User talk:Graywalls

Hello, Graywalls, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This situation reminds me a lot of something that happened about a year ago. It dragged on for months, with lots of moans and groans from the prolific article creator about how we were all so unkind in deleting his articles when we could have fixed them for him. When he'd irritated enough people, that contributor was eventually banned from creating any new articles. Deb (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you PLEASE stop this ridicioulous quest against the Dutch Hacker scene? Deleting pages about our hackerspaces and events. Its like a holy war and it is draining us. You're waging war against a whole community. Why? You're literally destroying our cultural heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1611:BC00:3DB4:E81:9710:FFB0 (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I second this motion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flok (talk • contribs) 12:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

each and every one of the individual conferences didn't show sufficient notability to have their own article IMO. I'm merging them together, although one user opposed it, so it's up for consensus gathering right now whether the article should remain stand alone or no Graywalls (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raymond Kaskey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portlandia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on the Wikipedia page “The Ivy Hotel”. I originally created this page on Aug. 1, 2015. My primary reason for creating this page was my interest in adaptive reuse projects, of which I considered this to be an interesting example when I learned about the project. I neither work for, nor have any connection with, the Ivy Hotel.

Concerning the issues that “… the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement.: This page appears to be a direct copy from: https://web.archive.org/web/20150624025437/http://www.theivybaltimore.com/about-the-ivy/history-of-the-ivy/ and https://www.theivybaltimore.com/history/…”

I initially researched the history of the buildings that now comprise the Ivy Hotel. I tried to establish the narrative by using a range of sources, including those derived from the Ivy Hotel website at that time. I did try to extensively footnote with each source, including the Ivy Hotel. When I created and further contributed to this page, I developed multiple versions of various sections, and perhaps my final submission didn’t include a proper rewording of the passages, which are of specific concern.

According to the “View history” there have been contributions made by other Wikipedia editors since I initially created the page. These include some important technical additions to the page, such as the addition of a photograph, as well as some other standard technical geographic Wikipedia information.

I would certainly be interested in further researching and revising the particular sections of concern, to bring them in line with Wikipedia Copyright Policy. I hope that this page may continue to be maintained, and that other interested persons may ultimately make further contributions concerning this important subject relating to Baltimore, Maryland.

Thank you.

Archivist Robert

Archivist Robert (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What connection, if any, do you have with the subject of this article? MER-C 09:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ivy Hotel[edit] I learned of this adaptive reuse project in the media when the Ivy Hotel opened in June 2015. I have no other connection with the subject of this article. Archivist Robert (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such an ostensible copy and paste is only one of multiple concerns with the article. It was just the only one that needed to be addressed immediately. You have also made extensive promotional edits at adaptive reuse related lodging industry article Catskill Game Farm, including this edit Special:Diff/925747883. This is the version before before you started working on it. This was after Graywalls (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that's block-worthy levels of spam. The claim above is not plausible. MER-C 17:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graywalls, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of King Hussein Bin Talal Convention Centre Managed by Hilton, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. creffett (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls. I added an image on the Raratonga page that I marked as minor but as you brought it to my attention it was not a minor edit. I have since reuploaded the image captioned Te Rua Manga (The Needle) lookout but did not mark it as a minor edit this time. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Georgia mann (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls, I am writing in response to your message that said: "Hi, I'm one of the contributor to the articles." I'm not the director, that is Mary Sherman; I am an unpaid volunteer board member. We didn't use PR firm, it was an author who is now banned from Wikipedia. Thank you for your help! Eventually we will figure this out, I hope. Srcohen614 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Graywalls - you are indeed right that one (or more?) of my minor edits likely didn't fit the criteria, my mistake! I made three minor edits that were pretty much adding a full stop and spacing (just publishing what I wrote then tweaking spacing as a separate edit once I know how it looks), then must've ticked the box on autopilot when I added the dose info for the nasal spray. Anyway if I'm right that it was dose info for either the nasal spray or for cesaerian section in the medical use section for heroin so feel free to critically review that section and I won't take it personally if you change any of it (actually this is my general policy, change and nitpick all you want, but tell me if you want to take it all out). Actually I was wondering if adding dose info is beyond the scope of a wiki on a medication? I know the Equianalgesic#Opioid_equivalency_table table has a lot of specific dosing info for opioids, and some specific opioids have dose info in their wikis. Since diamorphine is a fairly big article I felt that I had some info to add that was already present in the existing citations but wasn't quoted in the text, but perhaps adding more info doesn't help an article per se? Lmk on my page or drop by if you want to discuss it further. (BOBBOBLEYBOBSON (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your explanation of minor edits. Many of my edits are adding books to bibliographies, and I wouldn't think that they would be subject to dispute. But, since you cite one of my edits that added a a book as not a minor edit, I will no longer check "This is a minor edit" for them. Maurice Magnus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice Magnus (talk • contribs)

You claim on my talk page that I made a "third revert". This is not accurate. First you made a significant cleanup of the page, after that I restored the Hackaday.io part. After that, you removed it again, in my opinion not following WP:DUE correctly. Then I added it only a second time.

In case you're including the revert of the COI template, that has been discussed on the talk page and should not be included.

