, and specifically mentions that in relation to planned obsolescence, please propose it for inclusion on the article'st talk page. Grayfell (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

References

I don't really care to argue anymore, since you obviously have a vested interest in suppressing any changes and it's impossible for me to make a case given the imbalance of power. If you, reading that section in the context of the article, think it makes sense that it is almost entirely about a single company from essentially a single non-neutral source, when none of the other sections (“Contrived durability”, etc) are in any way similar, then I obviously can't argue. You have the ability to lock me out of editing it, rule lawyer me to death, etc, at your arbitrary whim. Thanks for your time, and mine. Edit: to be clear, if someone wanted to put together a coherent paragraph about this in a “planned obsolescence”/controversy section on the Apple or iPhone page, then sure, fine. It makes no sense in context here and comes across very poorly in a section that is supposed to be just describing a form of planned obsolescence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.146.134 (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin, so I don't have that power, and just because we're talking about it doesn't means I'm trying to rules-lawyer you. I do think that this should be discussed on the article's talk page, so that other editors can see it and participate. That's how Wikipedia works. I do agree the section has problems, "infamous" being just one of them, but removing the entire thing didn't seems like a proportional response. I know that's frustrating, but that's why I suggested taking it to the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, the talk page is where changes go to die. I'll post something there but nothing will come of it. I didn't remove the “entire thing”, just the 4 randomly scattered references to a single company/product from claims by a single person (boosted to appear to come from multiple sources by scattering them throughout) that seemed maliciously biased for some reason and added nothing to the description of the phenomenon and made no sense in the context of the article. The remaining segment seemed to match the sections above and below in terms of a neutral description of preventing repairs with one generic example about washing machines. 211.28.146.134 (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I just followed on from your changes and cleaned things up instead of posting on the talk page. It's much less of a mess now, in my opinion. Feel free to revert it all if you disagree. Cheers. 211.28.146.134 (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits to the Gab Social Network Article

Heya! Are you an editor here? I'd like to talk to you about actual meaningful revisions to the Gab social network's page, and not just random, tug-of-war edits between public IP addresses. The essential issue is with the unsubstantiated characterization of the site as "exclusively for the alt-right and white nationalists" listed in the article summary. Although I see that the more slanderous "white nationalists" bit has been removed, the fundamental issue with the source for the entire characterization remains, and I believe that as an open criticism of the site, it should be under the criticism heading if anything. I already saved the change, but as this account is new, I wished to discuss it before pushing it to the live page so that the reasoning behind the issue with the source can be understood.

I have described the problems with this characterization in greater detail here, which you should be able to access as well from the two edits I made to the page. I'm not certain exactly what the standard process is for managing "hot topics" such as this, so please feel free to help me in making sure Wikipedia remains unbiased and fair for all.

Kanryo12 (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Kanryo12

@Kanryo12: Hello. I appreciate your willingness to take controversial edits like this to a talk page. I think the best place to discuss this would be Talk:Gab (social network), which will allow more editors to see it, and also make it much easier to find in the future. Wikipedia is based on WP:Consensus, so this record is very useful. I would strongly recommend you review WP:CSECTION before moving things to a criticism section. This is, usually, a bad move, for reasons that article explains. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, and if those sources characterize Gab in a certain way, so should Wikipedia. Again, the article's talk page is the best place to discuss this further. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not "Vandalism," on the Johnny Rebel (singer) Article

Several times you have threatened my IP with an editing ban because of my edits to the Johnny Rebel article where I changed the description of, "...feature overtly racist lyrics." to "Featured lyrics denouncing Welfare, Affirmative Action, and promoted Segregation." as that was what Johnny Rebel was. It is a discredit, and travesty to simply describe him as "overtly racist" because that doesn't give enough information to any reader. I do not deny that Johnny Rebel was racist, no one is arguing against that. But to not describe the contents of his work as you would with any other's, means that the description is being used as a pejorative. Thus it does not belong on Wikipedia. 96.30.166.83 (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)IP

The only reason anyone is talking about him at all is because he was an extreme racist, and that is the only unifying theme in his music that is in any way worth highlighting in the lede. That is what the Wikipedia article should reflect, and whitewashing this with painfully non-neutral euphemisms is what doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Take your racist apologist garbage elsewhere. You can post on the article's talk page, if you must, but do not post on this talk page again. Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Happy holidays to you, too! Grayfell (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your patience and discipline in dealing with tendentious editors on difficult topics. Happy holidays¡ RivertorchFIREWATER 03:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I sincerely appreciate it! Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A question from a novice

Dear Grayfell, you have refereed me to the conflict of interest guideline, and to the Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. After carefully reading these guidelines. While as a novice to Wikipedia, it is always helpful for me to learn about such guidelines, I was curious as to why my edits made you think I should read these guidelines? Specifically, I don't see why my edits may be perceived as OR. Again, thank you for your help NetworkScholar (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@NetworkScholar: Hello.

