User talk:Jeraphine Gryphon/Archive 8

Comparison of online backup services - Table broke
Hi, I'm reviewing some aspects of this article, could you check if the problems that you noticed are still there? What do you mean exactly by "the labels don't match up with the contents"? --Gabriware (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied on talk. Talk:Comparison_of_online_backup_services. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks! Gabriware (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Upwork
"Please don't remove referenced content"

I removed the "referenced content" because it's a link to an opinion piece with the intention of badmouthing the company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upwork&oldid=685762798 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screamingm (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * -- that edit was made by, not me, I'm just mentioned in the edit summary. By the way, "negative" or "critical" sources are completely allowed here, this isn't Praise-ipedia. However, I'm not sure if that source really qualifies as a "reliable source" as we define it here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion on a recent dispute?
Hello Jeraphine. Saw your post at Talk:Sultan Bahu. I wandered over there while looking at an AN3 complaint mentioning one of the editors. This AN3 is a report about Faqr-e-Iqbal. You seem to be an experienced editor. Do you have an opinion on what should be done with Faqr-e-Iqbal? One option is for an admin (perhaps me) to delete the article as a G4 recreation of an article deleted in January 2015 per AfD. The topic appears notable, though the article looks spammy and devotional. And you've commented on possible COI. If there is actual bad behavior due to the COI, an admin might close the AN3 with a block of the named editor. Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would say go for it and delete as a repost but I'm pretty biased by this point. I'm not convinced that the new references help prove the book's notability, the editor has previously proven that he understands that a long list of references can give an illusion of notability even when the sources don't actually cover the topic properly or at all. And it's Halloween night so I refuse to spend my time actually checking the references on that article, I'm sorry. :( I personally think Markangle11 is being disruptive in general as a result of their (hidden) COI, though that specific AN3 report seemed invalid since there weren't that many reverts. Honestly I'm hoping the SPI case will prove something. Otherwise someone might need to make a report somewhere proving how Mark is only here to promote certain things and gets disruptive and even deceptive when challenged. (Like in the Sultan ul Faqr Publications AFD he blatantly refused to get the point when his arguments were countered and repeated those same arguments in deletion review.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. The AN3 was closed with deletion of Faqr-e-Iqbal per G4. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing Speedy Deletion from Sibidharan
The importance of the subject has beed added in the talk page and please consider removing the tag for speedy deletion. Thanks.

--Anjmani 13:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Let an admin do it, okay. I still think the tag applies. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

--- Frederic
I think now I added the information in the correct manner. Frederic1122 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't. I already reported you and I'm backing off for now. Please read your talk page and answer there. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

--- Frederic
Then someone tell me what is still wrong with my addition to the article. I did remove the links. As for saying that "many videos were filmed" is not "sufficient proof for relevance", then the video itself (the link) can show the strong resemblance, hence the relevance. Finally, it appears as very useful to compare an ACTUAL failed missile test, as claimed in the article by the Russians, and the Norway anomaly itself, because the two events appear to be very different things. Frederic1122 (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

article about Led Sobrepena
what am I going to do so the page o made wont be deleted? im only using smartphone to access wikipedia. again, thank you Tsbphilfanatic (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive
Sent of behalf of for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:17:25, 30 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Neuromancerblack
Hi, just looking for some feedback for future articles. I created a post in May 2015 for a new sailing dinghy the RS Aero (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neuromancerblack#Your_draft_article.2C_Draft:RS_Aero) I received feedback that it did not show notability. I didn't take it any further at the time, but I now see that a page has been created by another contributor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS_Aero which is very similar in content and style to my original. I was wondering what I had missed that caused mine to be rejected while this similar page was accepted. Keen to learn for any future article.