I'd like to resolve any problems now. What's the exact policy listed in WP:DUE that makes you remove that part? This isn't at all like a "minority viewpoint", it's a significant part in the history of the website. Dwaro (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwaro:, evidence has been presented on your talk page. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP:, I wonder if there's a more efficient way of dealing with this. It's unfortunate how resource intensive it is to deal with numerous non-notable articles created by one user. Graywalls (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of one!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in this edit you marked AGRMEditor (talk · contribs) as having been banned. I can'f find a record of that - he had a username block, but I find no record of a ban. Am I missing something? If not, you should probably correct the tag that you added. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC) @NatGertler:, that is part of the pre-formed template. There's no different settings for it. Graywalls (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Blondin award of good balance
	You have been presented with the exclusive Blondin Award because you kept your cool so well when a promotional editor flung a lot of crap at you recently. The image represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen | tålk. 17:59, 29 June 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I replied over at COIN regarding Dudva's images. Long story short: two of three example image changes I looked at looked like improvements to me. I don't think they are up to anything nefarious. If anything I think they show a photographer's sort of nerdy interest in better image chrominance and luminance levels. It is very complex to analyze and discuss image COI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit of St. Louis Southwestern Railway you've either made up the term "Cotton Belt System" or transferred that over from a bad source. That term never existed. --SSW9389 (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SSW9389:, that phrase was already in the article before I even touched it. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Graywalls, I'm out of there. It's the same thing every time this comes up. We have an editor who flagrantly goes aginst the consensus against NOT writing about one's own family, and is enabled by editors who don't properly fact-check him. And whenever I point that out, I'm supposedly the bad guy. I've had enough of being disparaged like that. Vexations (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations:, that's unfortunate. Have you seen the situation with Mitzi.Humphrey edits? I think burning out opposition is one of strategies with people who do these type of articles. Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, OMG yes. If I had to give advice on how to win at CoI editing it would be this: Keep editing; ignore consensus; argue that you're being victimized; use hard-to find references and make them difficult to verify; omit links and page numbers from citations; point out that finding errors in ones edits is "mean"; call people who point out your CoI "disruptive" and accuse them of not assuming good faith (because GF is infinite, you can never run out, you're always entitled to more); make arguments that require extensive rebuttals, then accuse your opponent of "bludgeoning"; when forced to make edit requests, overwhelm the edit page until you find someone who will not check your sources and do your bidding; exhaust them by adding so may errors that they give up, because it is easier to introduce falsehoods in Wikipedia than to identify and fix them. Vexations (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to take the Henderson edits it to ANI? I have been wondering about this. The net effect of their efforts has been to circumvent the COI guideline.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, I don't think that would work, nor for me anyway. I think I was the first one who pointed out that he was writing about his mother, and used some fairly harsh terms to describe her activities. For example, I called his mother's depictions of pacific islanders for a "South Pacific Nite" racist. I also pointed out that Henderson is a collector of art made by a Nazi). I'd be unable to participate in an ANI discussion without becoming the fodder for more attacks on my integrity. Someone could conceivably try to get me banned for pointing out that an editor who is a collector of an artist with a NAZI past has a CoI with that subject. Best to stay as far away from ANI as possible. Vexations (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think another COI/N or NPOV/N discussion would be a good start. The idea of writing his own essays on his own website only including what he wants, (meaning only things that make him look good) then essentially copying and pasting that and changing copyright on the original to CC-SA-BY transfers COIness directly into Wikipedia and had everyone in COI/N thread knew about the extensive copying and pasting, the responses may have been different. He's been maintaining civility and are not directly editing so... but in my opinion, those articles that are essential mirrors of Henderson legacy websites should not persist on Wikipedia without substantial cleanup even those who turn out to pass WP:GNG. Passing GNG is no excuse for including undue junk like "a boat in which he owned 5/16 ownership was wrecked by someone else and insurance settlement blah blah blah blah blah blah Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also he admits to connecting the dots himself that sources don't directly connect. here Talk:George_W._Blunt_(1856)#Daniel_Westervelt_of_Westervelt_&_Co._shipyard. I seem to recall Lydiaship finding something that failed verification in one of his other articles. When a website created in this manner is released CC-BY-SA and copied over, bias and original research error of the person who wrote the page comes right into Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from deleting neutrally worded, reliably sourced, relevant material from Wikipedia articles, as you did here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl&oldid=prev&diff=977828599 Thank you for your cooperation! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate any help possible at project merge. Merging articles can be fun, but they're a slight bit complicated, so I went ahead and finished the process you started at Compassion & Choices and its talk page for you. If you want, check out User:GenQuest/Merge for a step by step help guide so none of the many steps get missed. Feel free to ask me for clarification on anything, merges included, if needed. Again, Graywalls, thanks and happy editing! Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why did you blank Sacred Heart Pioneers men's ice hockey instead of AfDing it or PROD? {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 08:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob Gotts:, I should've been clearer in edit summary, but it wasn't a plain blank. It was a redirect. As you know, you can't go back and edit the edit summary. I re-directed it to Sacred Heart UniversityGraywalls (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 08:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree with the redirect? Graywalls (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah everything seems fine to me :) {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 09:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In over 8 years, you are the first Editor to provide any sort of helpful welcome and I thank you for that. Since you are listening, I want to make a comment, the sort that you probably read all the time. I edit Wikipedia maybe once or twice a year and not because I want to be an editor. I did the editing on the article because it was in such deathly poor condition. The reason that I only edit the article once or twice a year is that one session of editing seems to cause a storm of nationalism and attract a war-like stink that attracts everyone to the article. So, it took me 8 years to SLOWLY make the article bearable even though it is fraught with non-compliancy. Sometimes it was fun editing because I could add good things to other articles where my additions were welcome and didn't start a "holy war". I don't know how anyone is able to stomach such daily Wikipedia Wars... however, I do understand a bit because my only motivation is that EVERY Wikipedia-scrapping site in the world will parrot any INCORRECT information contained therein and people all over the world will believe it to be so when it's not. I'm not long for this world, so people knowing the truth is not as important to me as it used to be. They say truth is like poetry... everyone hates it. What is more interesting to me is the geometry of truth and lies. The truth being the Y axis and the lie being the X axis. All truth and lies are able to be charted on a spherical cartesian coordinate system. Anyway, thank you for your kind welcome message. I might decide to let the article go and let the world fight over the truth, lies and compliancy of it all, without me. (Mini4WD (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Mini4WD:, you can use your personal sandbox rather than the article itself as your own scratch paper. Original research is forbidden, so if there is something you think you think you know is true and relevant, the best thing would be to put it in your sandbox, then you can go find reliable sources backing it up and once you have the source, you can put it in. If you find something in the article that is not properly sourced (for example, does not have sources, is sourced to forum posts, self published websites, remove it, and make a note in the edit summary why you removed it. The WP:BURDEN falls on people adding or adding back to produce sources directly supporting the inserted claim. If you have respected hobby magazines and like that's not available online(likely common for 70s and 80s periodicals) , you're certainly welcome to use that information too and cite the name, issue, and page number. If you believe existing contents are wrong, but it is properly cited, you're welcome to find another reliable source and share what the other source says along side it. This is explained in WP:VNT. Graywalls (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Yuuyatails.

I noticed that you had cleaned up the Mini 4WD article. That article was filled with a lot of unreliable sources and false information prior to the clean-up. The reason why it hasn't been clean-up is that the Mini4WD guy had shown some hostile attitude toward other contributors who tries to clean-up the article or tries to talk him out.

