User talk:Jeraphine Gryphon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The Last Mountain

Jean, Good day to you! I would like to know why you believe that the Ken Ward Gazette piece is a legitimate source and the Green for All blog is not? I am an expert in Sustainable Development in the region and author of this piece. Please provide me with additional info that I may need to supply you in order to build the blog credibility? Best, Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exotericeric (talk • contribs) 16:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I just found Green For All has their own Wikipedia article, which may mean they're a reliable source. However, the post itself didn't actually contain the information you added to the article. --Jean Calleo (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a criticism section to the article referencing the post. --Jean Calleo (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Toshmag

As you know that every new editor comes with great energy and drive to prove him/herself and his/her ability to edit, so you must be patient to see what they have again and deal with the article as it is not for deletion (even if it has been tagged), until it is deleted or left, also when referring to the content lacks cited sources may make those editors looking for the sources and taking it seriously. Thanks and have a good day :) Sean ^{(Ask Me?)} 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I literally have no idea what you just said. But I'm sure the articles I tagged for speedy deletion will end up being deleted one way or another, I've also left the author a message about it since they seem confused. --Jean Calleo (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nigromancy

As you can see from the talk page there has been a call to redirect it to either necromany or black magic since 2010, which has not been reponded to. The central point is that if readers are directed to this page by a link they should have substantial information. Both of the main articles provide such information. This one says nothing more than that it is a word that appeared in the title of a book. This is fundamentally a question of whether a link is useful or not. Paul B (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

When I said I'll try to find sources, I also meant additional information. I'll see if I can save the article, if I can't then I'll leave it be. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 15:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Something has infected my web browser

I've swapped web browsers so it might stop now. Serendi^podous 19:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You should look through some of your last edits. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 19:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. I'm proceding with caution until I know that whatever happened won't happen again. Serendi^podous 19:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. ^^ — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 19:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Aw heck. Have a cookie!

Serendi^podous 19:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou :3 — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 19:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Mysticism

Apologies for the editing to Mysticism, I thought I was removing references to quantum physicists, instead of adding them. To make matters worse I did it twice! Thank you for spotting it, BananaFiend (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. I had a feeling something was wrong with that. All's good. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 10:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Surrealist automatism

The link I placed showed additional examples of automated drawing technique. This is for artist to have modern examples of the technique. Now what is your dispute with this? Please give a detail explanation of your concerns and how this does not follow wiki's rules.

Anderson 13:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowmanga1278 (talk • contribs)

Here's my detailed explanation: WP:EL. Specifically WP:ELNO, point 11.

I explained my edit in my edit summary, you didn't use edit summaries at all, plus you reinstated pipe symbols that aren't supposed to be there.

If people want additional material they're free to use google. Wikipedia is not a linkdump. And that particular page doesn't really contain any vital information. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 13:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You said the following: “doesn't really contain any vital information” . First of all what are your qualifications to make that decision. Are you a visual artist? Do you have your degree in the arts? Are you currently in art school? How long have you been a visual artist? Please share more details? I am not creating link dumps as you say. My link is useful. If people want to just use Google then why use Wiki at all. It is a website to give artist real life examples of automated drawings. If you bothered to use Google, you would find few good examples of automated drawing from living artist. Furthermore, information on what this genre means to each artist. It seems to me Jean you are very aggressive with other users of the Wiki system. I suggest you try doing some automated drawings and cool off. Please give a more detail explanation of removal of link.

Anderson 04:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowmanga1278 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Whatever I have done, will do or should do outside of Wikipedia is not relevant to your problem.

WP:ELNO, point 11, as I already said – please click the link and actually read it this time. The owner of the website you want to link to is not notable or otherwise any authority on the topic. (If every random person who has anything to say about the topic gets linked to, we will have a linkdump.)

Wikipedia does not cater to a specific interest group (e.g., artists) – policies apply to everyone. It doesn't matter that some people somewhere would find the link useful.

I'm not going to change my mind about whether the link should be included or not. If you want to establish consensus, you should find other (experienced) editors who can agree that adding that link is in accordance with policy. (See: Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment.)