I left that message because I know from past experience that this is a common problem with directly citing studies, and being aware of that might make things easier for you. I did not mean to imply that you had done anything wrong.

Because Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, we do not verify that editors are experts beforehand. Therefore, we need to rely on sources to support content, but also any interpretation of sources which isn't made by those sources. I'm sure you have run across instances when people have misread or misinterpreted studies, or disagreed on what a finding actually meant. Wikipedia isn't set-up to host debates on these kinds of things, so we need to be cautious of how we handle studies. When citing a study, it's usually desirable to cite a secondary source summarizing the study, or explaining its findings. If no such study exists, it's better to state the study's findings as simply as possible. Even if you, yourself, worked on a study, nothing you add should reach any conclusion not made by the study itself (probably in its 'summary' or 'conclusions' paragraph).

It's also helpful to find secondary sources for another reason, which is due weight. We cannot include every relevant study in every article, so secondary sources help us establish which ones are helpful or important, and which ones are not. This is also a potential issue with editors who cite their own work, since they are not a neutral authority on that work. Again, this isn't to accuse you of doing anything wrong, but is a just a heads-up to some common problems, so you can avoid them. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Grayfell:, I understand. Thank you for the through reply, and for all the references!NetworkScholar (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read the sanction notice for NPI, you're violating the consensus required

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).

Speficially you violated the first of these. I'm not going to suggest sanctions for anyone right now but everyone needs to get agreement on this now. I'm not terribly fond of this one, but there you are. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

addressed concerns about writing style of Rec Room (video game)

Hello, could you check whether the writing style of Rec Room (video game) is OK now? If not, could you be more specific about what to improve? Thanks! Martin Kraus (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC) And I kept editing it a bit more to make sense. Martin Kraus (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I will explain more on the article's talk page. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Identitarian movement talk page

I don't understand why you think I am vandalising the page. I replied to another user saying I reverted the edits, that are blatantly false that link the Identitarians with National Bolshevism (something which is a giant meme in right-wing communities). Please tell me the exact problem you have with what I did. There were no sources linked in the edits, but yet they were allowed - when I try and remove those false edits I'm asked to give sources?

Where is the logic here? JM17 (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@JM17: Look at this edit.

That is the edit I left a warning about. You reverted my comments to the article's talk page. These comments were to another editor about a separate issue. Removing other editor's comments to talk pages is generally not allowed outside of certain specific situations, per WP:TPG. I don't care if this was just a mistake, it's not a mistake you should be making.

Your behavior in editing the article should be discussed on the article's talk page. I haven't looked at this dispute closely, but neither of you should be edit warring. It appears you have already been blocked once for edit warring, correct? In that case you should already know that this isn't acceptable behavior. Regardless, now you do know, so stop doing it. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Eyes needed...

...on current editing on Aryan Brotherhood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sogyal Rinpoche

Hi Grayfell Thanks for your messages about editing this page. I am (relatively) inexperienced on Wikipedia and have only dealt with historical figures, rather than contemporary. I take your point about YouTube link. I did wonder about changing it since there are more "legitimate" sources such as The Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald with the same content. I'll take a look at the biography guidelines and other comments on the Talk:Sogyal_Rinpoche page and rethink it from there.

There was one older piece of information that definitely needs changing, as Sogyal Rinpoche is no longer travelling to teach, so I shall amend this.

PhilipP123 (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Shelf Awareness

Greetings Greyfell. I notived yoi removed a cite from Shlef Awareness, as well as another that looks dodgy, from the article on Post Hill. Shelf Awareness seema like a legot source to me. here's a link to their website ans I've linked their Wikipedia page above. Can we restore the cite? FloridaArmy (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Oh boy. Well, the history of the Shelf Awareness article doesn't look good. It's very clear that it was written by people in the company. This is unfortunately common with niche newsletters and specialist blogs like this, and it makes it very difficult to assess WP:RS. I will look closer at the article, and its history, and the source itself when I get a chance, but using spam to support the reliability of a source won't fly. This doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but it's a big red flag that caution is called for.

On a related note, the Post Hill article also has a history of aggressive promotional editing and sock puppetry, which is why it's on my watchlist. For that reason, I'm especially reluctant to cite a COI source for an article with a COI history. Your suggestion of taking it to AFD is a good one, but I will need to more thoroughly check for reliable sources, first. Grayfell (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Shelf Awareness seems like a legit industry publication to me. I haven't been involved in editing its Wikipedia article but linked to it because it seems to support that it's a trade publication. I also linked to the aboit page on the sote itself above where the staff and their background are noted. As far as Post Hill it seems to be a major imprint and has been involved in a series of major book deals, hiring initoatives that have been covered and controversies. With Milo for example but also others. Thanks for the collegial doscussion. I'm off fpr a bit. :) FloridaArmy (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

