User talk:Jeraphine Gryphon/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Satan" vs. "the Satan" (I don't know where else to write this!!)

Sorry, but I'm brand new on Wikipedia and it is very confusing. You say to leave a message on "my" talk page but I have no idea where. I click on various "talk" links and I don't see the thread. Here below I'm answering your comments and question regarding the discussion about Satan / the satan / the adversary in the book of Job.

You wrote: "I checked some dictionaries and they all list "Satan" as a proper noun."

>> Check any Hebrew-to-English dictionary and you will not find the word השׂטן (roughly pronounced "ah-sahtahn") expressed as a proper noun. It means “the adversary” and this word is used in various other Hebrew passages, mostly describing people.

You wrote: “Maybe in that specific paragraph we might just need to use some other word to refer to that entity.”

>> Even putting it in quotes would help. My point is that, if the wording is coming from Wikipedia (and not a direct passage from Job), then it means that Wikipedia has chosen ideology over scholarship. Wikipedia has no business describing "ah-sahtahn" as "Satan" in its own writing. It's unjustified. We could also write, for instance, //“the satan” (the adversary)//. By the way, this is only an issue in the passages about Job. Most of the Hebrew texts translate ah-sahtahn correctly.

You wrote "Or do we have any (English) reliable sources that use "the satan" in that context?"

Yes, there are quite a few more credible English translations that use “adversary” instead of “Satan,” such as the Common English Bible, the Complete Jewish Bible, Young’s Literal Translation and quite a few others. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1:6&version=CEB https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1:6&version=CJB https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1:6&version=YLT

There are also translations that use “Satan” but footnote the translation issue, like in the EXB (Expanded Bible). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1:6&version=EXB

It is Christian bias to refer to the character in Job as Satan. No Jew or Hebrew-speaking person would read the text like that. If we're describing the story, then we shouldn't be referring to Satan. And if you really insist on using "Satan", then you should put notes in the section so the reader understands that the word, despite being preferred by some Christians, is based on a poor translation.

Rebhaf (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rebhaf: You should probably put this on the Satan talk page, other editors need to see this too. Let's keep the conversation in one place. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sultan ul Faqr Publications (continued)

Your reverts speak for themselves requiring no explanation.

You did not "fix" anything at all. You reverted valuable edits as explained above. (I mean here: [1] as you have just archived the discussion)

Infact I would have been glad had you actually considered me being a relatively new user but it's pointless talking to you when you are bent upon biting the newcomers.

So don't even bother talking back.

Markangle11 (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You continue telling me that the conversation is over or that you don't want to talk to me (like you did when you reverted me on your talk page). I get it. You don't want me to voice my arguments. How about this: you will not have to interact me anymore after the specific issues on the specific articles have been settled. Right now they are obviously not. And trust me I will notice when they're settled so don't try to tell me when.

And I will again recommend you to look for third opinions on Wikipedia:Noticeboards or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before I do it myself. Your baseless accusations are getting really annoying and I really don't have to put up with it. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I second your feelings. Lets end this now... Markangle11 (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Links on Otherkin

This was unwarranted. Otherkin Timeline is a highly respected resource. The fact your anti-virus program is overzealous does not mean it violates the policy on links. Additionally, the two other links you removed were created by notable individuals in the community, once of which who appeared on television. Shiro Ulv (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Otherkin#External_links. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

People Per Hour

Stop defending this company. They have refused to pay out to thousands of users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.70.194.165 (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked. Doug Weller (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Karen Swenson

I am right and of course you are wrong Jeraphine. You need to FULLY read the one sentence that I left on the Pilot episode of X-Files and FULLY understand it. There is NO reference for what I wrote. Instead if you really wanted to delve into it and read between the lines you'd understand that there is NO reference to reference at all. I have been trying for years to find one without success. The closest I have come is a small reference with IMDb however as I stated in the sentence it doesn't quite fit and just because IMDb says it doesn't make it so as I tried to explain. I double-dog dare you to Socratically counter that since - once again - there is no reference to reference - unless of course you know the answer and haven't put it up on the site however that wouldn't make any sense. Now would it? Thank you Jeraphine.

Also I am putting it up again some time in the future hoping - once again if you'll read between the lines - that someone has the correct answer. So far it's not happening and as an X-Files aficionado I really want to know the answer.

Since you seem to be the guardian of the Pilot let ask so I can go to my grave in peace. ))) Who did play Karen Swenson? - along with a reference - and proof as I have proved that IMDb is incorrect.