I want to say, thank you. Yuuyatails (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuuyatails:, still though, its looking a bit too much like Tamiya fan POV. I don't think we need product releases of specific models. It's a general encyclopedia after all. Contents should be discussed on the article's page.. so edit warring can be avoided between all parties. Graywalls (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

GeneralNotability (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. articles use WP:USCITIES, where the "notable people" criteria is different. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just noticed your edit summary at Dutch squatting ban, which is a weird coincidence because I also edited several hours ago to add the 2020 events. The summary was as follows debris removal. see WP:RSP about the use of the disreputable source Indymedia. Also removing squat.net self published clutter, as well as n-1.cc stuff.. First off and as previously mentioned, I don't find terms like debris, disreputable, clutter helpful, it just seems to foster a battleground atmosphere. Secondly and more importantly, where is the RSP consensus on Indymedia? Because I am not seeing it and I dn't think there is one. With self-published sources, I would argue that context is everything. I'll take a look at the edit in more detail now. Mujinga (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga:, Looking through pages that are connected, linked. I do that. Please see "Independent Media Center (Indymedia, IMC)

The Independent Media Center is an open publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a self-published source." about halfway down WP:RSP. Graywalls (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for the information, I can better understand your position now. I was going through the RSP archives and didn't see any consensus, so I will take that further. I'll be sure to keep you updated! Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 07:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted text ref'd by this. It looks to me like a legit source. Please explain. --Cornellier (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornellier:, The source does look legit, but the way it's written, it wasn't quite clear if it was directly supporting what the wiki article said, which is "Staysails can also be hoisted between the top of the mizzen mast and base of the mainmast to help downwind performance". I put the contested content back in. Please see if you find the source directly supporting what it is saying. Secondly, the ASA article says "Like cutter rigs, ketch advocates also sing praises for its characteristics in heavier winds." This is an opinion statement. I wouldn't say it's a factual statement of "has an advantage". Graywalls (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, gave it a bit of a copyedit and added a new link. Not sure if this is encapsulated in WP policy, but I think generally "blogs" have become more acceptable as refs. Once they were considered "self published" diaries, but nowadays there is a blurring of the distinction between a blog article and a magazine article, depending on the authority of the writer. --Cornellier (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornellier:, it can be hard to distinguish. The practical-sailor's that particular article looks like it is alright since it says he's the editor rather than a user submitted contribution. You may find the explanations listed under WP:FORBESCON, as well as WP:BLOG Either way, how do these sources directly arrive to your factual conclusion "that it is less efficient than a sloop when sailing to windward."? I'm seeing "they say", "critics" and opinions that can't be presented as facts. Graywalls (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, OK, I don't have time for this right now, so i'll just revert my work. But as far as opinions and facts are concerned you might as well delete everything that isn't ref'd by merriam-webster.com, dictionary.com, and the National Museum of American History since at the end of the day they're all just the writers' opinions. --Cornellier (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern about promotional materials getting into wikipedia, and appreciate the time you take to identify and remove such materials.

I use ceramic tweezers for working on tiny electronic parts. Ceramic tweezers are hard, precise, non-conductive, and don't wear. I have been using ceramic tweezers long before there was any such thing as vaping.

After breaking a few tweezers, I began to look for replacements. Many of the vendors stated that their product was suitable for RDA, RDB, or similar. For example: [1]. I did not know what RDA or RDB might stand for, but I wanted to learn.

I spent several hours searching for the meaning of these acronyms, until I came upon the Construction of electronic cigarettes article in wikipedia, where they were defined. I thought I would save other readers the same frustration, by adding the initialisms to disambiguation pages. Had theses initialisms originally been on disambiguation pages, I would found them immediately.

Despite my personal preference not to use chemicals for recreational purposes, I think wikipedia readers deserved to know what the initialisms mean. I have reviewed the MOS:DAB page, the initialisms I entered seem to meet the all the requirements. Perhaps you have more experience in this area, and you can tell me where else to look. I am always trying to learn more about wikipedia policies.

Thanks for your work to improve wikipedia. Comfr (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that it's too many for a three letter abbreviations for something so obscure and specific like MOD - microwave oven fan, MSW for mouse scroll wheel and such. That whole E-cig article is a huge mess btw. Graywalls (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We live in a world of three letter acronyms, especially in the space industry, where everything has an acronym. Fortunately, wikipedia disambiguation pages have helped me navigate through the sea of acronyms. Understandably, disambiguation pages will lose their value if they become clogged seldom-used acronyms.

Fortunately a filter is applied by MOS:DABENTRY, which requires "exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term." The terms RDA and RDB followed that rule, and are defined in the E-cig article. However, neither MOD nor MSW appear in the articles microwave oven or mouse scroll wheel.