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

---

Please revert. You have been here long enough to know what BLP guidelines have to say about comments such as yours and it would be appreciated. It would be appreciated if you would do the right thing and remove it altogether. I'd really rather not take this elsewhere, but will if you choose to dig your heels in on it. BLPs -including BLP talkpages - are to be treated carefully because of liability issues. I'm asking you to abide by policy. Thanks, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 10:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe you have applied BLP correctly in this case. We must be able to use plain language to describe actions and events. If not, we limit our ability to improve the project. Trump's "shithole" comments were racist, and this is widely supported by many reliable sources, many of which treat it as a factual matter.[1][2][3] According to Newsweek: The United Nations human rights office on Friday rejected his words as "racist" and inciting xenophobia. You may choose to consider this a subjective opinion if necessary, but neutrality is not served by evasive language. Subjective opinions can be included on talk pages when it is in service of improving the article. Grayfell (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm applying the policy correctly and you are looking at the comment subjectively, with your own analytical use of the term as an adjective. You're free to believe his comments were racist, the UN is free to believe they are, but that still isn't sufficient rationale for violating BLP TPG. We wouldn't allow what you stated in the article per BLP guidelines, therefore it cannot be allowed on the talk page, either. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 11:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Although if you look at Talk:Donald Trump I can see one or two comments clearly stating that he is racist or has expressed racist views. And I've seen worse comments made about author's of possible sources. I'm a strong upholder of BLP but in this case with so many people calling him racist in the media, someone calling him racist on a Wikipedia talk page hardly seems significant. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The difference is in how it's stated, and you know this, right Doug Weller? "Donald Trump's racist comments" is inappropriate for a BLP. "Donald Trump's allegedly racist comments" is appropriate for a BLP. There are differences in perception re: what he said. And, it's now coming out that not only does he deny saying it, there are those who were there that deny he said it. Even if he did say it, by whose yardstick do we measure whether or not the comments were racist? Is talking about the conditions of a country that is pretty much a shithole a racist comment? I've seen interviews and video comments from people of color who hail from those countries and they not only agree that "shithole" is accurate, they don't think his comments were racist in the least. Bottom line? Should we, as editors, declare a BLP article subject "racist"? From what I read in BLP talkpage guidelines, the answer is 'no' as it goes against policy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course I know that. Did you read the first sentence of my post? And are you seriously saying we can never call a BLP article subject racist even if the article does? Doug Weller talk 17:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The Trump article declares him a racist? I seriously doubt that. If it does, that's against BLP policy and such content needs to be removed. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump racial views and Donald Trump notes the numerous comments the man has made that many, many reliable sources that have been condemned for being racist, so in so many words...yes, that declaration is there. TheValeyard (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Good god, that "article" is incredibly biased and unencyclopedic. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who admins in the area, the post was fine. The adjective referred to the comment, not the man, and echoes the views of many non-partisan sources. Things like [subject's] [sexist comment|lie|conspiracy theory promotion] are acceptable for BLP talk pages if they reflect a significant mainstream opinion of reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, the implication was clear. I know that Grayfell isn't going to budge on this, whatever. But I personally find it egregious, crossing the line, and just wrong to say he made racist comments when he didn't. He commented on national conditions, not people. Nations and poverty and shithole conditions aren't races, people are their races. You can't make a racist comment when not commenting on race. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. Adding a strikethrough to part of someone else's comment doesn't conceal it or even meaningfully refute it. It merely interferes with the comment and sends a signal that someone (who?) disagrees with it. In this situation there was no gain in making this change, because had it remained, it would've only added confusion. It is not obvious to other readers who made that change or why. Inexperienced editors, which likely includes the IP who we were responding to, are especially unlikely to understand this. Your actions (Winkelvi's) attracted significantly more attention to the comment than had you ignored it.

I was not proposing that the Ben Carson article describe Trump as a racist, nor was I saying that it should describe his comments as racist, even if I strongly believe they were. I was agreeing with you that we would need reliable sources before even attempting to include any of this in the article. I would extend that to any other article, as well. Any description of these comments would need a discussion on the hypothetical article's talk page. Discussing how to include content in articles is the purpose of talk pages, and we must have the ability to discuss these kinds of things without pointless interference.

Talk pages do not, absolutely not, have exactly the same BLP guidelines as articles. Among other differences, those comments I posted were my own, with my signature as attribution. Further, nothing I posted there was fabricated, nor was it purely insulting with no informational content. "Racist" conveys discrete information about his meaning, how the comment was perceived by others, and other things. Not every single unflattering attribute needs to be prefaced by 'allegedly', because that would be disruptive and misleading. This is sometimes true in articles, but especially in discussions of those articles on talk pages.