Thank you.

r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.190.29 (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to log in, User:Wolfen244.

Wikipedia has certain policies and guidelines, you need to accept those when you want to edit here. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of them. It means that references are required, especially for dubious or extraordinary claims, and especially on articles that have been rated as "Featured articles" or "Good articles" -- Pilot (The X-Files) has been rated as a 'good article', which means we want to keep its high quality even as new edits come in. So expect that your edits will be reviewed and re-edited and possibly even wholly reverted if they're entirely unhelpful or non-constructive or don't adhere to policy.

Another thing besides verifiability is tone and style. Don't you think it's a little inappropriate for supposedly encyclopedic text to go "btw" and "mysterious and beautiful" and "a mystery within a mystery!!" -- that is not even appropriate for journalism, you may want to post it on a blog or a forum or send a text to your friend.

Also it's not actually relevant to the Plot section, as casting is a separate thing from a plot summary.

If the actress was not officially credited and no source mentions it, then Wikipedia won't mention it either. Uncredited roles are a common enough sight, it's not a big deal; so we don't mention uncredited roles here like "oh my god who was this person??!!11", we should only mention it if some other reliable source thinks that it is significant somehow. Do you have such a source? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial life

I would like to keep the weasel words tag on Extraterrestrial life because it allows the page to show up in maintenance categories. I don't recommend adding the categories manually, because if the cleanup tag is removed, it will still be in categories even though the issue no longer exists.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 16:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary? "the problem seemed to be mostly unattributed sentences ("some people say..." statements followed by references), not entirely unsourced or biased statements like this tag claims". The tag says "This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information," and I don't think that's the case so the tag doesn't apply to this article. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @JorisvS:. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

"Scientists search for biosignatures within the Solar System by studying planetary surfaces and examining meteors. Some claim to have identified evidence that microbial life might exist (or has existed) on Mars. An experiment on the Viking Mars lander reported gas emissions from heated Martian soil samples that some scientists argue are consistent with the presence of microbes. Lack of corroborating evidence from other experiments undertaken indicates that a non-biological reaction is a more likely hypothesis. In 1996, a controversial report stated that structures resembling nanobacteria were discovered in a meteorite, ALH84001, thought to be formed of rock ejected from Mars."

What scientists? what evidence? which experiments? Which scientists argue? (For we know, it could be a zoologist making the arguments). What controversial report? Who thought it was ejected from mars? I cannot verify any of this, and these statements are in fact, vauge.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 16:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I think if we specified all these details then the article would get overly technical. Our articles should be simple/summarized, people who need the details can read the sources directly. The problem with that specific paragraph is that it doesn't have inline references. Put a {{cn}} on it. And maybe this discussion should be on the article's talk page; this article is relevant to my interests but I haven't gotten really invested in its contents myself. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll start adding {{cn}} tags. Also, Thanks for discussing this with me :).

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Why the weasel words specifically? We have a cleanup tag that tags a wide variety of problems. --JorisvS (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

removal of speedy deletion tag from Industrial Robotics Training Centre (AKGEC-KUKA)

kindly provide me the reason why you found this page to be not in notable state and please suggest the ways to improve it. I am determined to create this page as this centre is dedicated in providing skill development and certification courses in the field of Industrial Robotics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acaditi (talk • contribs) 13:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me with Ornwolfe

Though I honestly don't know where to go from here. You've pretty much said all I can say, and if he can't comprehend that, I can't really go any further. Serendi^podous 22:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

RBE

Your RBE interpretation is incorrect, especially regarding Russia. Please see the term interpretation from the source https://www.thevenusproject.com/en/about/resource-based-economy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrrom (talk • contribs) 14:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write the article, it's not my interpretation. Please look at the article's editing history and talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Upwork

What exactly seems to be the problem. A private company is talking about its business model and services. Listing their competitors in the same article makes it complete, objective and unbiased, which I believe is not just a Wikipedia guideline, but also required and mandated. Please let me know why you may have labeled this as spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prbala (talk • contribs) 15:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Prbala: I don't think having a list of competitors on every company's article is a standard here, on what other article have you seen that? Guru.com is already linked to in the Upwork article, and Bizofit doesn't seem to be a notable company. I'm sorry but your edit looks like an attempt to promote Bizofit. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jeraphine Gryphon: 1)To answer your specific question, here are examples of a few articles where I see competitors - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEB_Inc., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedia,_Inc., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Consulting_Group . 2)When a whole page on a company is not considered promotional, how can a very simple mention of a few similar companies (with no promotional language), be termed promotional. By itself, the original company article itself is promotional in nature. If anything, mentioning a company's competitors makes the original article itself more balanced. Please re-consider.