Neuromancerblack (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * According to that page's history, it was initially created in May 2014. One year later, user:Kvng moved it into articlespace (from draftspace). He looks like an experienced editor so honestly I'm not sure why he accepted that draft. The topic doesn't look that notable to me. But then, I haven't really looked into it. Maybe he knows more than I do. (I can't see your draft anymore since it's deleted, so I can't compare. Reviewers are different people though and they may occasionally have different opinions on whether an article is acceptable or not. What really matters is that the articles adhere to policies, especially Notability.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Satanic Temple
Hey, I saw that you've edited the page for Satanism, so I wanted to let you know that I recently created/moved The Satanic Temple to the mainspace. Someone else started it, but I pretty much re-wrote it from scratch. I know little about the organization other than what's in the media, so if you do know something about the group then I'd love it if you could QC the article. I'm pretty sure that there are some mistakes in the article here and there and I do know that it's still incomplete. I was more focused on showing notability for the group that I didn't really go deep into its tenements and general practices - the notability for them lies more in their infamy, to be honest. I know that you're semi-retired, but maybe this would be something you'd be interested in? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Aw, I'm flattered you thought of me when you thought of Satanism, lul. &lt;3 I don't think I have any special knowledge on the Temple but I'm gonna have a look over the article later, and it's in my watchlist now. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I admit that I did kind of giggle a little when I was trying to compose this, as that crossed my mind. When I was working on this last night I was at work and I kind of wondered if now I'd be thought of as the Devil lady. Wouldn't be the weirdest thing someone's called me, I guess. For a while people assumed that I was writing a book, since I was doing all of this typing for Wikipedia. BTW, thanks for catching that grammatical error! There's probably a few of those in there, since I had a few instances where I started writing one thing, then thought to add something somewhere else... you know how that goes. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

rajput clans
That Was a mistake! But there lot things to change dear! like you Puts Yadav as a Rajput and Many other! I admit it that there is many other clans of rajput some of them you forgot to mention.

I hope you will correct it.

Thanks Prashant Rajput — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prajput27 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not planning to do whatever it is you're requesting. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but your ignorance as to what they are requesting does not mean that it is an invalid request. "Yadav" is a Vaishya/Shudra caste, and "Rajput"s are a Kshatriya caste. This is in reference of hundreds of millions of humans. Your status as Wikipedia Moderator does not license you to ignore cultural, caste, ethnic or religious differences of which you happen to be ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.208.221 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (1) I'm not a "moderator", Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. (I'm not an admin either.) I'm just someone who bothered to register an account.
 * (2) We're talking about this edit, whatever you're saying here is irrelevant to me.
 * (1 + 2) Don't just butt in to a conversation if you have no idea what you're talking about. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Apology and Request
Dear Jeraphine, I wrote Alex with an apology and request for help, and wanted to copy you in. I hope that's OK.

Dear Alex, firstly, please accept my apology. I removed templates you placed on some of my articles, mistaking them for those placed by a BOT, after also misinterpreting what that BOT does and its instruction for ignoring it. This was not meant to be disrespectful or even directed towards you or any of your responses. If and when you have time, I wondered if you might help me interpret and respond appropriately to your assessment of two articles: 'Creative visualization' and 'Brainwave entrainment'. In the case of 'Creative visualization', after significant time spent on research - possibly way beyond that necessary for what was a several sentence article prior to my re-write, I faced a major problematic, in that the term is used in evidence-based disciplines adjuvant to medicine, such as cognitive approaches to psychology and psychotherapy, but also in fields based upon pseudoscience and the derivatives of New Thought, and New Age paradigms. The latter is particularly disturbing - by which I confess a bias - because there are some whose claims for it include the curing of cancer and the attainment of wealth. 'Creative visualization' is also used in design. I therefore split the subject into three: Creative visualization Creative visualization (New Age) Creative visualization (Design) In the light of the templates you placed on Creative Visualization, I have clearly not done a sufficiently good job, and I have no problem at all in accepting that, nor with working further with humility to improve it, based upon your assessment. If I do not do it, I believe, based on the length of time the previous article, or rather sentences, existed without editing, probably nobody will do it. And if not for the importance of the subject, which no doubt you will empathize as someone with a specific interest in sorting fact from fiction in relation to subjects such as cancer, I am sure you will agree. I have spent a long time going through the article today and I need your help in simply drilling down and identifying: 1. The sections you believe require more medical references. 2. The sections you believe rely too much on primary sources Then, if I am unable to find additional sources, I can pair the article down to include only those sections that do exhibit the aforementioned deficits. I have also looked carefully at the 'Brainwave entrainment' article and would very much appreciate the same input, though I do believe I might have a hunch, which perhaps you could refute or confirm. You have placed two templates. Regarding Fringe Theories, the only section I can identify that might be construed as 'Fringe' is the one entitled ' The rhythmic nature of human activity'. All the others are well established and seem sourced accordingly. If you disagree, could you please name the sections so I can either improve or remove them. Lastly, could you please identify the sections that require more 'medical references', so that I can also amend their deficits, removing them if no such sources exist for their claims. I can of course simply leave both articles, and if they were the subject of regular consistent editing by others I would. But having worked so hard on the two subjects I would like the self-satisfaction of knowing I have left them in an acceptable state of clarity and without unsupported claims, so that my responsibilities are fulfilled. I reiterate my apology by way of closure. Many thanks in advance. Prolumbo (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Human Bioenergy pioneers
I think this woman deserves to be mentioned. But in Wikipedia its name is gone and there was no way not to mention her because of her huge and obvious contribution to bioenergy field. You very easy striking out so many years of work. She has written several books. And before you cross out her name think again.The ancient princess (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That article is not the right place to promote specific people, especially without proof that they're worth mentioning. No, her own website is not sufficient proof. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

