Jump to content

User talk:Jeraphine Gryphon/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Regarding Lee Carroll tags

Just a note, that the whole Criticism section, including references to press and The Skeptic's Dictionary had been added after the Notability tag was placed on that article. Much had been added as well after the last deletion discussion was already closed. So, this makes for some change, and seems significantly more notable as per evidence provided by now. Which, of course, does not mean it can't be further improved :)

And about the undue tag, another editor had expressed concerns on the talk page that there's no discussion about what and why is undue. That was back in March. The material marked as undue is actually a recap of author's main ideas expressed in his works, and since no arguments were given for the tag and no discussion followed, it also seems appropriate to remove that tag now. But I leave the decision up to you, if you want to keep these tags for the meanwhile. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

FPP

Fantasy prone personality. You deleted my examples of fantasizers, eg, Enid Blyton, presumably because there were no references. I will restore these and include a reference in each case. Kookaburra17 05:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
But do I deserve it? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

Jeraphine, I have completed the process of reducing the length of the article. I've also tried to edit and improve the Criticism section. The edited version is located here.

I'm not looking for perfection - I'm leaving the GA or FA, etc., to other editors, whether they are currently active on editing this article or not (i.e., the wider community of present - and future - editors). I'll be satisfied with a version that is just good enough to move forward to dispute resolution. Your feedback on my edits is appreciated, and please also advise on the best way to proceed to dispute resolution based on your experience.

Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(Updated 03:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC))

I would like to apologize for my incivility regarding this article. Looking over the talk page, it is apparent that I blundered and made unfounded statements.Ankh.Morpork 21:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Con-Nichiwa

Hey, thanks for the heads up on using "you" in that blurb on the Saboten Con page. Still working to make the verbiage read more encyclopedia and not marketing. Oh, and sorry for getting Jin involved over the weekend. His intentions where there, but his delivery might have had more tact. Anyway, I hope we can work closer in the future as I am honestly trying to build the pages I help support better and any and all feedback is welcome. Have a great night :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fennellgb (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, I have been working on Con-Nichiwa's page and have added good reliable notable references. Could you please review and let me know if you are ok with me removing the "{{notability}}" part? I don't know how you would like to handle the removal of these, and well I don't know the proper educate to do that properly. Thanks.


Hi Jeraphine, I saw you re-added the notability tag to the con-nichiwa site. Please help me understand why I am not adhering to the follow guidelines Wikipedia:CORP and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Conventions? I have read both of these very closely and by the letter of those pages Con-Nichiwa meets notability. Please respond back so it doesn't look like we are arguing on the page itself as I am honestly trying to do the right thing here, but confused on reasoning a bit. Thanks for your time.--Fennellgb (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're the one who has to prove that it meets notability standards, not me. I'm not going to take the time to google it to find if there are some independent/secondary reliable sources that cover the topic.
The WikiProject page is not a guideline, it's a WikiProject page. I'm glad you've found WP:CORP but you don't seem to understand what it says. If you need some extra help, try Wikipedia:Questions. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I feel I have met the notability guidelines spelled out in those links. I then removed the notability tag you entered and you came back on and added it calling them random pages. They are not random and cover the event quite well, they are not affiliated with the convention, and are well known in our industry. I feel I have met the burden of proof, yet you still keep adding the notability tag back so YOU need to either let this go as I have met the burden or help me understand what you are looking for here. I'm honestly trying to stay above par here, but you are making it difficult.--Fennellgb (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at all the other major anime conventions out here on wikipedia. I'm meeting and sometimes exceeding their references. [AM²], [Sac-Anime], [Anime_Banzai], [Sakura-Con], and [AnimeFest]. Why are you setting the bar so much higher for just me and not the rest of my community?--Fennellgb (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
If you think I'm the problem, then ask someone else. It's not like you need my personal approval.
Coverage on those websites does not make the event notable. Instead of arguing that they do, try finding better proof of notability. The state or existence of other articles does not prove anything, you know anyone can edit this place; other articles do not interest me.
From here: Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." — animecons, borderbeat, and comicbooktherapy are just some random websites, not exactly comparable to The New York Times, and their audience is primarily interested in that type of stuff anyway so it only figures that they would post about any and all anime cons. Being posted about on those sites does not make the event notable by Wikipedia's standards. We do have some standards over here. Merely existing is not cause for inclusion. Find better sources that cover the event. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Protect page