Can you think of other objective ways to filter the contents of disambiguation pages? Would you consider updating the MOS page? Comfr (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defined in the ecig article, but who defined it? Do reliable sources use it? I'm only seeing vendor pages. Graywalls (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good point. Thanks. At least one of the references is a trade journal that uses both RBA and RDA. I assume they have editorial control. There also are many more references in the article to vendor pages. I would like a reference to NYT or WSJ, but no such thing in this article. I found archived versions of two references, and added them to the article. The more time I spend on this article, the more repulsive vaping seems. But that is only my personal opinion. Comfr (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journals such as and would you actually suggest our disambig lists be populated with every abbreviations we can find in PMID articles like this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2902006/, biology, chemistry, or internal transmission parts abbreviation SAE journals can come up with? I just feel that you're talking about such obscure things that it doesn't really merit it. The page on the construction of ecigs definitely needs to have vendor-page based contents substantially trimmed out. Also, after looking at several disambig, the ones I've looked at so far only go as far as the main page of the article, not into sections, but I've only looked at a few. https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2018/66/matecconf_icmmpm2018_03025.pdf Here, you'll see the surface material used on clutch plates called "clutch friction material" and abbreviated CFM. Well, I'm not totally convinced creating a disamig for CFM to Clutch#Materials or creating disambig for SM to Manual_transmission#Synchromesh would be appropraite even though I can find such usage https://books.google.com/books?id=hKlfEB8tkcAC&pg=PA738 Graywalls (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I responded only to your reasonable concern about who defined the acronym. You have demonstrated that reliable sources use many acronyms that might overwhelm our disambiguation pages. We are still left with no objective criteria for deciding which acronyms are eligible for disambiguation. Comfr (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found at least 7 trade journals references that define RBA and/or RDA. There are many more, if you include referenced vendor pages. Outside wikipedia, I see literally hundreds of examples, such as the Amazon page. It seems to meet all the requirements of MOS:DABENTRY. Comfr (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Graywalls:! Recently I've been working on the draft of a biography and I think it's ready to be moved to the principal article, but it don't seems well to me to do it myself, so I requested someone else to do the job. I saw that you have contributed with some biographies, would you mind to give a look to the draft in which I've been working? Yo can foun it here: Draft:Leo_J._Trese. Thanks in advance! Clementeste^(Talk) 16:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls! You edited the HGO article lead to read "its objectives are educate the public education in the art and science of music,...." Could I ask you to adjust that to, say "to advance public education in the art and science of muisc...", so as to be gramatically correct and to avoid replication of 'education'.? Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are railfans unreliable sources?? --100.6.117.196 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls. I put together a response to your query on my requested edit on Concord Law School. Would you take a look and revise? The edit to Concord's accreditation status made by user TJRC, which is currently live, is incorrect and misleading. Please review the source material I provide in my reply on the Talk page. Thanks. Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls, I just noticed an edit you made in the last few hours is confusing. This change appears to contain a typo: "disbursed $19.08 million in 2018 and $17.05 in $17.05 to distributor members". Would you mind clarifying or correcting? Thanks, —EncMstr (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EncMstr:, thank you for pointing this out. That version should have never made it into the article. Do you find it clear now? Graywalls (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how do you feel about helping tackle the issues with Fifth Column (band)? The entire article is almost completely unsourced and like G. B. Jones, there appears to be COI in connection with User:Intheshadows and their recent IPs. On the COI issue, digging through the histories of all the articles connected with this user, there are IP edits in a similar pattern going back to 2004-2005. I'm also unsure as to whether the other two band members, Caroline Azar and Beverly Breckenridge, meet notability requirements. Possibly the former, but the latter seems doubtful. Mansheimer (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to deleting it, although it can be time consuming to do the background research to start the AfD. Graywalls (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC) @Mansheimer: Graywalls (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The band is I assume sufficiently notable for inclusion, though given the wall of unsourced text in the current version, an AfD might be a good idea since it could help get other editors interested in tracking down reliable sources, if any exist, should it survive the process. Either way, the current article is a badly written mess and most of it probably needs to be rewritten anyway due to the COI, which has obviously been a problem going back many years (all the IPs that contributed the most text can be geolocated to Toronto) and no one appears to have bothered bringing up the COI issue until you did. I've done a general search for sources and there are a few articles that pop up (there's a film review of a documentary about the band from The Quietus, for instance [2]), but I'm not sure any of them meet the standards of WP:RS/WP:V. What do you think? Mansheimer (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The diesel shop is reliable as it is souced from GE rosters so stop removing it, as well as Utah Rails no it is not fan cruft it's about trains why shouldn't it be there because the people going to the article are expecting trains and the utah rails site the man who made it worked with the Union Pacific Historical Society so stop removing it also stop deleting all the railfan stuff i see you think that you found a gold mine of fancruft but it is not it is information so stop with the crusade against railfan "fancruft" --108.17.71.32 (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added {Undisclosed paid} tag for User:Achagerty on the page Ellerbe Becket. Was just wondering how you found out.Eccekevin (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC) @Eccekevin:, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Undisclosed_paid , these templates can be placed when article appears to have been UPE. The edit history of that user is quite indicative of UPE. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't understand why you deleted my edit to "List of books about anarchism." I also don't understand Wiki-speak. For reference:

Revision as of 15:03, 3 February 2021 (edit) NorsemanII (talk | contribs) (Reverting edit by User:Graywalls - links to the full text are useful, do not repeat this edit without discussion on talk page. Reverted edit by User:Eliswinterabend, unable to find an appropriate reference regarding your addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliswinterabend (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! David here with Archer-Daniels-Midland Company. You've helped me with several requests at Talk:ADM (company) to update basic product information. There are currently two outstanding requests:

• one to add mention of flour milling
• another to add mention of vanilla

For the vanilla request, you'll see I've shared additional sources as you requested. Do you have a moment to take another look and update the article? Thanks again! ADM DavidW (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Thanks for your recent improvement to the ADM article. I submitted a (seemingly uncontroversial) request here to add mention of flour milling, but the discussion shifted to a larger (and legitimate, I think) one about how products and services should be displayed. I've tried to get User:CorporateM to revisit the discussion twice, but I've seen no replies or updates to the article. I was curious if you had any thoughts; at minimum, I am hoping you might be able to respond to the original flour mill request before that gets lost in the shuffle. I'm trying to balance addressing material gaps and inaccuracies in the article with not being pushy or overstepping. Thanks in advance for any additional help or feedback. 23:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADM DavidW (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hi Graywalls -- I've declined the above as educational institutions are exempt from A7. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi Graywalls. I undid your close of the discussion at COIN. You are very involved it that one. Wait for someone else to close it. Possibly (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are these ones acceptable? If not please feel free to remove them from the article- [3][4][5]Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoponpop69:, no they are not. Please read WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:BLOG. Graywalls (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