At this point, I've said all I have to say on this. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Comment from *inexperienced editor*

Difficult for ***Inexperienced editors***, which likely includes the IP who we were responding to...*** to turn to the following: "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion." when pertinent questions and comments on subject of article Ben Carson, made on "the appropriate discussion page", are coatracked (synonym: "censored"). This *inexperienced editor* thus feels useless any attempt at asking at the appropriate discussion page if Mr. Carson had shown any emotion at Mr. Trump's alleged racist slur. In view of the controversy, this *inexperienced editor* felt the question was an obvious one to ask, but, to his surprise, found himself muzzled in the process. With my best wishes for 2018, my apologies to Grayfell for the use of his space. --90.90.19.39 (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't entirely get what you're saying. Here's what happened as I see it: You asked a question on the talk page, and another editor closed it. That editor linked to an essay page: WP:COATRACK. I don't think that was the right way to handle this. That essay has little to do with talk pages, and is about articles. Using Wikipedia jargon to link to tangentially related page was more confusing than helpful. I think I get why that editor closed the discussion, though. Talk pages are not a forum to discuss the topic, they are for improving the article. That's not an essay, it's part of Wikipedia's core mission: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM. In order to change the article to talk about this, we need reliable sources, and we both tried to explain this to you.

Is closing a talk page discussion "censorship"? Meh, not really. Your comments are still there, just collapsed, and you don't have any more right to demand changes to the article than I do or than anybody else does. Well, I guess Carson himself has slightly more right, but that's another issue.

So what, exactly, are you suggesting happen to the article? Carson was not at the meeting in question, was he? Is he expected to be the spokesperson for all people from "shithole" countries just because his ancestors are African? No, so what's the point of dragging him into this particular garbage fire? If you know of a reliable source which discusses Carson's response, we can talk about it. Otherwise, this is a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not that difficult to understand: I asked a question & was given as an answer that my question was not germane to Carson in article on Carson because Carson did not make the comment: Even so, if Carson wasn't directly involved in the statement allegedly made by the president, I don't see how it would be germane to Carson or this article.

I thus answered: Should Carson have the guts to take a courageous stand against his boss, his comment will be included in this article, together with the reliable source. - which meant that if an article would come out with Carson's own words, proven to be the "reliable source" needed, I then would come back with it for inclusion in article.

That was it. I asked a question. Was given an answer. Returned with what my intention was, i.e. going along with advice. No argument. Then came the muzzle.

Furthermore, after seeing the short duel[4], (BTW, I agree that your word should stand & not be crossed out), I followed the 14 Jan. discussion on your page, finding it extremely interesting, with so much said that seems to agree with the way I was trying to come thru on Carson's talk page.

To conclude: I really do not see why my original question on Carson's talk page should be hidden away.

(1) My question was straightforward, and I thought the talk page the right place to put it, which was doing my best as an *inexperienced editor* :)

(2) What I said I would do was exactly what is supposed to be done.

So, where was the problem, if there was a problem?

(3) I maintain that muzzling me is censorship or, if you prefer - censorship in disguise.

We can let go of this: no response necessary. However, before signing off, I will answer a question of yours: Yes, as a Black American in the current administration, I do feel that Mr. Carson should speak out for all people slighted by Mr. Trump numerous racist slur(s), not only the *shithole*.

Yours truly: *inexperienced editor* --90.90.19.39 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I don't know why you keep hitting on the inexperienced editor comment. I don't know or care how experienced you truly are, but the evidence I have says you're inexperienced. My point was only that collapsing the comment was confusing and kind of rude, which agrees with your point that it's censorship. I'm not going to call it censorship, however, for reasons that probably don't matter that much.

As for Carson speaking out against Trump, it's not like he didn't know who Trump was before now. His silence seems completely unremarkable to me, because I don't know why this particular example of Trump's bigotry would be the final straw. If the goal is to hold him accountable for his participation in the Trump administration, his Wikipedia talk page seems like a poor place to do that for a lot of reasons. Discussing whether or not something belongs in the article is what talk pages are for, so I do not think you did anything wrong by asking questions, not that you need me to tell you that. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell. It seems that we agree on most points, and those we do not agree upon are rather minor.

It was a pleasure discussing with you. Thank you. --90.90.19.39 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sea Org

Check out Paramilitary. And while you're at it, read my comments on the talk page please. The article ignores all the American rightwing groups that are paramilitaries, in fact the definition seems to exclude them. I get tired of editors making up definitions that don't take into account reliable sources using the term. Or not using it, eg Stateless nation where people don't seem to get WP:VERIFY. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. Grayfell (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sea Org 100% is paramilitary. There is no better description in terms of how it is RUN. Question: Not sure why the examples were deleted though, ie. use of "Sir" etc (is that "editorializing"?) Should this be added in the body of the text somewhere instead? Having spent 10 years in the Sea Org myself I can tell you first hand it is 100% patterned on the U.S Navy and is 100% run as a paramiliary organization in FORM. The Churches it manages below it are not and are "civilian" entities, for lack of a better word. This is because L Ron Hubbard was a commissioned officer in the US Navy in the 1940s. He formed the Sea Organization in the 1970s to manage all the Churches worldwide, and as an example of the parallels of the Sea Org with the U.S Navy: the rank of Petty Officer 3rd Class all the way up to Admiral (LRH himself) are mirrors of the U.S rank system and insignia. You will find some Sea Org officials are "midshipman" and "lieutenant." CEO's of the Sea Org organizations are all "captains." That's just one small thing. 110.20.254.30 (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Vijay Eswaran

