User talk:Jeraphine Gryphon/Archive 2

__NOINDEX__

Thanks for your work on the FuturesStudies project
Thanks for your work on supporting and setting up the Futures Studies project so far. It's a wonderful start. John b cassel (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's anything else I can do, feel free to ask me. :] — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Cold War Book picture
Ok what do I have to do to prevent the picture from being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcanders (talk • contribs) 11:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NFCI and just let it be deleted. Having an upload of yours deleted doesn't mean that you've done something horribly wrong, you don't have to defend it. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not just one image but every single image one I put up. I have already put the source of the site of my picture and the non rationale use that you ask me to put. So how has is vaiolated anything? And if I can save please just let me. Jezz this happens all the time!!! Paulmcanders (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: READ WHAT THE DELETION TAG SAYS. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright Jeraphine I will upload another picture and I hope that this one will not violate any rules if it does please tell me what I can do to fix them also what was wrong with my Stalin 1992 pictue?

Paulmcanders (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nergal
i will not buy this article every time when someone gonna asume that source is wrong in any way, as i would not buy image scanner just to show someone that book i used is a good source, all of this makes my just sad, any of information that was added to the article by me wasn't controversial in any way, sorry for poor en DingirXul (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know it had to be bought repeatedly for every read, that doesn't make much sense. Okay, whatever. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attack and Frivolous
It is sourced from a author from Norway who has made a defamatory assertion which is arguable and contradicts all of the Official Awards and Honors bestowed on Mr. Heyerdahl by his own Government as well as many others. Now if he could have cited an action of Mr. Heyerdahl during the time of Nazi aggression and occupation of his country and the rest of Europe that supports his implied "Nazi Sympathizer " remarks - that would be different. But as it stands, its frivolous, subjective, and asinine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DixieDear (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In Re: Healthy Multiplicity

 * (The discussion). Oh wow, thanks. I don't believe I deserve it! XD I should've used better punctuation, but I tried to get it over with quick. And I may have been a little rude earlier in the discussion, sorry about that. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Good arguments aren't made by punctuation, but by the points brought up. And hey, it's ok to get a little heated in conversation (it's much harder to glean intent in Wiki Coding than IRL) as long as we can laugh it off at the end and share a few pints, at least metaphorically. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Anneliese Michel Case
Hi, I am Dr. R. Strickland, under U-Name Slibgibble. I am a Psychiatrist and Social researcher who has personally researched the social and psychological phenomena regarding religious hysteria and exorcism practices. Father, now Bishop, Duffey attempted to correct the article on Sources because his most recent book is being copyright violated through incorrect or non existent accrediting. Dr. Goodman, now passed away, was a cultural anthropologist who studying the case and rendered some unique history on the case but it is Bishop (Doctor) Duffey who wrote mostly about the mental illness and psychosis factors of the case. Not Felicitas Goodman, God be with her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slibgibble (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Lessons Learned book is already given as a reference, see the Footnotes section (Anneliese_Michel). It doesn't need to be listed twice. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * :) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

question
do you want to turn the non physical entity article into a disambiguation page? GreenUniverse (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hi Jeraphine,