Do you know how to apply to protect a wiki article for autoconfirmed users only? There seems to be vandalism by random IPs on the Caucasian race almost every few days, I think the article needs to be protected, how can that be done? Do you know? GreenUniverse (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're using WP:Twinkle (which you totally should!) then the quick way is to go to the article, open the TW menu and click on the "RPP" (Request Page Protection) link.
If you're not, then just go right here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, read the instructions and post the request for semi-protection. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Nice, thanks for the guidance. I have put in a request. GreenUniverse (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You put it in the fulfilled requests section, I moved it for you. :3 — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability nonsense on JSHint page.

Hi. You felt the need to add a Notability thing on a page for JSHint. I hope you are aware we are talking about web development software, and therefore it is bound to be discussed only in blogs, Github, and suchlike. What do you expect? Notability in the web industry is measured by the reputation of the bloggers endorsing it. It's not academia.

If you remove JSHint, first of all your than you should also remove JSLint, Closure Compiler and all other similar tools. Then the Wikipedia will be incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotofritz (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the other stuff, and I wasn't planning on getting anything deleted. The notability template is there so anyone who cares enough could maybe make the effort to find some proof of notability. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
ok, thanks Gotofritz (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

Your comments on the DRN would be appreciated -- I revised the DRN to request discussion of only one specific dispute on the Lead section, and one specific dispute on the Criticism section. Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


The following is a copy-paste from TZM's official Q&A website. Is this potential legal trouble?

Question (11) - Is The Zeitgeist Movement related to Peter Joseph's Film Series?

No. While the word "Zeitgeist" is also associated with Peter Joseph's film series, "Zeitgeist: The Movie", "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", the film series based content isn't to be confused with the tenets of "The Zeitgeist Movement" here. Rather, the films were mere inspirations for "The Zeitgeist Movement" due to their popularity and overall message of seeking truth, peace and sustainability in society.

The term "Zeitgeist" is defined as the ‘The General intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era." The Term "movement" very simply implies ‘motion" and change, Therefore The Zeitgeist Movement is thus an organization which urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.

The Movement is not about Comparative Religion, False-Flag Terrorism, Economic Hit-men, Fractional Reserve Banking or the Federal Reserve. The films are unrelated to The Movement in detail and are personal expressions of Peter Joseph. There is often some confusion in this regard and in the most extreme cases some people have the knee-jerk reaction that TZM supports forbidden "Conspiracy Theories" or is "Anti-Religious" or the like. This type or rhetoric tends to be of a pejorative/insulting nature, used in the context of dismissal of The Movement by an erroneous and "taboo" external association. The fact is, there is no direct association whatsoever.

If you are not familiar with what TZM actually is, please review our extensive literature and video/lecture materials on this website.

There may (or may not) be a legal issue here, as our article seems to claim things that directly contradict this official TZM statement.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi... Editing of meditation article - Osho

Dear Jeraphine Gryphon

I had added Osho's contribution to the article on meditation and you seem to have removed it.

Would you please explain the reasons for doing the same?

I would add that Osho has almost 600 books signifying meditation and has been a major contributor to the process.

Regards

Dilara.adim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilara.adim (talk • contribs) 04:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing Performance Errors Due to Fatigue and Sleep Loss During Spaceflight

Good afternoon Jeraphine Gryphon,

I am curious as to why you have removed my external links in favor of citations? By doing this, they are no longer links, but....citations...and makes this section a moot point. You state in the revision log that it was for standard layout, but I have not seen any guidelines stating this and have seen other pages use the format I used.

I was pleased with the way it looked and functioned, as were the users I am writing it for. If this is something covered by Wikipedia's Manual of Style, please let me know, otherwise, I will need to revert the changes.

Jssteil (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything, I moved things around according to Wikipedia's standard. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Standard_appendices_and_footers. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You were the one that added refs to each of the external links, that was really unnecessary. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


DVBViewer

Would you please be so kind and answer my email in the first place? "What exactly is the reason for this speedy deletion request? Honestly "because it only promotes an entity, person or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." is probably quite senseless, since the article is about the Software DVBViewer and if you complain this article you should also complain this one: GB-PVR as well as all other articles related to software and/or companies listed in this encyclopedia."