Hello Grayfell, thanks for the feedback — I understand perfectly (and I am incidentally responsible for deleting some of the previous non-neutral/commercial material on this page). Regarding the awards section, please note that my original edit simply listed the awards in chronological order, and that I restored the original version when I thought it had been mistakenly deleted by one of your reverts. Best regards Theearthisbluelikeanorange (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In defense of my edit on Far-left politics

Greetings, The I.P hopping was unintentional. With that detail out of the way, I would like to take the time to explain the motivation behind my recent edit. The page on Far-right politics accurately describe how dangerous ideologies oppress people based on preconceived notions of racial, ethnic, or national superiority. However, in order to maintain a politically neutral image on wikipedia, the Far-left's effects must be called out as well. History has shown that Far-left movements have been known to take things overboard. Far-left movements have been known to destroy buildings, commit murder based on social class, and violently repress dissent.

I know the majority of wikipedia's editors hold a leftist viewpoint on certain political aspect. But to downright deny the extremism of one end of the political spectrum is completely in violation of the rule of a neutral point of view. It seems that critical remarks about left-wing politics must be heavily cited, and agreed upon. Whereas critical remarks about right-wing politics often go uncited, unchecked, and are added without an iota of consideration. If we are to truly be a neutral site, then both extremes of the political spectrum should be looked at from a critical standpoint.

32.208.86.39 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)32.208.86.39

Take a look at the article's history. The most recent named account to try and add this content was blocked for disruptive editing, including some anti-Semitic and related WP:FRINGE positions. Unintentional or not, when content added by a recently blocked account is restored by multiple IP addresses from the same location, it's not a good look. For this and other reasons, it's probably best to discuss your proposals on the article's talk page instead.

As for your additions, the sources you added were completely insufficient for the claims you introduced. None of those sources even mentions left or right wing politics, much less "far-left". Using the lede to make poorly-sources insinuations isn't neutral. Instead of adding what you personally know, and then looking for anecdotal sources to support that, find reliable sources first, and summarize neutrally. Comparisons to far-right politics are a non-starter for multiple reasons. The only way to demonstrate that this isn't false equivalence, an argument to moderation, or plain ol' whitewashing is to rely on reliable sources, which we should all be doing anyway. Wikipedia doesn't treat different things as being the same just because they are opposed to each other in some ways, or because the names are related. Wikipedia also has a poor view of precedent. Just because something is on one page doesn't mean it belongs on another page, also.

My talk page isn't the best place to go into further detail, so again, discuss on the article's talk page before restoring, not here. This will allow other editors, "leftist" and otherwise, to contribute to the discussion. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

New Candidate Photo for Webcam Model Article

You had previously participated in discussions concerning a possible photo for the Webcam Model article.

A new appropriate photo (Elements for Camming Session) for the article has been recently proposed upon the article's talk page. If you get a chance please consider weighing in on that talk page's discussion on the photo, so that we can achieve a consensus and move forward with an engaging photo for that refurbished article. James Carroll (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have commented there. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:USURP

Hello Grayfell. This is to inform you that your request on WP:USURP is now complete. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Emery White, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anderson University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael DeLorenzo

---Hi Grayfell! I just wanted to address your comment about conflict of interest on my talk page. I started as an editor with Wikipedia in hopes to contribute my research capabilities to this knowledge community. The first article I chose was out of my personal interest. I found the article to have alot of issues which seems to be common themes of biographies in Wikipedia. The article needed a lot of help. I've been conducting extensive research to be able to provide content and reference to the subject matter. That is what I am hoping to do for my contribution to Wikipedia articles that might lack content. There is no conflict of interest because I have no connection or association with the subject matter except that I enjoyed a television show associated with the person in the past. I think biographies in general need a lot of work on Wikipedia and I hope I can do my part in the contribution. I also want to finish what I started and when I find new references of information I want to update the articles that I lend my research abilities to. I hope this clarifies any questions regarding my involvement in the article. Thank you! 09violet06 (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Since it appears you have also posted this on your own talk page, I will respond there. Having a discussion in two places is too confusing. Grayfell (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness.

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

---

Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness.

Thank you. Indeed the principle of perceived offensiveness applies to the second paragraph of the Evola articles I removed.

Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material.

