User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Stuart Grayson[edit]

We'll add him and create the article. Please don't revert edits; just open a conversation on the talk page. Thanks! • Freechildtalk 15:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you creating a page for Stuart Grayson? (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I have started a page at Stuart Grayson. However, he was difficult to find information online about, including using Google Books. The article needs more information with reliable sources. Please add information that is cited. • Freechildtalk 12:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I will retrive information from amazon and other sites also my Minister Loretta Brooks at NYCC for Spiritual Living who studied with both Grayson and Hay and is mentioned in the books. Thank you (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
About that... We need to make sure that all information has reliable sources that meet guidelines for verifiability. Both of those links contain more information. Also, is the NYC-CSL the same as the Manhattan First Church of Religious Science? • Freechildtalk 13:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
New York Community Center is only about 4 years old this is their temporary site . First Church of RS are two different centers. (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

List entries[edit]

All entries in any list on Wikipedia require a citation to a third-party reliable source categorizing the subject within the category of the list. Having a linked article demonstrates notability. It does not satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability requirement. That requires a citation. Yworo (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


{{Block}} {{unblock|your reason here}} Well a reference from a third party source was was added by Freechild which confirm notability. (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A vandal added the block notice, you have not been blocked and should be able to edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm confused I have had issues on the Stuart Grayson article from an editor named Yworo who all but owns the article and the time he spends deleting or removing material he could have build up the article instead of waiting to delete it. (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Or editor on Jewish Science article who is ranting about the article being a hoax by jews, strange. (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess I asking for help! Can you take a look. (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Grayson[edit]

About this article. First, it would help a lot if you would read our General Notability Guideline, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article".

Second, it would help if you would understand that people's claims about themselves cannot be used to satisfy this requirement. Yes, there is a third-parrty source, but the article makes claims of "influence" which would establish notability. However, they were cited to That's only allowed for non-self-serving statements. Claims of influence must be cited to third-party sources. Most ministers, regardless of religion or denomination, are not notable. Notability means that they have been taken note of by other people not affiliated with them. Mentions in local papers about their services don't count toward notability. If you can source the claims of "influence" to a third-party source, that might establish notability. Just writing a few books doesn't establish notability. If the books themselves become notable, by having multiple third-party reviews in mainstream sources, then the author might also be notable.

As far as I can tell, this subject has not met even our general notability guideline, much less our notability guideline for biographies. The tags on the article are simply there to let other editors know what needs to be done to fix the article. I've looked for valid reliable sources and haven't found any. It's not my responsibility to go out of my way to find sources in libraries or other non-online sources. It's yours, if you want the article to be kept. I've not nominated it for deletion (yet), I am waiting for you to read and understand the guidelines and make a better effort to find sources and add them to the article. Yworo (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain how it works. I'm waiting for some off line sources to be delivered to me. I have already referenced the New York Post I'm justing waiting on new off line references. (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Great, I suspected there were offline sources to be found which is why I decided to wait rather than actually nominate the article for deletion. I do highly recommend that you create an account. While everyone may edit Wikipedia, you may find that people with accounts are more likely to be perceived to have a commitment to improving Wikipedia. Also, accounts are more anonymous, as editing from an IP exposes your real world location (e.g. I need only click the "geolocate" link at the bottom of this talk page to find that you are likely editing from New York City). Yworo (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks I have a lot of folks who have articles and books and News articles which I can reference. The issues are they are hard copies and many don't wish to part with them. So I have to have copies made and many of these folks are older and don't live by me. I appreciate your patiences. (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

October 2011[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Stuart Grayson. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. After someone removes material as uncited, you may not put it back unless you add a citation. Yworo (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yworo, could you please add a link to the article where this happened? Thanks. • Freechildtalk 03:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

February 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Now What, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you.  -- WikHead (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I Guess I was confused how the label New Wave got there in the first place which was not referenced to begin with. Presley music has never bee defined as New Wave which is antiquated term at best for her music. (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
PS no reference stating it is New Wave. (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Please read WP:GWARRIOR. Unless you can provide a reference, don't change genres.  -- WikHead (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
(FYI, when you have questions about an edit like this, you can post a notice on the article's talk page to alert other editors to your concerns. Let them know if you don't hear back or see a related edit on the article within x number of days, you'll complete the edit. The editor's note above is a little abrupt, but given your previous notices, it was a good courtesy.) • Freechildtalk 01:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Now What, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you.  -- WikHead (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok the original genre was Rock not New Wave which was added later with no reference so what should I do remove New Wave and leave it just Rock not POP? (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
How is that disruptive if I revert it back to just Rock then. (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Ps I did as you say and left a note on The Now What talk page. (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This User " 03:24, 19 October 2011‎ " added NewWave with out a reference which is why I removed it. (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok this link which is already referenced in the info box List the album as pop/rock not New Wave. (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
"Pop" does not link to a music genre. Try "pop music". The ambiguous link is what drew my attention to this article in the first place.  -- WikHead (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • PS. Only the first letter of the line should appear in upper-case.  -- WikHead (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)