This is just to let you know that I'm a mite skeptical of this edit. It seems to have had the unintended effect of unleashing the size of the discussion summary box at the near-top of the page, so that it now overlappingly interferes with the table of contents. In addition to that, and probably more importantly, I don't think it's productive to remove the archive search box. It is quite helpful to be able to search the archives for arbitrary phrases in previous discussions on a topic this contentious, while the index page you helpfully added does not specifically allow this. The template doesn't take up that much space, so I don't see what rationale there could be for removing it. I'm not sure which part of the edit is responsible for the formatting issue, so I'm going to stay hands off and ask if you can come up with some fix. Thanks. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠ 18:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When the top of a talk page is full of banners then I usually remove those pertaining to archives and add the smaller archives box that usually stays next to the TOC and so takes less room. I also usually don't forget to add the search function to the box, ha. Thanks for reminding me. I moved the box below the consensus summaries, it should look alright now. I'm not really sure what actually caused the issue in the first place. :/ — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Parapsychology
On the main parapsychology article, I am thinking of doing a section covering the theories of PSI, do you think this is a good idea or will be a problem?. Theres lots of reliable references that I have been able to locate. GreenUniverse (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you mean; is it different from the 'Research' section? Though I'm inclined to tell you to do what you want, since you've done a really good job and showed good judgement with other articles. :3
 * Once you're done we should look at re-assessing the article, it's currently C class but looks very close to B to me. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you see the telepathy article I have greatly improved it with a theory section, I have done the same for the mediumship article which I am still working on. Next on the list is the ESP article which is not looking that good currently. I will do a theory section on the parapsychology article probably next week. Are there any other users active in trying to improve some of these parapsychological articles? GreenUniverse (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User ages
Please don't list user ages if someone is 14 or younger or refer to them as minors. It's bad for their online safety as it makes them more attractive to pedophiles. Simply saying they are acting immature is more than sufficient.  MBisanz  talk 19:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Somehow it didn't cross my mind that any pedophiles should be lurking at ANI, as if there weren't better places for that. And I don't understand how I'm now the only one that's worried about him having his full name and contact details on his userpage. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And the problem wasn't about him acting "immature". — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, it's tiny odds, but if we get sued someday, we want to show as much diligence as possible. And I agree, I oversighted his userpage twice, but he got other admins to restore it and won't listen to reason. Given his current behavior though, I suspect others will notice and act in addition to us.  MBisanz  talk 20:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion
If you have the time, it would be interesting to get your opinion on this article: Morya (Theosophy), I consider it one of the worst articles on wikipedia, I believe articles should be improved but this article is not worth working on. It is filled with original research from top to bottom, no third party reliable references at all, nothing. Last month or so I submitted it to be deleted, but at the last minute a Theosophist entered the debate and it was two votes to one, so I lost out. This user agreed he would try and help the article but as predicted he has since not logged in. The article is mostly copy and paste from two Theosophist books not notable at all, absolute wild claims and crank talk, it is hard to even understand what the article is saying, you would have to be an experienced Theosophist to understand it all. Most of the articles content is already found on the Ascended Master article, so I do not see why we need the article at all, as it is mostly original research and fringe pushing from the Theosophist crowd and copied material. GreenUniverse (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I added the section to that parapsychology article. GreenUniverse (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Web Browser Engine (Revert)
Though my addition was slightly off the topic, I thought it would solve ambiguity in the term Chrome, which confused me at first, while I read that article for the first time. Kindly let me know whether there are any other strong reasons for reverting it. 110.234.153.138 (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of things that can confuse people, awkward sidenotes/explanations aren't very encyclopedic. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome page, that was very nice of you...Hairy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairyfeet (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dazzle Vision Page
I just have a comment to the message you post as well, how was my comment irrelevant. It is completely relevant. I am asking a established Wikipedia user to help me out with my page and help provide some tips and information. KaseyVincent (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With 'irrelevant' I meant it really does not matter at all whether the band approves of/supports the creation of a Wikipedia article about them. It's not important at all. What's important is that they have sufficient notability. I linked you to the WP:BAND page twice, please read it. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read the page, provided evidence that dazzle vision has traveled to the united states, a country other than japan, to play, have charted in japan's indie scene, has released more than two albums on a major record label, have been broadcasted through japan through radio and music television, and documented that they have a notable sound different from the rest of the bands in its genre range. The only thing i can't show you is that they won a Grammy or an award, and if my article is called into question because of that then I will nominate several other pages because those artist have not received awards either. I did however included several articles in which that band was interview, but have used them only to support either something that was said about the band's style or to give more proof that Dazzle Vision came to the US. I never used the interviews as a reference to the bands history, opinion on the bands status in the music world, or anything like that. I know that as a Wikipedia editor that I must provid a unbiased view on all articles written. KaseyVincent (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have also provided evidence that the band has been published and had news and magazine articles written about them. KaseyVincent (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I just tagged the page, I don't think I helped much. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well without the information you provided me, I wouldn't know how to improve the page. KaseyVincent (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dazzle Vision corrections
Could you help me improve my page by editing the text so it meets Wikipedia's formal tone expectations. I, as you well know, am not the best at grammar or sounding completely professional, so your help would be greatly appreciated. Other than that, I have improved the article's resources citing news and articles about the band from notable resources and providers. I will continue adding more references to the article. Could you also point out where there should be more citation, so my research and citations are more direct to the subject at hand. Thank You! KaseyVincent (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pedastry
I'm offended that you keep correcting my correct and concise adjective regarding ancient Greek Pedastry. Perhaps the topic is disturbing to you; in that case, I ask you to be open minded and allow this accurate adjective to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.75.145 (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I prefer the truth to not to be sugar-coated; but I will further edit for clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.75.145 (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been watching these edits between you two, and I believe the justification for reverting homosexuality is that not all relationships were necessarily homosexual in nature, as such the adjective can not be applied as a blanket statement. Ducknish (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say it's not really sugarcoating as much as qualifying it. I haven't really looked at the article so I may be wrong, but "often homosexual" "commonly homosexual" or such might work. Ducknish (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's already implied in the words "relationship between an adult male and a younger male". And read the rest of the article too. Besides that you have 'Pederasty' in the title anyway; clarifying that's it's "homosexual" is redundant. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind greetings!
Hi Jeraphine!

