user talk: Jeraphine Gryphon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Jean Calleo)
Jump to: navigation, search


SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.
File-manager.png
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8

Talk:Michael_Page_(fighter)[edit]

Hi

I will admit that some of what I have removed may be justifiable to keep, but the fact remains that most that the anonymous user keeps adding is irrelevant, and I am not the first person that has edited that section for this reason. This user keeps ignoring any edit to-, and is yet to engage in any discussion over the page. What is then to be done?

With that said, I do understand that an edit war is not constructive and will refrain from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morohbj (talkcontribs) 14:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Billy Meier[edit]

Hi, may I know why the information pointing to plagiarizing under 'Spiritual Teachings' was removed entirely? - Ufoskeptic (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you not read my edit summary? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
See also: WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Also: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I did read it but here is my doubt. By the word 'contentious' does it mean that the subject is debatable or unsettled? If yes, then is this the reason for removing the category 'spiritual teachings'? If the answers to the above two questions is YES, then I have to disagree because the analysis cited in that information is quite objective and verifiable where every verse of Meier's 1998 book is laid out below every verse from James Allen's 1903 book from which he based a large portion of his book (plagiarizing). And I believe my input text satisfies all the three core content policies, listed on the same BLP page. If I missed anything, kindly let me know. - Ufoskeptic (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
"contentious" means (potentially) controversial, and (accusations of) plagiarism are pretty much always controversial. After your edit, somebody added a response to it, and I went to remove that response because it was unsourced. But then it looked like I had to remove your text as well, because it was equally poorly sourced (I don't know if billymeieruforesearch.com is a primary source (associated with Meier) or a completely random website, but either way the author of that page is anonymous). I understand your point about the books themselves being reliable sources about themselves, but making the conclusion of plagiarism is what we call original research and that's not allowed here. Even if it's completely evident, word-for-word copypasted plagiarism, we still can't state it here without a reliable source that makes that connection between the two books. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanations. If what you stated is right, then it seems the below information cited under 'Photographs and Films' also falls under OR and should be removed. Isn't it?
"Contrasting this research, in a report titled "Analysis of the Wedding Cake UFO," a researcher who calls himself Rhal Zahi attempted to determine the size of the UFO in one of Meier's photographs by analyzing the reflections of surrounding objects on the metallic surface of the UFO. With the aid of Blender, a 3D modelling program, satellite imagery and a scale model of Meier's property, the author determined that the UFO in the picture is an object greater than 3 meters in diameter.[28]" - Ufoskeptic (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I think so, yes. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)