(And, not that it's relevant or important, I just did an automatic drawing quite recently, I'll show you if you want. This is why I'm watching the article, I'm interested in and familiar with the topic.) — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 09:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead issue

I wanted to convey my thanks to you for taking part in the recent discussion about Necromancy and the LDS, and though I am rather hesitant to admit this (for the obvious reason of not wanting to be taken for an egotist), I must also say that I greatly appreciate your support in bringing the matter to a favorable conclusion. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Necromancy". Thank you. (Ay, me; I probably jinxed myself. Contrary to what I thought, this unfortunately is not a "dead issue".) — Apo-kalypso (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I liked the pun though (re "dead issue"). — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 11:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

From one "LDS apologist" to another, I'm sorry to have dragged you into all that, but many thanks for your help. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's funny 'cause LDS folks would burn me at the stake. Y'know, for necromancy and other witchcraft. Canst may have had more luck accusing me of being biased from the opposite POV. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 07:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Satanism

Thank you for clarifying "minor edit". Since the Jewish bible only mentions Satan in Job and as an subordinate of Jehovah not an enemy or adversary of God don't you think it's gross a misrepresentation of the Jewish faith to lump all the christian mythology on it's back? If you don't think it's a misrepresentation of the Jewish faith can you please explain to me why? Encyclopedias are supposed to present facts not support any ideologies propaganda or mythology by misrepresenting or manipulating facts. Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are supposed to present facts not support any ideologies propaganda or mythology by misrepresenting or manipulating facts. -- That was wholly unnecessary. Someone with "Rev" in their name shouldn't be telling me I'm editing from an ideology.

I'm not an expert on what the Bible says, what I know is that your edit was not minor, and as far as I know its accuracy is dubious, so I had to revert it.

From the Hebrew Bible article: Hebrew Bible is a term that refers to the common/shared portions of the Tanakh (Jewish canon) and the Christian biblical canons. The sentence you edited: Generally, those Satanists who believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of Satan are linked into the belief system of today's Judeo-Christian religion, as they believe in the same theology presented in the Hebrew Bible. Do you understand the meaning of the sentence now? If the Judeo-Christian God is the same God for Jews and Christians, then the Judeo-Christian Satan (with basis in the Hebrew Bible) is the same Satan for people (Satanists) who either believe in the authority of the New Testament or not.

I advise you take this conversation to the article's talk page. As said, I'm not an expert on the Bible, I simply couldn't allow you to try to make such a ninja-edit. --Jean Calleo (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Being a Reverend does not deny me the right of calling things the way I see them. It was not a ninja move and I even thanked you for clarifying "minor edit" I will take this to the talk section as per your suggestion for I feel that a Jewish perspective of this sentence is quite different than a christian one. I'm waiting to hear back from the JDL on how they feel about this sentence.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There are no "Jewish perspectives" or "Christian perspectives" on Wikipedia. I'm sure you're familiar with WP:NPOV. Their informed input is definitely welcome but only because they're assumed to be knowledgeable about the subject and not because they're Jewish.

You're not denied any rights, I'm just telling you you used a really lame tactic. By adding the sentence (Encyclopedias are supposed to...) you're clearly trying to imply that I believe to the contrary when I don't and didn't demonstrate that I do.

I went ahead and started the discussion on the article's talk page, btw. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 17:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Check Margolin on UTube, he's not NPOV and therefore unacceptable as an editor - I differentiate between having the right to an opinion (we all have) and driving that opinion down everybodys' throats as he tries to do, he should be banned and this meme secured. As a preliminary, it would be useful if you could find the institution which gave him his Reverend's licence. In passing, you left a message on my door suggesting I join formally. I was formerly an editor, but resigned over the appeals process, and have just received outline approval to pursue my studies in Renaissance eschatology within the Warburg Institute, which is another reason why I do not want to identify myself in detail here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.13.121 (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No actual person has an entirely neutral point of view, it's just our edits that have to be neutral. Only disruptive editors (e.g. vandals) get blocked, others will be reasoned with. I'm not sure what the actual problem seems to be with this particular editor, so you should clarify that.