correction. Those two wordpress blogs definitely are not reliable. I don't know enough about noecho.net to comment on the reliability and the way in which parts or all of links within their site could be used as sources for Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graywalls, about your possible undisclosed paid tag on the Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine page, I wish to clarify that I was not paid when employed by Mr. Nechvatal between the years 2008-2011 for my Wikipedia work on that moribund non-profit project, or on any other Wikipedia pages. Though co-founded by Mr. Nechvatal, Tellus was (and remains) a Harvestworks non-profit project. Since 2008, I have chosen to volunteer my time and expertise in the period of the 1980s New York art/music world for free for Wikipedia after engaging with that historical period when preparing the Nechvatal archive that was donated for free to The Fales Library Special Collections [[6]]. I left that activity ten years ago. Perhaps this past experience may mean I am a connected contributor concerning the Tellus page. I don't know. If so, I will stay away from it. But I remain an objective and active unpaid volunteer for Wikipedia in that period of art/music history. I believe my 13 year extensive editing record here displays that. Would you please remove the tag. Valueyou (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valueyou:, the edits by Valueyou isn't the only issue with that article. It has been extensively edited by clearly connected, organizational role named accounts like Tellus archivist and much of these for-consideration (volunteer credit, non-$$ consideration, whatever) advocacy edits remain. Even if your account was the only editor of concern, I'm not convinced simply stating "was not paid" is a justifiable cause to remove the paid editing tag as every suspected paid editor would simply say the magic word to have the template removed. The article needs massive clean up. I can only see the tag going down after that has happened. With the tag in place, someone else will notice it and do the clean up. When that's done, then, someone else can remove it. Graywalls (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: I agree that like many Wikipedia pages it had a rocky start. Looking forward to your massive clean up. Valueyou (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valueyou:, By someone else, I should emphasize that it means someone who do not have conflict of interest on this subject. It wasn't appropriate for you, someone deeply involved on this subject to untag a COI related template on something you're so deeply involved in. If you were wondering how I came upon this article, it went form Colab, to Joseph Nechvatal, then branched from there. Graywalls (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Don't take it personally. Thanks for the lecture, but I have been editing here a lot longer than you and I tend to Wikipedia:Be bold in my edits. I removed the tag because you refused to do so and to get on the record that aspersions were being cast in my direction by you there. I like to solve problems and create the value of pages at Wikipedia, not just police and tag and slice them. If you would have looked at the (perhaps misleadingly named) id page of Tellus_archivist, you would have seen that that person identifies as Continuo, a music blogger, who has no direct connection with Tellus and certainly was not paid for creating the page of a moribund non-profit (thus no conflict of interest on the subject - but rather generous service to both Tellus and Wikipedia). You can check that out at [7] where it states that the Tellus Ubuweb archive was edited by Steve McLaughlin in conjuction with Continuo's weblog [8] long after Tellus ceased production. So I ask you politely to remove the tag you placed on the Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and save me and other Wikipedia editors the time and energy to fix what you have done behind you, because I do not agree with your statement that "with the tag in place, someone else will notice it and do the clean up". Please cooperate with me on this and remove that and other tags you casually applied that refer to bad starts of pages long ago settled by the Wikipedia community. I have been editing here for around 13 years out of a desire to improve Wikipedia in the art and music areas, and I know that we must respect each other. I respect you and I ask the same from you. Thank you. Valueyou (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls!

I understand your concerns and I responded on the COI notice board. Feel free to ask me any questions directly.

OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greywalls: I am rolling back your ADL-related edits until there is a community consensus regarding them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If sand when the community decides that your concerns are justified to the extent that the ADL-related material you removed (without discussion) from numerous article was in appropriately added, you can restore the material, but until then please do not do so. Respect WP:BRD and let the discussion you have started reach a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken:, Please read WP:ONUS. When challenged contents are removed, those wishing to add back in must establish consensus. The matter of ADL and their meat puppets are currently being debated at COI/N. Please do not restore until consensus to restore the edits by COI puppets have been established. Graywalls (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The material you removed was sourced. The source has been discussed and has been determined to be reliable. Your removal of that material were BOLD edits, which I have REVERTED. Now the article stays as it was, in the status quo ante, while the issue is being discussion. Please do not restore the material, you will be edit warring if you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read what WP:ONUS says. It is up to YOU, the one wishing to restore contents to obtain consensus. Graywalls (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have decided not to follow BRD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken:, This matter is currently discussed at COI/N. You systematically reverted every change and re-inserted the contents without establishing contents. In one of the edit summary, you asked for proof ADL is spamming the sources. The discussion at COI/N more than shows that, although perhaps you were unaware of the discussion when you reverted every one of my removal. Please don't jump the gun and re-insert the contents that's being discussed, following WP:ONUS. I pinged you there so you can find the section. I suggest you voice your comments there if you're interested in having a part in that discussion. Graywalls (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of that discussion, which you properly started, is exactly why you should not have retored your edits when you did, since you are pre-empting a consensus discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In case you didn't see it, User_talk:Seraphimblade#Move_"The_Lab_(organization)"_to_draft_space? may be of interest - I asked for draft-ification of an article you tagged for speedy deletion, because there are substantial secondary sources available and also at least one person interested in improving the article (me), and it's now back in action as an article. I encourage caution with tagging articles about long-running community non-profit organizations as spam, instead using prod or even AfD. Thank you. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamyshade:, I appreciate sharing your thoughts, but I don't believe the nomination was improper. I agree with the other two commentators on that matter. CSD requests are reviewed by an admin so if something is unduly nominated, it would be declined. There was nothing but fluff in the whole edit history. If the organization passes GNG, there's no prejudice against re-creation. Thank you, Graywalls (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Graywalls! Thanks for the message regarding the specificity of a 'minor edit'. I'm new to (editing) Wikipedia. I'll read through the docs before making any more changes. Cheers! LantonMills (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graywalls, I'm wondering if you would have a look at this article: George Faunce Whitcomb, I cannot figure out how this person is notable. It was created by a known COI editor who writes about his family who is asking the COI tag to be removed. I've been trying to give them the benefit of the doubt however this article seems questionable to me. You have more experience than I on COI cases, so I am hoping you find a moment to review it and look over the comments on the talk page. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:, Oh.. that editor. This article's kind of a tough one, because some of the cited sources are not readily available for inspection from anyone's computer. While you're probably right, it's premature to come to a conclusion. Graywalls (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I recently noticed that you reverted my clean-up of the Luke Hughes (furniture designer) page by reimplementing the template messages. You had commented that it did not meet WP:WTRMT. I've studied the guidelines closely here and can see that it does meet the requirements to remove the template messages. Please can you expand as to why you do not believe that it does? I've tried to assist here by responding to a message on the article's Talk page. LAficionado (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls. I noticed your reverts on Collins and Milazzo exhibitions. There were three big ones in the space of a couple days. The thing is, they are a little bit disruptive. Vexations was working on sourcing the list, albeit slowly. Vexations is a long-standing respected editor. You can't cut him some slack? If you could cut the regulars a little more slack, that would be great. I'm working on adding the sources for the shows. I would advise against reverting additions to the Collins and Milazzo exhibitions page, in the near future. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly:, perhaps it could be draftified? I believe the contents should have waited until sources are added, rather than added back in unsourced, and sources added over a long period. Perhaps there could be a compromise? Things being added without citations and adding citations later is not a practice that should be encouraged. Graywalls (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to draftify, I am sourcing it as we speak. They are clearly notable and the article contains no unsourced material. You should chill a bit, have some faith in your colleagues.--- Possibly (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have trouble finding sources for visual arts related articles, as with Peter Halley. I seem to be able to find sources for pretty much anything you delete. Next time you find something that is not correctly sourced, just send me a ping: "Hey Vexations, I can't find a source for this claim, can you help?" I most likely can. All the best, Vexations (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#VisualEditor_duplicating_named_citations. When you edit using the Visual Editor, it is expanding every named-ref call with the full ref definition, causing ref errors. I fixed it on Salvation Mountain, just wanted to make you aware of it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've edited long enough to know the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Kindly revert your edit-warring reversion and open a discussion in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been started. Your message on my talk was a bit rushed given how soon it was you left it. Graywalls (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bi Graywalls, unfortunately your inquiry request archived here, maybe you will open it again ?

