This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Yes, SatyrBot is off-line. It's been years since I've used it, and the WP API has changed tremendously - and SatyrBot hasn't kept up with the changes. Sorry about that!

I recommend Wikipedia:Bot requests - there should be something there that can help? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 16:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I am relatively new at this. If there was/is a way to selectively leave some of your edits in there, I would have. I knew I had a problem with citations that the "auto" function addressed. However, you also made wholesale deletions of text that I can't understand why you did it. You did not make "minor" edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinchdatail ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Already replied at your talk page. :p Let's keep the conversation there. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 06:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jeraphine,

You have declined my post on the topic Kanbanize and I have edited once already. Do you have some tips about how we can include our tool, this unique word and our project on wikipedia? I think what I have written is quite neutral. Also, I have seen many similar pages which I think are actually more biased and uninformative...

How should I proceed?

Thanks you in advance,

M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niesme ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Niesme: Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own interests, so I'm not going to help you do that. And if you think this -- "Kanbanize is a visual project management software which boosts your productivity by applying lean principles to your work" -- sounds neutral then you're clearly incapable of being neutral about this topic and should probably not make edits related to it. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Another problem is that the topic itself, Kanbanize, does not seem to pass our criteria for notability -- at least as far as I can tell by looking at the sources given in your draft. If a topic is not notable then no amount of editing will make that article suitable for Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:Notability. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 15:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am thinking of resubmitting my page and I was wondering if you could have a look to make sure everything is ok. Thanks for the guidelines and help along the way.--Therese10 10:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimbus10 ( talk • contribs)

I am extremely sorry for this, actually i just joined wikipedia half a year ago and im still new to few techniques, i kept on adding references to the page Dayar-e-Dil unaware of the real problem, kindly forgive me. Sammy.joseph ( talk) 18:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Miss.Jeraphine Gryphon, sorry about my little English language..

I had see your changes in the Article of Abrahamic religions and I see The Baha'i Faith is not from the 3 Major groups of Abrahamic religions and some poeple categored it as Iranian religions.

we had discussed this topic in many sections and we are all support to The Baha'i Faith not equal to the 3 Major groups (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), Thanks. :) -- Islam90 ( talk) 14:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. We're talking about the {{ portal bar}} at the bottom of the Abrahamic religions article. It's just the portal bar, nothing else. Since Portal:Bahá'í Faith exists and Bahá'í Faith is an Abrahamic religion, then there is no reason to remove it from the portal bar. It's not "one of the major 3", but so what? There's plenty of room in the bar. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 14:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

---Portal Bar must be semple Because there's many Abrahamic religions have a portals Like Babism and others I'll be make, so we need it to include only the 3 major groups -- Islam90 ( talk) 19:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Why does it have to be "simple"? Who says it's not simple anymore with the Bahá'í Faith portal? I don't trust your opinion on this. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 19:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Sufi_Numeer_Nabi Can you please review the article and tell me if it needs further changes or improvement? regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harbingersweet ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed it up and there was nothing much left so I nominated it for speedy deletion. By the way, someone having their videos on vevo doesn't mean that they are signed up to any label. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 10:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering your opinion on maybe getting this page protected for a short period of time, given there seems to be a cycle of repeated adjustments.

Page active -> revert -> new ip -> page active -> revert -> few days -> new ip -> page active -> revert

I'm of the opinion that frankly the repeated reverts of sourced information is probably getting tedious for you. While not 3RR or edit warring it seems to be a self perpetuating cycle

As said on the talk page but no one seems that bothered to want to discuss, that given the statements and information from TorrentFreak and I would consider them a reliable source for information on the torrent community being a long standing news site, and that what they report it more then likely covered by journalistic checking and comments from ex-site admins and the old release sites actions all seem to support that the site is gone in the form it was in before the takeover.

I'm beginning to suspect that the adjustments are being made by someone close to the scam site if not the owner themselves though not my place to jump to those conclusions, but after the guy who made the previous assertions on what the site was doing to warning posts I started watching their forums, seems that when people quote the wiki article, TorrentFreak or even just a warning when they are being removed shortly thereafter an edit is made to this page to make it look like the site is live. Now if that is by 3rd party manipulation, public access, VPN or whatever I think the edits need to stop.

It really feels to me at least that it's a shovel attempt to bury the information that's around to look more legitimate against a wall of facts that says otherwise or to use it as a propaganda piece. My opinion is that until information rises to the contrary by a verifiable source, TorrentFreak for example, that site has returned to original owners or that the current owners are more trusted and quoted by a source things should stay as is, given that during the whole of this and even when they took the old .it domain they have not made a comment to TorrentFreak or anyone else regarding the situation and none of the major torrent site trust them as far as they can be thrown. If such information comes to light then a new section should probably be added for the new owners after the hostile takeover section containing this new information. I'd even take an active discussion on content over direct edits at this point but no one seems inclined to do that.