excuse me but i wasnt adding personal oppinions and was staying neutral just stating what the facts were around what a TRUE naturopath has to learn
whats with the hate against naturopathy? you are showing bias not me read what the other statement claims that i removed yet you put back, there is no viable source whatsoever stating that naturopathy students dont actually learn science based subjects yet you havent fixed that up. what a joke wikipedia has come to110.23.43.212 (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC) 110.23.43.212 (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC) When are you going to remove the unsourced claims about Naturopathy and use updated sources that people can actually look as none of them are even accessible or online anymore and some are 10 years old. wheres the proof they don't learn any science based subjects?110.23.43.212 (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Undid revision 695801311 by Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) inaccurate information
that edit is inaccurate information; I don't care if you think the factual information I provided is inappropriate. No one invented the Sigil Of Lucifer. That image was taken from the Grimorium Verum or one of its variations; it was not invented by some group on the way back machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer666art (talk • contribs) 18:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great and all but you're still spamming your website. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)



Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * tnx — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jeraphine Gryphon!


Happy New Year! Jeraphine Gryphon, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thank you, you too. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Argument from authority page
Hey, I noticed you were active recently on the argument from authority page. There's currently a lot of discussion on the page right now, you might be interested in coming and chiming in! 97.106.144.198 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Page Deletation
Hello Jeraphine

Please tell me why you have deleted my link?

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards Avenue Sangma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangmaofficial (talk • contribs)

Edit to List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
I have List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events on my watchlist and noticed you reverted the inclusion of the Year 2038 problem. It is a real issue in the software community, but you were correct in removing it from the article. Not only have software engineers learned from the Y2K issue how to mitigate problems like this and we have a much longer lead time to fix adn replace suspect systems, but the public as a whole has not blown it out of proportion into an apocalyptic event.

Anyways, I wanted to thank you for the edit. You were spot on.

KNHaw (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit Conflict: Reza Aslan
Hello,

You were helpful in understanding a rather long and convoluted issue I was having with users with respect to understanding the wiki rules (being fairly new). I am not sure who to ask for help but I thought you might be the person. This user, User:Roscelese, keeps undoing my edits to Reza Aslan without citing why. It appears as though it seems to be an ideological issue. All of my edits are clearly sourced and I kept it to purely factual statements and quotes. S/he even deleted a reference to Mr. Aslan's actual occupational title.

I don't want to waste your time but if you had any thoughts that would be appreciated.

Thanks so much, Orn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornwolfe (talk • contribs)


 * , just because you're ignoring Roscelese's edit summaries doesn't mean she hasn't explained her edits. Please don't misrepresent/lie about another editor's actions, especially when everyone can clearly see in page history what actually happened. One edit summary said "Rafizadeh and FrontPage are not qualified to make these statements on Wikipedia. Nor are the editors on Wikipedia's "Regressive Left" article or Chris Beck's Wordpress blog, how ludicrous" and the other said "The added sources are not remotely acceptable, especially in a BLP."
 * The relevant policies are Identifying reliable sources and Biographies of living persons.
 * (pinging ) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your response. I was not lying or misrepresenting anything. What I meant is s/he did not state the reasons for his/her conclusions. For example, s/he simply asserts "x isn't qualified" without citing why. In the example you provide there is a reference to a published article by someone within his academic community in a source that is well known (and referenced in Wikipedia btw). Also, I did not see her/his explanation for why the person's actual occupation was removed from his biographical information, clearly appropriate under the link you provide above. Also, the guidelines seem to indicate that these articles should be content neutral and it seems pretty clear the editor is trying to squash information that s/he perceives as anything other than favorable. I suppose I will engage other editors and/or the administrators. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornwolfe (talk • contribs)