After the deletion i made the following: i used the article of ProgDVB as reference, which seem to be never complained as "No apparent notability" or promoting a software. To be honest this behaviour is more arbitrary than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHackbart (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Institut International de Lancy

Jeraphine, I do object to you editing off my edit of the Institut International de Lancy school. Neutrality in this case appears to be supressing important information. Concerned parents need to be able to read a balanced view of this school. The Wikipedia page simply states what the school wishes to have in the public forum - Wikipedia's mission is to air the truth - or so everything I have read about them would lead me to believe. I want to make sure that parents who read this page have a complete view of the school. This is what happened to us and several other parents. We complained about the behavior of a teacher at Institut International de Lancy (IIL) school in Geneva on 12th January 2012 and have been told on 29th March 2012 that IIL refuse to re enroll our son in September 2012. This news came in the middle of our sons IGCSE exams causing him anxiety and uncertainty. It also came during the last possible week of enrolment for other International Schools in Geneva. The reason we have been given for the refusal to re enroll is that the teacher we complained about is afraid of a confrontation. No action was taken by the schools administration to investigate our issue. Our son has attended IIL since April 2008 and is now 16 years old, he started his IGCSE exams on 14th March. We have subsequently found out that this is one of many similar incidents where any complaint by parents has resulted in a refusal to re enrol a pupil. The administration of this school is poor and the abuse of power by the head teacher shocking. Parents should be aware of this situation if they are considering enroling their children in this school. The complaint related to the behaviour of the careers teacher and I am happy to be contacted directly to give details to help other parents, in similar situations, avoid our experience. Our children deserve appropriate, informed and encouraging careers advice at critical times in their schooling. This could not be further from our experience at IIL. I would be grateful if you would stop editing out my comments in doing so you are depriving interested parents of important information.

Thank you

Jane Reay Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.28.232.29 (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not anyone's complaints department, sorry. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Segun Toyin Dawodu

The Segun Toyin Dawodu article has been discussed over 3-4 weeks and exhausted. It is ridiculous that you as another individual is bringing up the same issue that has been discussed over and over. You need to make reference to all previous discussions.

The sited references may not have web links but you can call the institutions to verify them as not all information are available on the internet. Some of the information are also based on simple checks of available data. By the way Dawodu.com has been cited several times on wikipedia by many authors.

It is therefore presumed that there is a deliberate attempt to get rid of this article by individuals acting in tandem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckanopueme (talk • contribs) 08:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly did I do wrong?
The AfD was inconclusive, there was no consensus to keep the article or that the subject is notable. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
There was actually an agreement to keep it which was why the initial tag for deletion was removed. You were never part of that discussion. The issue of notability was defined within that argument. What you did wrong was placing a tag when the initial conclusion was concluded and you were never part of that discussion which lasted 2-3 weeks.

Ck Anopueme 02:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Left Hand path page citation