(interfering visitor) I've never seen it being compulsory to list competitors, and a 'See also' type section is for links to companies or subjects that have articles here. External links is for links outside Wikipedia which are informative and relevant to the subject, but Wikipedia is not a collection of links. We cannot and do not link to everything. Wikipedia 'List of...) pages are strictly for subjects with their own article, and are really part of our indexing system. They are not for every company in a particular line of business. We do not have a policy of fairness (A has an article, therefore B should have one). We do have a policy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. By the way, please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ which puts your signature and the time stamp on - like this: Peridon (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

for your reversion on my user page. I'm not sure who was doing it, or why, but as both UBXes are true, I've put them back on. I do drink beer, and I spent quite a few hours in recent years sitting hidden in a tent answering 'emergency' calls made as part of Scout and Cub competitions. We had to use old dial phones as the 'operator' (usually me, unless I was a 'casualty' in a car or bike accident for the day) needed to know what they were dialling (count the clicks). I must stress that the phone system consisted of two dial phones, a 12V car battery and a lot of wire with no connection to the main system. And a collapsible telephone box. Cubs managed it very well, but older Scouts went into panic mode when an actual 'emergency operator' answered them and started asking questions. Learning how to make an emergency call calmly and clearly is important. I trained a young cousin when she was 8, and at 9 she managed a call for her mother (hypoglycaemia), and at 12 for her father (brain haemorrhage) and saved his life. She's managed 8 more years without having to do it again, so she can't be a jinx... Peridon (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it was you editing your userpage from some unknown location after having too many beers. :o — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

List of fast food restaurant chains: Difference between revisions

I fail to understand your rationale for removing Firehouse Subs from the List of Fast Food Restaurant Chains when there are other similar restaurant chains in that same category like Subway, Quiznos, Blimpies, etc. Look them up if you don't have one in your area. I changed the description of Firehouse Subs in the Wikipedia entry if that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinf (talk • contribs)

List of fast food restaurant chains says at the top: "The following is a list of notable current and former fast food restaurant chains, as distinct from fast casual restaurants (see List of casual dining restaurant chains), coffeehouses (see List of coffeehouse chains), ice cream parlors (see List of ice cream parlor chains), and pizzerias (see List of pizza chains)." -- we don't want a load of duplication so chains that are more "casual" than just "fast food" should go in the List of casual dining restaurant chains list.

The Firehouse Subs article says that it's a fast casual so I'm going by that. I don't know what the big difference is between the two categories but apparently they are distinct things, even they can be mistaken for the other.

Actually, it looks like Firehouse is already listed at List of submarine sandwich restaurants. I don't think it should be listed at the fast food chains because that's just too much duplication. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Then you should also remove Subway, Blimpies, Quiznos, and other sub-sandwich shops from the fast food list. It should be all or none. There should not be different rules for something that is so similar. If you look at the list of fast casual restaurants, none of these chains apply. Actually, Schlotsky's would be more likely to fall into the category of fast casual than any of these other chains. (unsigned)

Okay, I'll see when I'll get around to doing that. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

50.82.14.181

Thanks for seeing that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Red Dot Payment is not a notability service provider i

I'd like to ask why Red Dot Payment can be listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_payment_service_providers and MOLPay, a far more recognizable brand name in this market has been deleted from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MOLPay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekjau (talk • contribs)

@Tekjau: Red Dot is listed there because it has a Wikipedia article, MOLPay was removed because it didn't have an article. For that list, editors have come to a consensus that only services that have articles here can be listed, as otherwise spam and promotions would proliferate in that list. However, I recently turned the MOLPay page into a redirect to its parent company, MOL AccessPortal. So I think you can try adding it back to the list. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 05:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about Disruptive editing?

About article Magic circle, it is not recognized globally yet, so it is open for everyone's editing. Although it is also known as magical energy barrier in Kekkaishi manga, but why do you think that my editing is disruptive? Or do you think that your editing is always right?Tamnewage (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You're placing way too much importance on that one manga. That's not what the magic circle article is about. Just keep it to the "popular culture" section, please. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please vote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latino_American_Dawah_Organization_(2nd_nomination) - LatinoMuslim 14:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello Jeraphine!