Countless users have done that before me ever since the article was modified from a perfectly fine, informative encyclopedic article to an attack piece full of personal feelings, interpreted from second hand sources when first hand sources are readily available to contradict the majority of claims made there (and have been brought up in the talk section). Even the picture was changed from what is probably the most famous and recognizable one to a more obscure, less flattering one.

All this happening coincidentally after politically charged articles established a disputable link between a contemporary controversial political figure and Evola.

As far as I'm aware Wikipedia is not a political diary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.229.122 (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2018‎

Wikipedia favors "second hand" sources, and Evola isn't a reliable expert for anything at all. This isn't some new fad, either, and if the article was more accommodating to his fringe ideas and belief, it's fortunate that the article has changed to better match Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. If "first hand" sources are available, then find reputable academics which cite those first hand sources to explain his real position. I get the feeling we've already had this discussion, so when you say "countless editors", I'm a bit skeptical of that, but whatever. The place to gain consensus for changes is the article's talk page, not here. Any further edits to this section will be reverted. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Conor Friedersdorf and The Atlantic

Hi Greyfell, thanks for your suggestion that future proposals to the White Privilege page should include actionable changes, and I have proposed this discreet and concise change. I think this is a better approach rather than going too broad or getting too abstract.

I have proposed the following and look forward to your comments on the talk page.

"Conor Friedersdorf objects to privilege theory by arguing that it replaces color-blindness with a “hyper-emphasis on everyone's racial or ethnic background, including artificially constructed majoritarian whiteness” and that such practice might be counter-productive noting: “nothing in U.S. history leads me to believe that encouraging people to regard whiteness as the core of their identity will end well." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/the-limits-of-talking-about-privilege/386021/ Keith Johnston (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This proposed edit is unacceptable.

First, you've cherry-picked two different quotes from different paragraphs, swapped their order, and presented them as though there were connected through editorializing language. These quotes are taken out of a lengthy article to support your obvious prior assumptions that "white privilege theory" should be challenged. Referring to the deracination available to white people, Friedersdorf says that "That same privilege has been unjustly denied to other groups, especially blacks." This demonstrates that Friedersdorf understands that privilege exists, and is worth discussing in some contexts, because he gives a specific example of it and then discusses it. He is not "objecting to privilege theory" as a whole, he is, at most, challenging how it's used in schools. He specifically says this is about pedagogy. As the current Wikipedia article already says, in the lede, "white privilege" is an accepted academic term which has been thrust into mainstream attention. Friedersdorf's point, for what it's worth, is completely different from what you're claiming it is.

Second, why is Conor Friedersdorf's opinion significant enough to justify inclusion, and why a rambling run-on sentence containing two quotes taken from two separate paragraphs? Out of all the thousands of published pages of op-ed out-gassing that exist on white privilege, why this particular article by this particular nobody? I've already said I think the article over-relies on op-eds and blogs, so I'm very reluctant to add even more to the heap. This is an op-ed from a random journalist, so why are these points informative to the article? Of course, if you were actually to summarize the points he makes in his article, you might agree that they're not worth including after all.

I'm not sure how productive this is going to be, because you haven't yet successfully summarized the point being made by any source you've tried to insert into that article. Selectively summarizing a much longer source is always difficult even for uncontroversial content, and in this case, you have already demonstrated that your biases cloud your judgement. I do not see any purpose in ignoring this problem. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the release date

I sometimes act extremely stupid and don't realize somethings, I didn't realize it said "After 2018"... Thanks for fixing that! 👍 DBG Channel (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh geez, I wouldn't call that extremely stupid! I would call that an easy mistake, but you're welcome regardless. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Communications Platform as a Service

Hello - I am a bit confused as to what is objectionable to adding an explanation of what Communications Platform as a Service or CPaaS is. I would think people would want to know as it is a new breed of PaaS. Also, I apologize but I cannot view where to add a new section to your talk page. Perhaps you can give me a primer on that. Thanks. Otherworlder1 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Vendors are not, usually, reliable. Adding mentions of vendors or references to vendor blog posts is no different from spam. If you know of a reliable, independent source which summarizes this content, and you can summarize that in a neutral way, you can readd it with that source. Otherwise, assume it doesn't belong in the article.

For talk page sections, on the web version of the site, there is a "New section" tab on the top of the page. Grayfell (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello - I am not affiliated with any of the vendors listed. I just noticed that this category was missing from the PaaS category. I am re-adding the sentence minus the vendors although I do not believe this is a good idea because it doesn't give anyone any way to research further. Otherworlder1 (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Otherworlder1: Please don't do that. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS: reliable sources. It is not based on WP:OR: original research. Do not add content you personally know to be true, add what is summarized by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Policybazaar