I left you a note suggesting you to sign your posts on talk pages, since one or two of your messages on Talk:Devil were left unsigned and SineBot (a bot that runs around signing unsigned posts) didn't catch those either. All talk page posts should be signed (if you don't have an account you're identified by your IP), so others won't be confused as to who is saying what. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 21:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Satanism 2

Perhaps I shouldn't have made this as my first edit. I have had considerable (40+ years) experience in the field of the occult but very little editing Wikipedia. I included the Ordo Serpentis as it had been made aware to myself that they had become active. (I was also going to edit some of the Golden Dawn material). They were on Wikipedia a few years ago before, I believed, they disbanded. (Evidently not). That the literature they currently have available is significantly different, and in some ways more historically accurate, than the other groups presented I thought it would be suitable. As the ONA is represented and the Black Books of Elverum cited as reference, I certainly didn't believe that "credibility" was a problem for citing. Regardless, I wont bother editing the Golden Dawn as I can't be bothered citing 8 legitimate sources just to correct one paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaligaNox (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 23:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Golden Bough

Jean Calleo, Thank you for noting that I forgot to note major edit instead of minor edit. This has been changed. If you have any more advice for me, that would be appreciated. I am new and need help figuring out the site. Cheers, Meegan Montgomery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontyMee (talk • contribs) 02:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edit because it was marked as minor, I reverted it because you added original research. When any edit of yours is reverted (with an explanation, check the edit summaries) then you should never repeat the same edit, unless you've taken the issue to the talk page first and editors have reached a consensus. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 03:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of links

Hi Jean, Did you remove the links I put on the Robin Auld page with the reason "inappropiate"? If so., would you explain why, and what needs to be done to rectify it. Thanks John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnno777 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious too. Was it the links themselves, or the way they were put in? Johnno777 is a fairly new editor and would probably appreciate his links (except for the blogspot ones, which I've explained about to him) put into the correct format. (I'm not volunteering - I still have difficulties with referencing formats...) A mass reversion of a new editor's work on an article he has created deserves a note explaining what was wrong, unless perhaps vandalism is the case. Johnno appeared to be blocked for a time, but that seems to have been a proxy problem, now sorted. Cheers. Peridon (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(A longer version of my last edit summary): We don't add external links into the body of the article. If a website serves as a reference to a statement then it's put between ref tags, but we don't simply link to websites of every and any people and organisations mentioned in the article. See WP:EL.

Some of the links seem to be interwiki links, which means they were meant to link to other articles on Wikipedia; see Help:Link#Wikilinks to see how to do that.

And it's usually not acceptable to simply undo an undoing as you did here, that's considered "edit warring" — the mere fact that you left a message to me doesn't mean that we reached a consensus. Next time wait until the issue is actually settled. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 18:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

And here's a guide to referencing: Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 18:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) As I said, Johnno is new. It's better to have links in the wrong place than not at all. They can always be sorted out later. Perhaps you could work with him to sort this out? Cheers. Peridon (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the time right now (but I may in a couple hours), and in any case 90% of the content of his edit was inappropriate and shouldn't be there at all, wikified or not. Again, we don't give an external link to every person/company/thing mentioned in the article just to prove they "exist". If the link doesn't serve as a reference then it shouldn't be included at all. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 18:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've gone and wikified the article. Still needs to be referenced properly. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 20:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could (if you haven't already) leave him a note to say what and why. I find little notes smooth lots of things over. (Then again, once in a while I get rather rude if the occasion demands it...) Cheers. :) Peridon (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

He left me a huge and largely unjustified essay on his talk page, I don't feel like escalating drama so I'll stay out and hope someone else can cool him off. I don't think I can muster up the niceness and patience to respond to that; I've instead opted to help out with improving the article as best as I can. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 21:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleared up. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Peridon (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for vigilance at my talk page. The edit, as you probably have seen, was done by me. Except I had signed out before I made the edit. All is well. Thanks again. Djathinkimacowboy 05:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:) — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Dead reckoning

Hello, again. I noticed from reading your user page that you're a member of WikiProject Occult. It's been almost a month since I requested an assessment for the necromancy article – which, insofar as I can tell, hasn't been assessed since the project banner was added to its talk page more than four years ago – but I've yet to see it acted upon. That being the case, I wanted to ask if you might be able to assess the article yourself. Alternatively, if you have some means of contacting an active project administrator that are otherwise not available to those – like myself – who aren't project members, perhaps you could ask one of them to do it. Either way, any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought anyone can assess articles? (At least I've been running around assessing articles of WikiProjects I don't belong to... whoops.) I don't know who the admins are, but I think there's a members list up on the project page.