Thank you very much for your kind message on my talk page! I thought I had received an automated message from a random person, but today I realized that you have done some editing on pages that I have studied. I don't know how to reply to messages left on my talk page, so that's why I'm thanking you here. I'm very sorry to hear that you are not feeling well, and I sincerely wish you a speedy recovery.

Thanks again, Jeraphine!

Dontreader (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

TRIAD-CHESS
Hello,

I do not understand ...

You do not want me to edit a page on my game TRIAD-CHESS

You do not want me to put my logo TRIAD-CHESS

I can not even mention on page three chess players of my game TRIAD-CHESS

And finally, I have received no response to my questions

What exactly is the problem?

Sincerely

Mr. WITTIG — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiViT 13 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you've got the wrong person. I don't care about any of this. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nifelheim and my talk page
I don’t really want to bother you with such crap, but could you take a look at the Nifelheim article’s history and the related section on my talk page? You contributed to the section on Dissection there, and I remember you as a person which seems to be able to moderate and mediate. --217 /83 22:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * REEE DICULOUS! --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep it civil and discuss the issue on the article's talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, are you joking? Civil? Did you research this at all before stepping in?--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) The "REEE DICULOUS" line was unnecessary, unhelpful, and uncivil. (2) I went through the page history and the thread on his talk page. (3) This is Wikipedia, I can "step in" whenever and wherever I choose to. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said you can't, I said you didn't contribute anything to the discussion, the same way you didn't ask hostile, mean and aggressive editor above to be civil. I noticed in the above mentioned dispute you automatically sided with the user above as well, despite the fact that he used hostility and profanity, while the person he was arguing with was pretty collected. It's clear you're going to focus on the easiest thing to call uncivil that I do while ignoring the litany of offenses this guy makes.--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How did I not contribute? I started the talk page discussion, and I'm making my best effort to ignore the bickering and solve the actual problem. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't say I agree with you there. As far as I can tell you've done nothing but advance the offending users position, albeit in an admittedly more diplomatic fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamsburgland (talk • contribs)
 * There is no "offending" user, you guys are having a content dispute. You're only saying I didn't 'contribute' at all because I didn't fully side with you. Please just get over your butthurt, it's pathetic and boring and irrelevant to the content dispute. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You don’t have to curse to be uncivil. You can’t imagine comments like your constant “POV” accusations might be insulting, do you? --217 /83 00:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying something once (arguably twice, as I said you won't accept any point of view other than your own, which isn't an accusation) is not constant. Your insults and swearing is. I'm sorry if you got your feelings hurt about that. I love how you haven't even bothered to contribute a cogent, coherent argument on the talk page after blowing this up like you have.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretending I wouldn’t accept any point of view other than my own is an accusation, and as I stated on my talk page, your style of discussion doesn’t really motivate me to communicate with you; and it makes me doubt you can judge what a good argument is. I also doubt you feel sorry about anything you wrote, not that I care either. --217 /83 01:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you joking??
Did you even research the issue before slapping that warning on my page? Did you notice that I did not violate the rule - the other editor did, and the way way he communicates with other users? What was your rational for stepping in, warning me, and contributing nothing before or after that? I'm blown away. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now... not a big fan of WP:CIVILITY, are you?--Williamsburgland (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) You're not automatically entitled to three reverts, (2) do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Now please, let's just try to settle the issue on the article's talk page. I already started a thread there in case you didn't notice. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look again; this user used an IP Sock to initiate by reverting, not me. Look at the way he talks to people. I've brought the matter to the noticeboard where it belongs.--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a lie. I originally edited the article as an IP adress (which my user name refers to, by the way) before I registered, and maybe once without logging in (haven’t checked that, but who cares?), so how can that be a sock? And you shouldn’t tell people about civility after what you wrote on my talk page; think about that before coming up with “Look at the way he talks to people”. --217 /83 00:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please show me where I cursed at you, where I called you names. Would you like me to provide examples you you doing both? Just look at the edit history of your talk page and the page itself, it's full of them. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You don’t have to curse to be uncivil, see above. I know my edits, so I don’t need you to provide examples. Do so if you like, I don’t care. --217 /83 00:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) It was you who originally removed a sourced statement, claiming it was unsourced. (2) It doesn't matter who started it, do not edit war even if you believe you are right. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