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

These warnings can go on and on. You will have your reason and I shall have mine. Please help improve articles here at Wikipedia. There is no point in removing references from articles and reverting edits by other users. You can stop taking so much interest in the articles Sultan ul Faqr Publications an Mahnama Sultan ul Faqr Lahore if your idea is not to contribute to them. After all this time, please come up with something to give to the articles and not to "handicap" existing articles. I certainly mean no offense but it would be wonderful if your experience and expertise would give something positive instead of negative. Markangle11 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice try. Improving Wikipedia isn't always about adding stuff. Pruning content is not always "negative". Just because I seem to be "negative" on your favorite articles doesn't mean I haven't done anything "positive" elsewhere on Wikipedia, I've added and fixed tons of content here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadly your editing pattern does not reflect your words just quoted above especially with regard to the articles under discussion on whom you have placed AfD. It is because of biased editors like you who are not being here to build an encyclopedia that Wikipedia has been losing its visitors over the past few months according to Google Analytics.Markangle11 (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. Wikipedia is crumbling and it's all my fault. :) I'm also Satan incarnate and eat puppies for breakfast. What other irrelevant arguments and ineffective tactics do you have up your sleeves? Stuff like this is exactly the reason why I've gone semi-retired. I'm tired of wasting my nerves on the people who come here to promote their non-notable crap and then act like we're the bad people for trying to protect Wikipedia's integrity by deleting bad material. Since you linked to WP:NOTHERE, see the first point ("Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing (see WP:SPA)." and then look at your own editing pattern. Good night.

P.S. Wikipedia doesn't use Google Analytics. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 23:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

None of my 'activity' is self-centered. Nor have I ever blamed you for anything. You should relax and not get all impatient about deleting the articles I have written. You cannot blame other editors just because you are tired of working here at Wikipedia. It was your own choice. Why blame me when I am here to learn as a an editor. You should guide me and not discourage me. Wikipedia's integrity is already at risk when so-called experienced editors like yourself start to bite newcomers rather than encouraging them to be bold. Markangle11 (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Markangle11: "It is because of biased editors like you ... that Wikipedia has been losing its visitors" ... "Nor have I ever blamed you for anything." lol :)

Please modify your recent comments on the AfDs, you got our locations mixed up when you were judging us based on our nationalities. I'm not from New York. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

untitled

PLEASE CAN YOU LET ME MAKE CHANGES AS I REALLY NEED TO!!! THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.158.222 (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

wat — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

De-orphaning

Will you please help me to de-orphaning my page Imran Rahman? --Al Fahad Mim (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Asking for advice from expert

Hey, I'm yosri from egypt, simply i'm interested in seo and marketing, But don't have enough knowledge to do that. If you know something you can share with me i'm waiting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostman905 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Except: don't try to insert your spam links on Wikipedia. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Harry Braun, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 2016

Dear Jeraphine Gryphon, Thank you for the Wikipedia rules for conflict of interest, but the references I cited are from my work decades ago, and I have absolutely no business dealings or any financial relationships with any of the references I cited. As a presidential candidate with a long career in science and engineering, I have come to know many distinguished individuals who I have learned much from, and who I cit whenever possible. However, I am prepared to remove any language that will result in my Wikipedia page from being deleted, even if there was no conflict of interest. Harry W Braun III (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You're writing an article about yourself, that's where you have a conflict of interest. Editors should typically be primarily interested in improving the encyclopedia, but people who write about themselves are typically more interested in writing flattering and biased articles that don't adhere to our content policies. This is a huge problem. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that have only spent an enormous amount of time organizing my past publications for Wikipedia because without a Wikipedia page, my candidacy cannot be listed on the Wikipedia or Facebook presidential candidate lineup, which means I will have virtually no chance of informing the majority of American people about what must now be done immediately to survive the Sixth Mass-Extinction event in the Earth's 4-billion year old history, which is now in its final exponential stages. You accuse me of having a conflict of interest and being “biased,” but with all due respect, what is it about a “mass-extinction event” that you and your Wikipedia colleagues do you not understand? Do you want me to give equal time to promote the oil and nuclear corporations who are principally responsible for this mass-suicide?