 * The first thing you need to do is discuss the issue on the article's talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Running to administrators will not help you at all if you haven't even bothered to have a discussion with the other editor (Roscelese, and also Goethean who removed a portion of your edit). I know it can sometimes feel annoying and unfair when it seems that you're the one who has to start a new discussion thread, but that's your only choice, admins will not care about your complaint if you haven't done your part to resolve the issue (see Dispute resolution). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Rafizadeh doesn't appear to have any academic qualifications and he's not publishing in a reliable source. There is nothing about this addition that satisfies our policies. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Muscles dude
I pinged to point out the talk page abuse. Seemed easier than ANI. Now indeffed Though, talk page privileges still intact. The saga contiues... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

advice?
How would i go about finding a reliable resource that can demonstrate what an actor is? You just grab a piece of written text on a piece of paper and smack it to your forehead and you get the picture.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan1222 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read Wikipedia is not therapy and find some other website to post your word salads on. Wordpress, Livejournal, Tumblr, plenty to choose from.
 * I'm going to put a welcome message on your talk page, it contains some useful links in case you're actually interested in making constructive contributions here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your not willing to think outside of the box on this one and use your connections and change the world in the process? I think your just being a hipocrite (someone who isnt always beliving what they are saying). Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan1222 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have literally no idea what you're talking about. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well youve read what i posted on other talk pages and you so kindly removed them and called them personal revelations and spamming. I dont see how you can deny were actors or any other stuff that was said. Your being a good hypocrite. Take care again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan1222 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This almost made sense but you lost me at the second sentence. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Everyone has a role.. Script they follow.. And disease that influences who they become. E=mc squared its all energy.. You hear about people talking about non state actors or humans that act out acts. Do you see anywhere that were all actors? I think you can answer these.. Not going to let you bait me into a corner of some psuedo rule on wiki. You can always ask for my email if youd like things explained to you better. I just thought youd would be able to help me out. Take care again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan1222 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion
Sorry, I didn't follow the instructions correctly, that was a mistake. I am re-submitting today. Thanks.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You completely deleted the instructions from the page. I had to revert that. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a friendly reminder: Please use edit summaries when performing maintenance at Third opinion. It greatly helps those watching the page. Regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, technically that's true for all pages. ... I'll try to remember. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Suicide Crisis Lines page
sorry about that!I pressed send on the content I removed without adding the note. I resubmitted the edit - the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is U.S. only and doesn't have resources for Canadians, though Canadians can call. Radiowaving (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC) http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/about/overview.aspx

Editing
Thank you for your corrections. I always figured that categorizing articles was minor. That's why I've always clicked on "minor editing." Also, I have never meant to revert any vandalism to articles.--Splashen (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Michael_Page_(fighter)
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 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Billy Meier
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: Biographies_of_living_persons. — 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)


 * Did a little search on the source, BMUFOR (billymeieruforesearch.com) which claims that it is "a group of people originating from different parts of the world whose common interest and curiosity brought us together to investigate this case. While some of us are Billy Meier/FIGU supporters and/or members, others aren’t." And found that the main researcher (Mahesh Karumudi) has been interviewed on a couple media outlets. Here are those links - http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2015/11/billy-meier-ufo-research-group-keeps-the-fraud-under-wraps/ and http://thegenerationwhypodcast.com/podcast/billy-meier-research-138-generation-why. Can this be counted as 'reliable source'? And if yes, then could we include his/their analysis on Meier's plagiarism? - Ufoskeptic (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You can call those sites "media outlets" but I'd just call them random websites. So, no, not really, in my opinion. You can also try asking at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'm not sure who exactly is patrolling there right now but they can possibly answer this with more nuance. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)