He's at it again!!
So I guess my sources aren't good enough, but his are? I don't even know why I'm asking you this, but he's started it all over again.--Williamsburgland (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (Please at least make an effort to be less emotional. It's really distracting.) All of the mentioned sources are valid, as I've already said, and due to the apparent contradictions all statements need to be properly attributed to the sources where they came from. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahaha... sorry, I forgot, only your buddy can be 'emotional'. I'm glad you were kind enough to revert back to his version, and then walk away. Unbelievable. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted your removal of sourced content. Why are you taking this personally? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Root race
I think this article should be merged due to lack of sources, what do you think? GreenUniverse (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merged where? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say to the Blavatsky article in the root race section. GreenUniverse (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Fee (band)
Jeraphine, truth does matter. This is not a debate over POV, nor of whether a single individual source is reliable. In this case, in the face of substantial reporting of the subject, it should be included in the article. Factually, more than two years have passed since the announcement was made, the affair has been reported in many blogs and has never been challenged, and North Point Church does not deny (in the face of voluminous reports), the truth of the affair. Since it is relevant to the break up of the band, it does merit inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.156.126 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Truth doesn't matter, verifiability matters. I personally don't doubt that it's true. But to put such a claim in the article you're going to have to add it with a good source. You can't state that someone had an affair and source it to some random blogs. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeraphine, I desperately need some professional help with a strange problem after uploading an image at Commons, please.
Hi Jeraphine,

Thanks again for being the person who welcomed me to Wikipedia. I've been up all night with what seems like a mistake made by the response team at Commons after I uploaded an image there, and I'm really hoping that you can help me. I have spent LOTS of time learning how to upload images, and I swear I did everything right when I finally uploaded a picture last night after receiving the proper permission, but I got an email reply from one of the volunteers at the response team very late last night; according to him, my URL source was invalid because it's from Facebook. The source shows the picture (it's from a picture album), but he says that there are comments on the page, and the comments are text, and therefore I'm stuck and the image won't receive clearance. Here's the source I'm talking about:

Promo Picture

Ideally, you want a source that ONLY has the picture, but this is the best I could do. Why does it matter if there's text written by others? Even though their comments are copyrighted, they are not private because they were written on Facebook, and I didn't upload text anyway, only the image. The guy from the response team said that I needed to get permission from everyone that had written on that page. There were no other problems. I think this is wrong. Here's the image page at Commons:

File:Camille and Kennerly Kitt Promotional Picture For A Harp Duet Video.jpg

Where's the Facebook text? You see my point? It's not going to be used. I uploaded an image, that's all. Do you have any suggestions or answers? Many thanks in advance.

All the best,

Dontreader (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a huge load of bollocks, but honestly I'm not really an expert about the Commons site stuff. Was the actual permission sent? (How did that work?) If the copyright holder gave permission to release the image under the CC license and if there's good proof of that (in the e-mails) then that should be it. Like, the source link would not even be necessary (though it's okay that it's there). You need to ask them whoevers clearly to link you to a policy/help page on Commons that describes why it's not okay to link to Facebook (or a page with comments or whatever). Maybe there is a good reason, I don't know. But don't take their word for it, ask for a link on Commons, or maybe ask an (other) experienced/trusted Commons user for help. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much, Jeraphine! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that this is nonsense! Yes, I requested permission, and the proper permission was sent back to me; it was such a nice thing of them to do, I mean, I asked them for my favorite picture of them, and they released it gladly, under a valid CC license; I forwarded everything correctly to the response team at Commons, and then the guy decided to block me from sharing the picture at Commons (and potentially everywhere) just because the source of the picture was from a Facebook picture album! And that Facebook fan page has their official website in the info page, and they wrote to me from their official email address which is clearly related to their official website. I mean, their official website is like, for example, www.castles.com, and their email address is like info@castles.com. This whole thing is outrageous, I think, and I'll look for help, as you suggested, from an experienced Commons user. Thanks again for your encouraging letter and I'll keep on fighting!

Dontreader (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Whats going on
Ethereal beings the article is back? GreenUniverse (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed it for now. Let's see what happens. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Association of Professional Futurists
Jeraphine I am stunned by your reversal of the edits page which were added to significantly beef up the quality of the original page - something you have reverted it back to. A significant number of discussions have occurred within the Association regarding this wiki page which was instigated without any knowledge of us and certainly without our input into the content.

I attempted to expand the depth of the article by including related and relevant material regarding the Association's approach to developing futures work, the similarity to other associations, the clients appreciation of approaches to futures and some activities of members who use futures work in an applied and epistemological approach.

You've stripped it back to a page of almost nothingness. Certainly rather than allow other members to enter the page and begin to improve it's standing and value to wikipedia users, you've ripped out the structure that was forming which would have made the page of value to readers seeking to understand the way futures is practised and developed.