I thought Twinkle would have notified you so sorry this is coming to you a bit late. I closed your RFD nomination of HabiJax because that's not the right venue for blanking and redirecting an existing article. I instead listed the page at articles for deletion. You can find the discussion there. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit and comment: "remove unsupportable contents. I checked the source. What I removed was ghost name check and public relations puff." I had no problem finding the original source on Wayback Machine, reinserted it into the cited reference and expanded it. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link was not working. I am the one who got the archive link and put the link in there... I removed the name drops that was not supportable in the archived version I pulled up. Graywalls (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link doesn't work because the MayportMirror.com went out of business several years ago. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 00:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I added the archive.org link so I can review it as well as anyone else reviewing it for merger consideration. Check edit history. Graywalls (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgreason:, and I have the same opinion about Habitat for Humanity – New York City too, which is mostly fluffed up with primary source. A lot of it can be trimmed, and merged over. Graywalls (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your talk page, I see that I'm not the only editor you seem to have a problem with. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 22:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Graywalls. I know the website I referenced. It is the website managed by an expert in industrial/organizational psychology and occupational health psychology. The expert is Paul Spector. His website is very well known to researchers in i/o psychology and OHP. It is an error to claim that the site is not reliable. The site is curated by a leading expert. Iss246 (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here, did you mean to say "related to Spector"?? Sundayclose (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you reverted my recent edits. I was thinking that these were additive and not removing/altering anything in the original article. Could you please help update the article with them if you see fit (I can request the update in the talk page as well)? I feel that the article is incomplete without a small brief about Forman's later life. I want to do it by the book. Please help. Sabih omar 23:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the update as a suggestion in the talk page, FYI. Thanks for the gatekeeping. Sabih omar 23:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have email thru WP? Netherzone (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't... why? Graywalls (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found something that I thought was interesting. Not that important Netherzone (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only about half done reviewing Gary Hugh Brown and am mortified by what I've found when comparing the content to the sources. A whole lot of misrepresentation. Netherzone (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Graywalls. The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles and redirects needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help. I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines. Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions. If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here. Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My sole purpose in editing Wikipedia is to contribute positively to the platform and improve the quality of its content. I do not have any conflict of interests and have not been paid for editing, and I fully understand and respect Wikipedia's policy against such practices. I kindly request an open and constructive dialogue to address any concerns or suspicions you may have. If there are specific issues or questions about my edits, I am more than willing to discuss them and provide any necessary information to clarify my intent. Mynameisliza (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the Carmel Pine Cone meets WP:NCORP? Netherzone (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not? Many, many newspapers are in the same position though. Boise Weekly, Portland Mercury Portland Tribune just to name a few. I'm not particularly interested in pursuing AfDs on newspapers everywhere. I don't think it will be helpful. Graywalls (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, please examine Shayan Modarres for COI. The history doesn't seem to show anything suspicious, at least not to me, but the overall tone of the article is highly promotional and makes the subject seem more notable than they actually are and doesn't feel like it was written by neutral Wikipedia editors. Mansheimer (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mansheimer:, I didn't find glaringly obvious signs of COI, but the NBIO/GNG seems unsustained. You may want to AfD it if your own WP:BEFORE check do not find evidence of meeting GNG Graywalls (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made a formal proposal at the current foot of this topic. I am leaving this message on all this discussion's participants' talk pages to draw attention to the proposal. Your opinion, whatever it may be, is welcome at that proposal 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct about the venue. I don't feel strongly about it, thinking that the COI material is present above it. If you feel that it should be at ANI I'm happy if you transfer it there. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the reason I reverted your edit is because the RFC on schools determined that public schools and colleges need to pass WP:GNG which can include local sources whereas NCORP is a higher standard that rules out local sources and other sources that may be acceptable for WP:GNG. For profit schools do come under NCORP. This was determined when NCORP was revised in a major RFC. Also the RFC on schools stated that local sources were acceptable for public schools in its closure, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306 I can't make much sense out of it. The two sentences that's currently at WP:NSCHOOL contradicts one another. I started a discussion at N ORG talk. Graywalls (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls. I started a discussion here related to my COI contributions to the Pure Storage Wikipedia page. I was looking for someone with no history with the page to weigh in and saw that you were active on COI issues. Maybe you could take a look and weigh in? ZacBond (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hia @Graywalls. I see you reverted my CSD for Moreland_School_District redirect. I want to accept and publish to mainspace the draft at Draft:Moreland_School_District. As a page with the same name already exists in the redirect, I requested CSD so I can properly move it. That is the process for when redirects already exist and a draft is ready to be moved, so I am not sure why you thought it wasn't a correct technical reason for deletion. Maybe I have missed something in the process? Let me know! I hope you don't mind I have requested CSD again but if you still feel this isn't right feel free to revert. Qcne (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne:, I do mind. I feel you should have waited until discussion rather than re-inserting reverted CSD, which was reverted with an explanation. I think you're well aware of the proposer's edit history. If you reviewed the edit history prior to your CSD, you'll see it was on the same organization before the re-direct. It was re-directed, because it was seen as non-notable. Graywalls (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respectively, your explanation for the CSD reversion gave me no context that you were reverting because of ongoing discussion and the user's paid editing issues. I genuinely thought you had made a mistake in the revision and did not know you were involved in the wider discussion of the draft. As I said on the Talk Page, I reviewed the draft on it's own merit and therefore followed the correct AfC process.