You reverted an edit to a citation I provided a cite for, albeit to a wiki article citing "The Six Yogas of Naropa". The context of the citation is correct, so I'm leaving this message to discuss it with you. If you would desire a citation to the book for Six Yogas of Naropa I can do that, but I feel the wiki article represents the context of the Six Yogas correctly that is why I linked to it. So if the citation is unreliable per wiki articles being unreliable I understand and I will simply provide the book title author and ISBN instead depending on your response to this message.Blackson (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the Wikipedia article was meant as a ref. If the book was meant as a ref then please provide more than just the title (like ISBN, etc). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes it can be difficult to address a request for citation when you can't understand the motivation of the request, as is the case with the IP who wants this citation. I don't mean to clutter your talk page, but the citation is interesting to me. I'm fascinated with the interpretation of eastern philosophy in the west and this subject is something that comes up often among western interpretation with LHP practices. I'll point to the phrase in the article that is the center of an amusing perpetual confusion among westerners...
"The two paths are viewed by Tantrists as equally valid approaches to enlightenment. Vamachara, however, is considered to be the faster[citation needed] and more dangerous of the two paths, and is not suitable for all practitioners."
I try not to chop up or reconfigure the groundwork of other editors in articles as a basic means of respect, but the entire paragraph this sentence occurs in is well-meaning and for the most part correct just not worded succinctly, this above sentence is part of the swiss cheese. The redundant question I notice is "Why is LHP referred to as the fast vehicle?" The question stems from the dissemination of Vajrayana practices in the west, compared to a practice like the Kuala Sadhana in Hinduism you won't hear the same question occur as often eventhough the practices are equal methods of excelled attainment (potentially dangerous to the practitioner). Both instances involve ritual sex, so they are obviously advanced and can potentially damage the mind of the practitioner, any qualified guru would admit this and motivate themselves to transmit such truth to the aspirant in good faith.
So you can see when the question of why a fast/quicker vehicle arises, the curiosity is almost always applied to in the context of Vajrayana practices as opposed to Hindu vehicles like the Kuala. The simple truth lies in something being overlooked. I initially decided to cite the Six Yogas of Naropa as a relative notion linking Tibetan practice to its Indian root, as Naropa is an Indian yogi. In Tsongkhapa's commentary on the Six Yogas, the practice of tummo heat is a prerequisite for consort yoga and sexual practice as regards Karmamudra and the Mother Tantras. That is why I cited the Six Yogas as it addresses these issues by going straight to the source.
The fact remains, in the west when the question of faster/quicker path is asked something is being overlooked regardless of how many advanced or widely recognized Tantric texts you throw at the curious. What is being overlooked is a fundamental in Mahayana , being made up of two vehicles Paramitayana and Mantrayana (respectively the Cause-vehicle and the Effect-vehicle). The Paramitayana consists of the six or ten paramitas, of which the scriptures say that it takes three incalculable aeons to lead one to Buddhahood. The tantra literature, however, claims that the Mantrayana leads one to Buddhahood in one single life. The classes of Mantrayana which conceal LHP ritual sex practices are Yoga Tantra, and the Unexcelled Yoga Tantra. These fundamentals are the root of quickness which are often overlooked, simply because the claims are announced so early in the preliminary study of Mahayana that most readers will digest and forget. Those who are not mindful will suffer a perpetual desire to "find" the quick path and lose sight of the aforementioned fundamental. Mantrayana, the vehicle of mantra, is an easily difficult path; easy to perform - difficult to understand.
With all this in mind I realize the root of the delusion is a distinction between Paramitayana and Mantrayana within the practice of the Middle Way. So rather than cite something deep and esoteric like the Six Yogas of Naropa, I feel it best to address the pervading confusion in all this which deserves the attention of wisdom. I will cite Buswell's Encyclopedia of Buddhism to help readers distinguish the two paths of Paramitayana and Mantrayana.Blackson (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have time to read all of this. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVBViewer (2nd nomination)

Since you recently participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVBViewer, I'm notifying you that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVBViewer (2nd nomination) has been opened. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Special Barnstar
Just a short note to thank you for all the good work you have done, with the hope that you will be back to full editing capacity soon. Best wishes, Johnfos (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
While there is a section, I may thank you for all the good work you have done, too. --217/83 12:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks! I'm presently engaged in a tricky merge proposal at Reincarnation research, if you would care to take a look... Johnfos (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I meant like joining in thanking Jeraphine Gryphon, but anyway. I guess someone who gives other users Barnstars is an engaged user, too, and the act of giving the Barnstar is a good one, But I’m not sure whether we have met, though your name (unknown to me before that) might have appeared in some article’s version history without me noticing. But I’m willing to take a look at that proposal. --217/83 15:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

omg thank you ;-; — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For behind the scenes work that benefits me if not necessarily the project as a whole 8-) Peridon (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the removal of fictional examples in Stockholm syndrome! Very much appreciated. Lova Falk talk 18:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for kind help. Actually, I'm not very good in wikipedia coding but i have some source which i want to provide about hindu cultures which i retrieved from several source. Please advice me if need more improvement. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotmuru (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Eben Alexander

turns out there are butterflies and at least one beautiful girl in peasant-like clothers. [1] p.40 "Someone was next to me: a beautiful girl with high cheek- bones and deep blue eyes. She was wearing the same kind of peasant-like clothes that the people in the village down below wore. Golden-brown tresses framed her lovely face. We were riding along together on an intricately patterned surface, alive with indescribable and vivid colors—the wing of a butterfly. In fact, millions of butterflies were all around us—vast fluttering waves of them, dipping down into the greenery and coming back up around us again. It wasn't any single, discrete butterfly that appeared, but all of them together, as if they were a river of life and color, moving through the air. ". Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the word "us" in the reverted revision, it's unencyclopedic, and I doubt that he claimed that every person would have the exact same experiences he did (with the butterflies and girls and whatever). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, good point. the wording there was key. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I miss you!