Hello, thank you for helping me out here! Being new, I am still trying to learn how things work on Wikipedia. I tried declaring the 'Paid Contributor' thing on my User Page as I am associated with Policybazaar. I am looking to update the page (Policybazaar) as this page actually lacks information. The page was last updated way back and since then plenty of things have changed. I'm not trying to promotional here, but I have sources (citations) for every information that I trying to update on this page. We are actually a notable company in India and with an updated Wikipedia page our intention is to just provide enough information to the users about the company. I am actually very new to this thing and there are things that don't completely understand. I would request you to please help me out here. Please suggest how to go about updating the information on the page. If you'll look at the introduction part of the page, you'll find there is just one sentence. This not make it clear for the reader as to what the company is all about, who manages the company, what's special about their services. So I request you to kindly help me out here and guide me as to what I should do (I actually am confused om how to make these updates and rest assured, I have enough proofs {citations and news links) to validate all the information (that I am looking to update). Thank you in advance. --Saumyaraghav (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, As explained earlier, I have already revealed 'Paid Contributor' on my user page and also raised 'requested edit' on the page in question (Policybazaar). Also, I wanted to bring to your notice that I have made some changes in the content (edit) to ensure the information is neutral and mnot promotional. Would you please have a look and guide me. Actually, things are so technical out here that I am getting more and more confused. Please help me out with the same. I will look forward to your expert feedback. Thanks in advance. --Saumyaraghav (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Saumyaraghav: Hello. First, did you see the very first sentence at the top of this talk page? Please post new comments at the bottom of talk pages. You are obviously eager to support your company through Wikipedia, but if you're not willing to slow down and actually read what other people are saying, this will not go smoothly for you.

As for your contributions, you directly repeated edits made by another user (VidushiDubey). Those edits were reverted as spam, and a discussion was held on that user's talk page about why these edits were unacceptable. When another account comes along and makes the exact same spammy edits, it's a bad sign, and is also disruptive in its own right. I was not part of that prior discussion, but I will reaffirm that they were totally, utterly unacceptable. Now that you know, will another editor come along and pretend to be brand new, making the exact same edits? These edits would only make sense if you were more concerned with promoting your company than with Wikipedia's goals.

In the future, post suggested edits to the article's talk page. Talk:Policybazaar. This was explained on the posts I made to your talk page, so you should already know this. Again, read what people are telling you, otherwise this will not go smoothly for you. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Hello. Thank you for your message here. Actually I tried making the edits from VidushiDubey (user in question) and there also I revealed my name (saumyaraghav) as the 'paid contributor'. I can understand that content must have been promotional to not have got approved. Thank you again, I will again go through the posts and try to understand the nuances of editing here. Thank you for being so patient. --2405:204:31A9:1F1F:150D:E02F:FF97:DEA3 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Since there appears to be confusion over this, do not post anything to Talk:Policybazaar. The article has been deleted per community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Policybazaar (which I did not participate in). If substantial, reliable, independent sources exist covering this topic, there would be a couple of options, but since I do not believe such sources exist, and the repeated use of multiple accounts demonstrates bad faith, I am not interested in helping spammers waste other people's time by explaining what those steps are. Grayfell (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Orthorexia

Thanks for helping me, this is all new to me. I requested a change in user name; it is pending. I know it is frustrating to deal with someone just learning the system when you're very experienced. I appreciate high standards, that is why it's important to me to insert this correct information. Thomas Dunn did not publish the first proposed criteria for orthorexia in 2015 and obviously it is important to you to have correct information, so if you could let me know what would be an appropriate citation - are you saying that if I change my username then it is appropriate for me to add this info? Or are you saying that I need to find outside experts who will vouch for the information? Because I have the 2013 published book right here with ISBN and everything, so I'm not sure what is more legit as a citation than the actual publication. Can you explain why there is such a thing as too much information when people are going to wikipedia to learn? Or can you refer me to an info page, because I'm sure you have explained these same things a million times before and have it written somewhere. Thanks again for your help. Understandingnutrition (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Understandingnutrition (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. You're right, sometimes it does feel like I've explained this too many times, I appreciate that you appreciate that, and I hope that will make this less frustrating for both of us.

The very first thing that needs to be dealt with is Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This might seem zealous, but Wikipedia has been severely damaged by this problem (see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia if you're interested). Even with good intentions, many editors have come along adding their own work to Wikipedia, but this is only sometimes helpful. Wikipedia has a frustrating history with Wikipedia:Expert editors. Expertise in a topic is incredibly valuable, but it doesn't always translate into expertise in writing an encyclopedia. Even less often writing this encyclopedia, which has its own very specific approach. This leads to a lot of frustration from everyone, and unfortunately Wikipedia can come-off as anti-intellectual. The intention really, really isn't to drive you away, it's to protect the project. If you are knowledgeable about this topic, the single best way your expertise can help the article is by citing other reliable sources. WP:SELFCITEs are allowed, but they should only be used with caution, and seldom as the central sources for lengthy sections lacking any other sources. If you're mainly here to add your book as a reference, than you're not really here to build the project, and there's not much more to be said.