Perhaps leaving a comment for AfC reviewers would be helpful for any future drafts. Please don't think I am being rude by that suggestion. Qcne (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave a comment, right on the page where it says "comments" as did other people. Graywalls (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently cleaned up Opioid epidemic in the United States, there is still a problematic statement there that warrants attention. "The NEJM published its rebuttal to the 1980 letter" would be better characterized as "The NEJM reexamined the 1980 letter". "rebuttal" implies there was a problem with the letter itself, which does not appear to be the case. I see that the BBC article calls it a rebuttal, but that probably isn't MEDRS.

Also, the article about that letter, and especially its editing history, might be worth a look. Unfortunately, a good edit has been repeatedly reverted for reasons that have nothing to do with actual content. 223.205.189.152 (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls. My name is Clare and I work for GetYourGuide. I put together some proposed edits at User:Claresayasronning/getyourguidedraft I was hoping an impartial editor would review. This is to trim directory information, correct that GetYourGuide is an online marketplace (not a travel agency), and a few other things. @CorporateM: suggested you were "tough but fair" and I should see if you'd be willing to take a look at the edits.Claresayasronning (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Claresayasronning: The proposed looks better than how it is now even though it could use some tweaking. Can you make an edit request on the article's talk page with the revised version that's ready to be pasted in? Graywalls (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks so much for taking a look. I've posted here per your instruction with a copy/paste version of the article with the edits incorporated. The new, revised version of the page would still have a lot of uncited content, a Forbes Contributor, and other problems, but it's a step in the right direction. I don't think any volunteer editor would review all of the edits necessary to get the page into decent shape all-at-once, but hopefully this gets it halfway there. Claresayasronning (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Garrett Camp. The current page is pretty bare bones and still has a promotional "Awards and Honors" section among other issues. I shared a proposed expansion a few months ago. Spintendo had some minor feedback, which I addressed. Would you be willing to take a look to see if the draft is ready for article-space? John Pinette (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The edit you reverted appears to be a copy within Wikipedia from History of Oregon although it wasn't properly attributed. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I find odd about the most recent flurry of articles is that it might be yet another WP:WALLEDGARDEN. For a community with a population of just over 3,000 people, there sure are alot of articles about it, and they all link to one another. When I look at a similarly affluent and artsy/touristy small town, say Aspen, Colorado (population 7,000 - twice as large), there seem to much fewer articles about it. I've been monitoring several small-town articles in Colorado as they are prone to promotional editing by chamber of commerce and tourism companies, but I have not encounted the same type of potential walled gardens. Netherzone (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:, yep. seems like it. I don't count on Henderson coming forward on his own. There will likely be more of them to be discovered in their previously authored articles. It's ridiculous. Graywalls (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:, check out the last two dozen or so edits I've made. Somehow, a lot of these "walled garden" building pages contain(ed) the name and the URL of the CURRENT tenant. With a history of extremely promotional tone, amplification of flattering contents, omitting unflattering contents and the UPE, I wonder if the placement of present tenant could be a major reason for creation of these articles.

Another editor caught Greg making a false claim of something being National Register of Historic Places. I've wondered why many of his claims about NRHP are referenced to ci.carmel.ca.us. Will need more random checking for sure. Graywalls (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance for the length of this. I started looking at some of the historical building articles, and there is a cluster of them that are actually all part of the same block in Carmel, linked up to a cluster of builders. (Some are more broadly distributed in Carmel.) I've only just started to analyze this, and need some more eyes, hence pinging Melcous {{u|Graywalls) for feedback.

What also strikes me as odd, is that many of the entries historical significance is referenced to a Calif. Dept of Parks & Recreation database that is sometimes linked in the refs to the National Park Service, or to some other type of spreadsheet like the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, this spreadsheet, or toa "Downtown Historic Survey" document. Most have been nominated/submitted for historical recognition but have not received it. These don't seem to be on the Calif. Historic Registry nor the National Registry of Historic Places. I'm not sure if these types of documents are enough to confer WP:NBUILDING.

Some examples of structures: The Tuck Box, Garden Shop Addition, Philip Wilson Building, Lemos Building,[ Blue Bird Tea Room, Mary Dummage Shop, Amelia Gates Building, Adam Fox Building, Bank of Carmel, Bernard Wetzel Building, Carmel Weavers Studio, Doud Building, Draper Leidig Building, Enchanted Oaks Building, Fee Building, Goold Building, and many, many more. Just because something has been nominated and submitted to the record, does not mean that it is designated ON a state or national record . It almost seems like a coffee table book is being gone thru and an article is being made for every page?

Some reoccurring names: Pedro J. Lemos, Ray C. De Yoe, Percy Parkes, James Franklin Devendorf, Frank Hubbard Powers, Hugh W. Comstock (not a comprehensive list for structures or people).

Also, I recently discovered a toolforge tool for mapping the number of articles to a specific place. You have to turn on location services/geolocation in your browser for it to work (I'm on Safari). I'm still getting the hang of it, but what it revealed through a couple of searches was a huge cluster in the same area of Carmel, California, and Carmel-by-the-Sea. I mentioned it before but it is really overwhelming how many articles there are for a place with a population of only about 3,000. Most much larger cities don't have such over-coverage.