Dear Jeraphine Gryphon, please return to Wikipedia. You welcomed me when I registered this account, and you were very kind to me, and you gave me words of support when I was having a terrible time trying to upload a photo to Commons. I have checked this page so many times to see if you have come back. I miss you, and I wish you the very best! Dontreader (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Good Heart Barnstar The Good Heart Barnstar
For having a very noble heart! Dontreader (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. o_o Um, thanks! — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the Wikipedia policies for external links. It would be grateful that if you could help me in getting a back-link which stick to Wikipedia policies. Praveece (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're not going to get any back-links from Wikipedia and it's not okay to try to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. I can see that you have that link on your own userpage, which may (or may not) be okay, I'm not sure. You can read the relevant guideline here: Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_not_have_in_my_user_pages.3F. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Psycho-cybernetics

Thanks for correcting my link - I had intended to link to the book itself, not to its Amazon listing. DaveApter (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Question for administrator

{{Admin help}} I mucked something up; can an admin move the List_of_ufologists/Editnotice page to Template:Editnotices/Page/List of ufologists for me? I can't make that move myself. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's the relevant info page: Wikipedia:Editnotice — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ive moved this to Draft:List of ufologists/Editnotice where it was it was liable for WP:SPEEDY deletion as it wasn't an article. An admin will need to finish it off Amortias (T)(C) 17:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Now there's just more pages to delete. :D — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done Template:Editnotices/Page/List of ufologists Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Zealous ?

Please do not exert your editorial zealotry before the contributor has checked their source. Not a questionable statement to those who have studied the subject for decades and have read the book in which it was stated. Google the book for yourself Norwikian (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wmYIEvWFyiEC&pg=PR46&lpg=PR46&dq=rasputin+arthur+dee&source=bl&ots=_CApbujJDj&sig=zD7dLC3y1znxKxaDcQPwUogga_I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8KUBVcOsCZGf7gbNhoHYBA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=rasputin%20arthur%20dee&f=false

I see you've provided the ref now, thanks. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Jason Azzopardi

I've put in the references - its the official site of the parliament of malta. Why do you say it's unreferenced ? Alan347 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism of the talk page

Your removal of talk page material without giving any reason is considered disruptive and vandalism as well. Please refrain deleting talk page comments of others as it is highly frowned upon at Wikipedia. Do not engage in edit warring WP:3R by removing talk page material again. Edit warring does not require 3 reverts concerning talk page material. Thank you 208.54.38.177 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What did I remove? I edited my own comment to fix a formatting error. You reverted that for some mysterious reason. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, It appeared that you deleted my talk page commentary as you did the information in the article. How it appeared that way I am unsure of but it was a mistake on my part and I apologize. The talk page edit warring warning was thus not appropriate. However I do feel that a concise description (from the Wikipedia leade in the relevant articles) of the drugs given to this young girl do give readers more information in this tragic case and should not have been deleted. Again my sincere apologies about the talk page warning. 208.54.38.177 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay. We can talk about the article at the article's talk page, I've left three replies there. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


GDP changes

Just go here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita .(for Estonia) and here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita (for Lybia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.Erfolg (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Those pages list 2013 data. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


what do you mean "Wikipedia is not a reliable source"? If you dont think wikipedia is serious why are you here?for Libya : http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc .1.Erfolg (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


However I am open for discussions and concensus :wikipedia and some sources says my version,however I have found this is for 2014 (it says your version) and I think that this is acceptable for Libya https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html . I think I can accept this.1.Erfolg (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the previous information and sources before your edits. There is no value in replacing current data with old data, so please don't do that. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


I think you are a very good and clever Wikipedian ,seriously.As for your version I think it is acceptable.1.Erfolg (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Metapedia

Thanks. We seem to have a sock situation here. Look at [2] and in particular their edit to Talk:Zionism, then another editor[3]. WP:NOTHERE obviously, and given Templars feature in both... Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Oh dear. They might somehow be related to this sock family ("Same sort of trolling obsession with globalism, conspiracy theories, and the crusades") — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
You are brilliant. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:D — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeraphine_Gryphon/Archive_3&oldid=1143083715"