Jump to content

user talk: Jeraphine Gryphon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grrrom (talk | contribs) at 14:27, 21 July 2015 (→‎RBE: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Extraterrestrial life

I would like to keep the weasel words tag on Extraterrestrial life because it allows the page to show up in . 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Pinging @JorisvS:. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Alright, I'll start adding {{cn}} tags. Also, Thanks for discussing this with me :).
Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Serendipodous 22:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeraphine_Gryphon&oldid=672432505"