Did you not read in my Article about the climate change chaos that is already destroying food production systems worldwide, and the Superstorms that are greatly accelerating the destruction of the Earth’s stratospheric ozone shield, or that the 3-billion year old global ocean ecosystems are over 90% dead, and the bees that pollinate our food are disappearing? What I am promoting is education, and to suggest that my comments should be deleted because they are self-serving and/or advertising for some product or business interest of mine is both untrue and absurd. Yet most of the Wikipedia editors want my site deleted because they believe I am promoting my self-interest, and that my Article has nothing important to contribute. Have any of these editors bothered to look the undeleted Wikipedia page for Donald Trump???

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am the only scientist and presidential candidate who is seeking to educate the public about these truly catastrophic concerns, that are not mentioned by any other candidate. And even more importantly, I am the only person who has proposed specific solutions (i.e., ratifying the Democracy Amendment I have written that would end the power of lobbyists, and the mass-production of “Lifeboat” and larger Arcology Ark indoor food production systems that are critical for surviving the climate change chaos, which I also have absolutely no financial interest or involvement with. Yet you and others make serious accusations that I have a conflict of interest simply because I made reference to some of the truly exceptional people I have worked with in my career at McDonnell Douglas, like engineering professor William Heronemus, the former superintendent of shipbuilding for the U.S. Navy who designed sea-based "Windship" hydrogen production systems that would provide a vast sanctuary for the remaining fish and marine organisms that are disappearing. Heronemus died a number of years ago, but the citation I provided about Heronemus was from The Washington Post, because it was a major element of my 2004 presidential campaign in Washington D.C.

None of the other presidential candidates have any idea of what the Hydrogen Economy even is, nor does the American public who is told that the U.S. is a Democracy, when it is and always has been a bribery-based Republic, or that there are no alternatives to using fossil and nuclear fuels. Hillary and all of the Republican candidates who have Wikipedia pages that promote their accomplishments, issues and causes, which includes promoting the financial interests of the multinational oil and uranium companies that are causing this Mass-Extinction event. Yet none of their Articles have been deleted, as humanity accelerates into the abyss of Oblivion. And while you may not be concerned, I am doing everything in my power to change course, while there is hopefully still time to make a difference. Harry W Braun III (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to understand that Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote yourself, no matter how you try to justify it. We have rules and standards here. You should really consider alternative outlets, like social media.

Wikipedia:Advocacy: "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy."

I *am* concerned, you have no idea how concerned I am. That doesn't mean I'm going to help you promote your agenda on Wikipedia.

And please stop trying to deny the fact that you have a conflict of interest when you're literally writing an article about yourself, that's the most basic example of a conflict of interest there could possibly be. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Request to update Page SIF

I had observed , recently you had shown interest to improve the page Save Indian Family. There are many Reliable source I found , but unable to update on page , as I afraid it may violate some wiki policy. So would request you to review all the sources and add the necessary content or as supported link in the pages. Hope this will help all readers also.

'Harassed' men set up meet

Spare a thought for innocent husbands

Forum for abused men – SIF- BHAI

An abusive wife?

Husbands victimized by wives plead for helprelated to AP and new state Telangana for SIF .

SIF meet 180 activist represent 50 NGO

SIF NGos Demand men commission

SIF : Married men suicide concern SIF origin in 2005 Female Memebrs SIF Network Ruproy1972 (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the time, sorry. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

..... errr...

Can I ask why you just unblocked someone I blocked for violating WP:OUTING with no discussion with me about it? Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, clicked on the wrong user. Have a nice day :)

:p You too. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better

Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Galway Past life Regression Additions

I happen to have read his papers and thought he should be mentioned as someone who is a protagonist and an expert...there are links and I will come back with them, I just think its relevant, more so perhaps than some of the stuff thats on the page. Galway50 (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but who is it that says he's an expert in anything? We need a reliable source to say that. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Idrees ul haq

Hello!!! Much Thanks Jeraphine for being here to help, Please see the page Idrees ul haq I have altered it a bit, if it needs more consideration please do it or let others do now. I just am trying to put a page of a person who deserves to be on Wikipedia. Rest it is upto the respected contributors ... God bless you !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkinnovators (talk • contribs) 16:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

conspiracy theory RS

conspiracy theories by nature are thought up by individuals and posted on the internet via blog, chat, social networks and every possible medium of content hosting. how does wikipedia's reliable source policy even apply to a list of them? this appears as an oxymoron and irony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 08:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't make the rules. Read WP:RS. And look at the rest of the article, there are plenty of reliable sources that write about conspiracy theories, so we don't have to resort to crappy sources. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)