I'll look through it properly, both the article and the requirements for each class. I may take a day. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 04:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Like anything else on Wikipedia, article assessment is, for the most part, open to anyone. I just wanted to defer to someone who's connected with WikiProject Occult in this particular case because I'm not familiar with the project's focus and goals, aside from the fact that I don't have the depth of knowledge on the subject that would enable me to make an authoritative, accurate assessment. Please, take as much time as you need; there's really no rush to get this done. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Be careful with Mandrake

FYI, there are two publishers called Mandrake: Mandrake Press which was dissolved in 1930. Any more recent titles are actually from Mandrake of Oxford, founded in 1986. Unfortunately, Amazon and Google Books frequently just say "Mandrake", which is really incorrect for either. Yworo (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I've started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard about the issue, here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lionel Snell. Yworo (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Chaos magic

No, that wasn't real. It was originally added to the article by a prankster, and they keep trying to put it back in because It's Hilariously Funny.

And the source that was cited made no mention of that concept whatsoever. It was a deliberate lie, a misrepresentation of a source. The user has been blocked indefinitely. DS (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You know that for sure? (The same source has been added before?) I had a feeling it was fake... — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It was originally added without a source. Google Books has access to that source, and reveals that the concept is not mentioned within that source. DS (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, chaos magic has gotten more serious coverage in the last few years (since about 2006) than I realized. And from both Cambridge and Oxford University Presses, no less. Interesting. (See potential sources I added at Ray Sherwin, Peter J. Carroll and Chaos magic). Yworo (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to apologize

Just wanted to apologize for leaving that other message in the wrong place, it wasn't my intention to make you have to revert it. Btw, as an aside, you may want to edit the link on this page that says "Please click here to leave me a new message". It currently adds a new section to the Jean Calleo redirect page and if they don't look carefully other people may also end up leaving you messages there if they click that link. Not a big deal, obviously, since you'll still see them. I just wasn't sure if you were aware of it. --69.143.182.189 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! I'm so sorry, that was obviously my own fault. I've fixed the link now. And btw, I haven't dropped the otherkin issue, just haven't gotten around to dealing with it. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 04:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. :) I should have paid more attention, when I was posting... I thought something was wrong when it didn't show up on your talk page, but I wasn't sure if you had some kind of private message or screening system set up or what. Took me a while to figure out exactly what had happened. As for the otherkin issue, I'm just hoping it will get a fair hearing. Including Clinical Lycanthropy as a see also for Otherkin seems as ridiculous as including Paraphilia as a see also for the furry fandom, or Schizophrenia as a see also for Theistic Satanism. As editors, it's not our role to make that sort of diagnosis. We can report on it if there are reliable sources making the claim, but we can't make the connection up on our own just because it "seems obvious" to us. That's my two cents, anyway. But I'm not going to get in an edit war with folks over this. I've commented both to you and Equivamp on this and I'm leaving it at that. (DreamGuy, IME, won't be budged on this. The archives of the Otherkin talk page show his history on the subject.) --69.143.182.189 (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Lucid dream

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I replied to your messages on my talk page, (User talk:MsBatfish#Lucid dream), just in case you haven't seen them :-) MsBatfish (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I had. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 05:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I will take that to mean you don't desire to respond or answer my questions then. MsBatfish (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I's overwhelmed currently. @_@ — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For tidying death project things - it has been a bit quiet of late... SatuSuro 12:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the place should be more ~lively~. Currently wondering what to do with Portal:Suicide and whether the WikiProject's design should be more gloomy. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

you seem to have a handle on things - would you think the lack of the link in the asia members box is anything that is obviuously wrong - viz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Asia#Participants  ?? asked only if you have the time to look - no big deal... SatuSuro 12:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The link does show up on every page but the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia because that's where it links to. If you put the template on your userpage, it will be a clickable link. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - thanks again for the death/suicide work - that a lot of time you have put in there! - cheers SatuSuro 22:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I've been making edits nearly every hour for the past ...17 hours? That can't be right...... I was going to update the project talk page and let others know that the template is ready to be replaced, but I... wanted to do all the work myself. ...... I think I need sleep. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 22:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please correct me if you think procedurally incorrect - I have been subsuming suicide categories straight into the death project tag - trust that is ok SatuSuro 06:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean but it doesn't sound right. Example? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah its ok - I have just been tagging - it is correct - WikiProject Death|suicide=yes - cheers SatuSuro 07:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Death Star

		Death Star
		Jeraphine Gryphon is awarded this Death Star for Initiative, in spearheading the effort to re-organize one project page as the Suicide Task Force of the Death Project. Well done! Boneyard90 (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OMG YAY! I'll stick it on my userpage later! — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

second the sentiment! excellent work - well done! SatuSuro 07:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

Yes, I took those images. Yes, please help me to put proper license templates on them. The photos were taken at Domus Dorpatensis where the lectures took place. Yes, I am Estonian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volberg (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(Answered on your talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

Question

I created an article for Robert Crookall, how do you make it so his name is added to the parapsychology template in the people section? GreenUniverse (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I went and added it. The template is located here: Template:Parapsychology, where it can be edited. These sorts of templates usually have the letters "v d e" somewhere in a corner, meaning "view", "discuss" and "edit". When you're on an article page and there's a template, you can click on the "v" to go to the template's page. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3o in the Human rights in Estonia article!