People are coming to Wikipedia to learn, but that doesn't mean all information is helpful. They are coming here to get a neutral overview of the topic. I would be willing to explain why I don't think your edits were an appropriate level of detail, but I think the article's talk page (Talk:Orthorexia nervosa) is a better place for that, right? I have already started a section there, in case you haven't noticed.

Once you've declared any conflict of interest you have, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide might be a useful guide. I don't know, though, since even though I've lost track of how many times I've pointed people to it, they never really give me that much feedback. If it's not useful, let me know. If you have specific questions about guidelines or expectations, let me know. Specific points about the article should go on the article's talk page. I have that page on my watchlist, and so (I think) do other experienced editors, who might be more helpful. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There...

... [5], [6] and [7]. - - DVdm (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hey...Can we chat Prabhujiy (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Prabhujiy: Hello. If you have questions about Wikipedia, I will do my best to answer them. Grayfell (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell,plzz don't edit my edits on page Kripalu Maharaj,as a junior brother,I m requesting you.i need your help,give me your fb id,I need a urgent help,someone is trying to tease me.help your junior brother. Prabhujiy (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Help me,give me a link to chat u. Prabhujiy (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Prabhujiy: Hello. I'm sorry, I am not going to chat with you anywhere else. For now, we can discuss this here, on a talk page.

I'm sorry to say, your edits are not acceptable. Wikipedia isn't a platform for you to share you appreciation for Kripalu Maharaj.

I will say this again with different words: Do not use Wikipedia to make Kripalu Maharaj look better. Do you understand this?

If there is a problem with the article, please explain the problem on the article's talk page: Talk:Kripalu Maharaj.

This is what we have been trying to tell you on your talk page. Are you reading your talk page: User talk:Prabhujiy? Please read it carefully. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Listen...

Grayfell...I warn u...Don't dare to mess with me...Do u even know who Jagadguruttam Shri Kripalu Ji Maharaj is??..Ask an Vaishnav.I know him...Don't claim ownership on any page...Wiki is all about editing and sharing...Don't act as my "BOSS".I m warning u on behalf of your dozen of warnings... Whichever page I edit...It's a valid one...I know things ...Then I edit...Not like you ... Becoming boss of wiki...Don't mess with me ..or...U will regret..Bye. Prabhujiy (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Prabhujiy: Don't threaten me. I'm not messing with you, I'm trying to discuss your editing. If you cannot discuss your edits civilly, you cannot participate in Wikipedia. That isn't me being your "boss", that is Wikipedia's policy: Wikipedia:Civility. I am trying to explain how Wikipedia works so you can keep sharing and editing. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell... Listen...I myself don't want any dispute.I simply edit the page Kripalu Maharaj because things written about him need more clarification.He is a Jagadguru from India and it's an insult to such a personality writing his name without proper respect.I know everything about him.Its totally a disrespect in personality of highest ordered saint that his name one his Wiki is without his title.I can promise you that I only edit things that I know 100%.N I m not making him look good on wikipedia.Its a fact.He's an incarnation of Lord Chaitanya.It's proven by the Kashi Vidvat Parishat.I m from India,I m a Hindu... Accept this that I know much more about Hinduism then you know.Simply.U knw abt your religion...Your Pope's,Your bishops and Father's of Churches.I know Hinduism from top to bottom because I m a Hindu.I m an Indian.Love U frnd💖💖💖.Bye.

Prabhujiy.☺☺☺☺ Prabhujiy (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Prabhujiy: am not a Christian. You don't know that religion I am, and you don't know where I'm from. Instead of insulting me by guessing about who I am, read what I'm actually trying to say to you. First you make threats about how I will "regret it", and now you start adding hearts and love signs? Please show some maturity. Saying "I love you frnd" is meaningless when you just threatened someone. You don't love me, because you don't know me or anything about me.

Instead of playing games like this was Facebook, please start talking about the edits you are making. This is not about who I am, and this is not about who you are. Wikipedia is for everyone, including Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, Satanists... Hindus don't get to own articles about other Hindus. Get it? Just because you are a Hindu doesn't mean you get to own articles.

Wikipedia is not for you to share knowledge because you say you are an expert. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not personal experience. If you have reliable sources about something, you can add to that article, no matter where you're from, or what your religion is. Wikipedia provides neutral information about topics. We have guidelines to help us with this. One set of guideline is the manual of style, and one part of that says we don't use honorifics. Kripalu Maharaj is a Jagadguru, but we don't use that title every single time we mention him, and we don't include that in article titles. If you don't understand why, you can't convince anyone to change it. Again, you do not own the article just because you are hindu.

Unfortunately, you don't seem interested in discussing things, so I will have to take this to a noticeboard if you do not revert your edits. Grayfell (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		for the extraordinary patience, civility, and eloquence you display on article talk pages and on your own talk page when dealing with SPAs of various persuasions. RivertorchFIREWATER 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15