I'd greatly appreciate if you could explain how you decided to upon the course of action you took which seems to go against the very desire of wikipedia

Marcus Barber - - - - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desiredfutures (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read our conflict of interest guidelines and refrain from editing the article (you and other people who are affiliated with the association). Be reminded that we're writing an encyclopedia here, articles have to be neutral and not written like essays or advertisements. For example, the line "the ability of futurists to develop a high quality approach to providing their clients with effective futures thinking" is pure marketing talk.
 * And please don't add anything before the sentence that starts with "The Association of Professional Futurists (APF) is a..." — that should be the first sentence. Maybe you have noticed that it's a standard around here to get straight to the point with the first sentence. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeraphine you seemed to have decided that this page was not allowed to be developed by people who know a bit more about the subject than you do. By stripping the page back you've stopped in its tracks the discussion that was going on about what needed to occur to improve what it said, its accuracy and its content.

What sits there now is substantially less accurate than what I and others had added. I'd fired off a message to members saying that the page needed to be improved to explain in far greater detail the thing that was, the way futurists might be used by Government or other Organisations and for a call to link to the numerous publications of futures work. We have no desire for it to be an advertisement, just want it to be accurate

Alas you seem to have taken the position that you know more about the field than those who practise in the field. It seems odd that Mr Wales was happy to have my small contribution in order to assist wikipedia provide the resource that is wikipedia but then allows people with no knowledge of facts decide what counts as facts.

The content was open to be tagged saying the sources needed to be verified - no one was expecting an endorsement from wikipedia - we neither sought nor knew of the page being developed. What we want to do is get the facts right and useful. It would be greatly appreciated if you could revert the page back to the format and content I'd given it and then allow us to bring it up to the desired standard.

Perhaps you could consider giving us a fortnight to get the page to an acceptable level and then you can act as the gatekeeper of knowledge? Or is that too much acting as a community driven wiki? Marcus — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusBarber (talk • contribs) 06:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're going to act like that then I have no interest in co-operating with you. (I can see through your manipulation and subtle insults, they do nothing but show bad faith from you.) Please do read the COI guideline I linked you to. If you need help from others, try Questions. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeraphine I have no idea what you mean by '...I can see through your manipulation and insults...' I have no desire or intention to manipulate. I have asked that you abide by Wikipedia's OWN guidelines for people creating pages which is to Assume goodwill on the behalf of contributors. I was the person who flagged to our community that I did not feel the page was up to scratch and that it would likely be flagged as advertorial. It was, and whoever originally flagged it was right to do so.

However you now seem to be getting your back up about being asked to abide by the goodwill intentions of others posting to the page. Rather than abide by that goodwill practise, the one upon which the greater proportion of Wikipedia has been built, you are ignoring it because you have decided you must know more than others.

If you feel insulted by being asked to be accountable to Wikipedias 'assume goodwill' structure that is something for you to consider. Wikipedia is and remains a community driven development of a knowledge creation repository. I have stated firmly that there was a whole community of subject matter experts willing to devote their time and resources to improving this one page - something that would have benefited the wider community of Wikipedia users.

It appears you have decided that your views are of more importance than those of the wider community, not only of the various futurists across the world, but of the wider community interested in futures work. You have chosen to ignore the guidelines of assuming goodwill. I have asked for a fortnight for us to enhance the page - you, personally, as some sort of keeper of the light role, have determined that it should be the views of one person (you) who matters more than those of a wider community. Alas Jeraphine it is you who is acting in complete disregard for the very essence that has created Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not belong to you, it belongs to us, the community. I ask you again to allow us to enhance the page to a credible level. There is no desire to manipulate anyone save for the purpose of making this page better - refusing as the opportunity to do so suggests that you feel you are more important than the wider community for whom Wikipedia was created Marcus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desiredfutures (talk • contribs) 01:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you leaving me these irrelevant diatribes? If you need assistance from someone who has patience for the likes of you then, again, please, try Questions. I have no idea what else you want from me besides repeatedly telling me how important your association is and how you know so much more than me about how Wikipedia works. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for Dispute Resolution
Jeraphine despite my requests for you to abide by the goodwill guidelines and for some compromise that might have led to a suitable outcome for all people concerned, I see that your approach is maintaining its unwillingness to advance the page. I have requested a dispute resolution process to see what might be done MarcusBarber (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 1300hrs 14/5/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusBarber (talk • contribs)
 * Rather, it is your unwillingness, User:MarcusBarber, to made make additions on the article and discuss reverts that is compromising the page. I have commented on the DRN and I think I should close it soon.Curb Chain (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)