Hi Jeraphine Gryphon, I really appreciate you coming to the Human rights in Estonia and helping with the dispute resolution. I do believe that we would be able to resolve the issue through discussion, and thanks for cooling everybody's heads a little bit there:) Kind regards, FeelSunny (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Because there had been no updates in over a month and the talk page topped 40 k. Serendi^podous 13:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You left the talk page completely bare, and a month isn't really old at all. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Potayto, potahto. There are no hard and fast rules regarding archiving. Serendi^podous 16:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam McLean and Alchemy Website links

Hi there. I noticed that a chunk of links to the Adam McLean's Alchemy website were deleted across a number of articles. In some cases, this seems like a good move. In other cases, I can't figure out why those links were removed while some less reputable ones were kept. He's an established notable authority on the subject which can confirmed by the references to his work and website found in university published secondary sources. He's the source of plenty of translations. I'm wondering if there was another reason for the deletions I'm not understanding? Cheers. Car Henkel (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a personal vendetta against him since he dumped me. Feel free to check and revert my removals. Though I object to us linking to sales pages. I don't remember what else I did, so if there was a particularly questionable edit, feel free to link to my diff here and I'll reconsider it and possibly revert myself. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 00:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

? :) Sounds good. Car Henkel (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Redacting my comments

If you really feel you have to redact my comments, just redact what was attacking and not the entire comment. As such, I have undone your redaction of my entire comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Breedlove and have then redacted only what was outside civility. Thanks. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comment was wholly unnecessary. Please understand that the closing admin will have a lot of text to go through, especially on that AfD, there's simply no room for anything that isn't directly relevant to making an end decision. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Blitz

Thank you very much for clipping that stuff off my talk page - as you rightly guessed, I didn't think responding to it would help matters. We should have a think sometime about how to get the page moving again, with citations... but many thanks for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Order of St. Lazarus

Thanks. This guy's edits have been complained about on the talk page by Yopie, who reverted him. He reinstated them, I reverted him. He reinstated them, Yopie reverted him. He reinstated them calling me a vandal. And of course I'm the third party, which I've explained on the article talk page. By the way, that unpleasant email exchange ended up with an OTRS complaint, meant to tell you about that. No problem though, don't worry about it. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? What would/did the OTRS do about it? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing, just that the editor complained. It was a few days ago. We get stuff like that fairly frequently, there are always disgruntled editors. I'm not sure who initiated the email exchange but if you did, that's sometimes not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I DIDN'T. HE DID. HE SHOULDN'T HAVE E-MAILED ME AT ALL, HE JUST WANTED TO BE A "100%" SURE THAT I HAD HEARD HIS INSULTS. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 02:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No apologies necessary

I can see why you would have gotten suspicious. Its totally human.Bless sins (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

:] — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for following up the matter and taking the time to review all the evidence.Bless sins (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

:] — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OMG

OMG, you must be stalking me.....

But seriously, I appreciate your reasoned responses, even when you don't agree with me. :-) Yworo (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Blatant stalking. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 00:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's your motives that count. Your heart appears to be in the right place. :-) Yworo (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wha? I don't have a heart. I don't pick sides either, I never consider whether I'm going to agree or disagree with you. Ghandel or whatshername memphisto left you messages that I knew to be out of accordance with actual policy (and it seemed like you hadn't read those two paragraphs either) so I had to butt in on that as I would anyplace else; the template discussion was connected to that and, for the reasons I gave, it makes sense to not delete the template (though there's evidently a bigger issue behind that, but it should probably not be discussed at a template's deletion discussion). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 01:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Heartless, eh? I simply meant you seem to have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. I don't care whether someone agrees with me; I do care when they have primarily their own POV in mind rather than Wikipedia's. Yworo (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)