I am wondering if many of these can be redirected, merged, or consolidated and which ones might be non-notable per WP:NBUILDING once the sourcing is analyzed, since it seems like some of the sources aren't even about the structure, but about associated persons or nearby structures (which seems to fit walled garden linkage). Also see List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea for buildings that have simply been submitted to the Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey or are on the Parks & Rec database. I haven't started clean up yet, wanted to get some other opinions first. If I am wrong about this, please do let me know. Netherzone (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:, A lot of these Carmel-by-the-Sea things are definitely parallel to WP:Pokémon test as the historic homes book by Momboisse's with captions of the house is kind of like this Pokemon characters guide. Creating an article on each Pokemon listed there using that book as a reference would not fly. Neither should a lot of these Carmel/Monterey/Pebble Beach stuff. Graywalls (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What seems dubious is that so many of these buildings are not on the National Registry of Historical Places. If they were, I would not be concerned. These were simply nominated or paperwork was submitted for a lesser designation (state, parks & rec, local), that was never granted or registered. Netherzone (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this is concerning. You will see from the editor's talk page that I personally do not think that being on the Register in and of itself makes a building notable as WP:NBUILDING also requires significant coverage in third party sources (and are we really saying all 95,000 buildings on the US register + every building in every other country with a similar kind of register is worthy of an article here?) Even more concerning if the register entry itself is not even verified. There are so many of these articles that it feels overwhelming. I have nominated the article I've been looking at as an example - 27–29 Fountain Alley - for deletion in hopes of getting a subject expert or more experienced eyes on this. Melcous (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were one of the biggest contributors[9] to Bloomberg L.P.. I was wondering if you could take a look at Talk:Roy_Bahat. The page is about the head of the Bloomberg venture capital arm. I have a disclosed conflict of interest, as I work for Bloomberg. Angela.Martin2023 (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gore-Tex&oldid=1192522139. What you wrote isn't helpful. -- Frotz(talk) 23:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Frotz:, it was sourced to a product manufacturer's page, then a one-man instrument service shop blog. I didn't really look into how prevalent it was, although after verifying the usage through a reliable source, I see it is reasonable, and I replaced the source. It's pretty common on Wikipedia for someone to insert usage sourced on vanity sources in order to promote the source. Graywalls (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good catch on the Engadget revert (thanks), turns out it's actually listed in green at WP:RSP which I should've checked beforehand. If I may ask your feedback, is teslarati.com an independent reliable source for the article? Not sure what to make of that one. As of the current version, it's used for citations 25, 27, and 32. Left guide (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graywalls,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mary L. Hamlin for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Mary L. Hamlin to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CoconutOctopus talk 21:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I promised in our discussion yesterday, I have significantly expanded Smyth (restaurant) and Goosefoot (Chicago restaurant). Cullen328 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Graywalls. I see the filmography section of the Titmouse, Inc. article has become quite the source of discussion. After reviewing the Wikipedia pages you suggested on the talk page about the list rules, it does look like a filmography section isn’t appropriate.

I do have a question for you about other edits I have proposed on the talk page. One of those is adding citations for some content that currently isn’t sourced. Given that my talk page content hasn’t received any response thus far, could you advise me on whether this is still worth pursuing? It seems like the page could use some sections, and I have content regarding some of Titmouse’s projects that I would like to propose that I think would improve and update the page. I would appreciate any feedback or recommendations you may have regarding future updates. I want to follow the appropriate rules and criteria. Thank you and best, JillTMouse (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times obituary is for Alexander D. Henderson, Jr. not Alexander D. Henderson (businessman) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls. I have a disclosed conflict of interest with LastPass. Currently, there is a "Security incidents" section on the LastPass page that relies heavily on primary sources, citations that are misrepresented, and other improper cites. I put together a detailed breakdown here. Pursuant to WP:COI, I should not edit it myself. I wanted to see if you have time to review the breakdown and make any changes you feel are warranted as an impartial editor? Let me know. See Talk:LastPass#Poor_citations from November 2023. AmyMarchiando (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources aren't individual datapoints, they're sources that explicitly make the point that there is a consensus of economists. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: You redirected the article American Legion Post No. 512 without discussion. Based on WP:MERGE, "Any editor can perform a merge. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below. When performing a merge, one should remember to reconcile talk pages, and to attribute copied content, as required by Wikipedia's license. At minimum, this means adding words "Merged content to/from page" to edit summaries. See How to merge below for details." BTW, this is not really a merge because you are not merging anything, it is just a redirect.

I could have "undone" this edit, but decided to speak to you first. I understand from your comments you said "Not independently notable to merit its own article. The building isn't NRHP. Redirect per WP:BRANCH." However, you did not discuss this with me first. According to the guidelines, the article needs "substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." The article has 10 sources, at least two by secondary sources. This should be enough to establish notability. By redirecting to American Legion you loose any mention of the American Legion Post No. 512. Perhaps you just don't care, but it means a lot to me and I am sure people from the Monterey County, California. Please reconsider not redirecting this article. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006:, Actually, I don't believe there's adequate WP:SIGCOV to merit a stand alone article for the building and local branches/locations of a larger organization don't merit its own article unless the branch itself is specifically notable. I don't think Legion post 512 meets WP:NCORP threshold. Nobody owns an article, so there's really no expectation to ask anyone in particular to make a new edit, unless you're talking about disputed edits. @Lyndaship:, do you have any thoughts on this article? I just happen to notice you edited on this article recently, albeit a minor edit. Graywalls (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was solely as a result of Gnoming removing deleted portals. However, having read the article following your ping I am amazed that any editor felt it deserved it's own article. Lyndaship (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Yes, it is a disputed edit. I don't think you should "delete" by redirect an article like this without going through the formal WP:AFD deletion process. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRANCH is relevant. One could claim Walmart Cornelius, Oregon is "Notable based on criteria WP:GNG: American Legion Post No. 512 has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" citing "multiple coverages" per https://www.oregonlive.com/forest-grove/2013/07/wal-marts_impact_in_cornelius.html https://katu.com/news/local/arson-arrest-made-after-small-fire-set-in-cornelius-walmart yet, just it would be ridiculous article to create and probably subject to deletion, just like this Legion Post article you're disputing. Graywalls (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you can compare a Walmart Cornelius, Oregon with two news sources any comparison to an actual American Legion Post that is notable for being a historic meeting hall and landmark since 1921, recognized by the city of Carmel as an important resource, and was originally built by World War I veterans. You complexity deleted the article without any kind of Afd nomination. This is a disputed edit that should be reverted. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being recognized as "historical" by local village or township is not really a credible assertion of notability. Graywalls (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006:, I do not believe this branch of American Legion Posts merits a standalone article, so I am not reinstating it. If you insist, there's nothing preventing you from reverting it and at that point, it will be taken to AfD and consume more community resources over this. Graywalls (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006:, so I have addressed your concerns here. Now please do the courtesy of answering my question at Talk:Blue_Bird_Tea_Room. Graywalls (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will on the Blue Bird Tea Room Talk page. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you're the expert, I thought I'd give you a heads up on possible COI editing patterns at Jay Penske. I toned a little bit down in his early life, but there's a lot of other primary source material to sort through that I will have to get to later. I wanted to get your thoughts before doing any additional edits, because some of this material looks to be pretty difficult to find through normal search