So, opinions please Miss Gryphon if you would be so kind and have the time - Majikthise.uk ( talk) 00:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You know I honestly have no idea what's going on or what is not going on with that site and I've never used it myself so I don't care a lot -- I just want the info on the page to be accurate and neutral and reliably sourced, whatever the truth may be. Since it was confirmed that the domain was "taken over" by some dishonest people -- then it is not acceptable for anyone to come here and edit the page claiming that nothing is wrong/the site is still totally legit/etc without providing convincing proof -- and when people try to do that then to me it seems like a deliberate attempt to conceal the obvious truth and I consider that comparable to vandalism and my reverts of their edits do not count towards 3RR.

I am not sure at this point if requesting protection for this article would work, and I don't feel inclined yet to make the request. It's easy to revert the edits and it's interesting to see what the IPs try to claim. Also, if some new information should come out in a reliable source then it might be a new user who finds that info and comes to add it here -- we don't want to keep out all new users unless the vandalism is so bad that we have no other option.

Thank you for looking into all this and providing us with more info/context about the situation, as I said I don't really know much about it. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 08:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I can understand it's a little bit of a double edged sword given that protecting the page would lead to the inability to add new content, which is why I suggested a short term lock rather then a full protected article. As I said I wasn't accusing you of 3RR or edit warring given time frame and what is being reverted but it was or is starting to get ridiculous. Especially given the fact that is seems to me to be a single user or group of users making the same edits over and over again in short bursts. I did some digging on the IPs and ranges being used and they don't seem to be proxies or VPNs though given that there is software out there to make any computer act as a VPN endpoint I don't think that will come to anything conclusive, but it does strike me as odd that every time they prune the warnings there is a spate of edits.

I stand by my opinion, which it seems you agree with, that the information should be accurate and as it stands it is as is known and reported. Edits beyond that should have a source other then the EZTV site given the situation that is reported not the other way around, I know there was a little bit of back and forth and some OR from 81.107.57.5 looking at the edit log and their talk page, however it did give me starting location for me to do my own research into the article. I have an interest in P2P from the stand point as Linux distributor given that it's how I release most of my ISOs. The general feeling in the community is they are a blight for what they did to a long time developer and site owner given the work that Nova put into the TorCache project and other things. This is what lead to my investigation of the zoink domain which corroborates the information in the TF article there are a few other domains as well that they have taken over though no source is available beyond the public whois which is why I didn't want to add it.

I'm all for edits on the page but I would prefer a discussion on new information in the talk page as is reasonable for neutrality and it gives me a less biased perspective after my research and the opportunity for a new section but as new information or right to reply does not seem forthcoming from the current owners I find that unlikely. I suspect that the next new section will be on domain seizure and total closure of the site but again just my opinion and not something I'd put in without source obviously. Thank you for your input on this it's helping me be a better editor - Majikthise.uk ( talk) 16:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on Advisor.js Lakun.patra ( talk) 10:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought the phrasing was either 1) a typo … 2) a joke I didn't 'get'. Now I know which it was! Pincrete ( talk) 19:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jeraphine, thanks for your edit on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Vitenas. Could you please mark it with an appropriate tag: comment, delete, keep ...? —  Ben Ben ^{( talk)} 16:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What criteria does it not comply with

Examples of self help books are included in this segment of wiki that one can buy.

The edit was to a self help resource that anyone can freely download — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highdozen ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There are tons of "self help resource[s] that anyone can freely download" on the internet and most of them are of a questionable quality and serve as advertisements for their authors or publishers. We don't allow such spam to be added here. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 07:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jeraphine,

I am Dhani Irwanto, an author of one of the theories of Atlantis. In replying to your message to me, I beg your pardon that my writing on your topic is considered as promotional. My question is, should the writing be written by a contributor other than myself? My theory is widely discussed across the internet so that I assume the theory is parallel with the others. Thanks for your comment.

Dhani irwanto ( talk) 16:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It should have better (non-primary, and reliable) sources. And ideally it should not be added by you or your friends. However you can simply post on the talk page of the relevant article and ask for someone to add that information. No need to canvass anyone. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 16:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

OMG is right! NeilN talk to me 22:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey i need you a favor you will semi-protect my user-page. Nothing7898 ( talk) 10:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Ask at WP:RPP. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 14:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you really need to have the entire main page pasted on your userpage twice? It looks like a horrible mess. If you're testing something then you might want to put that in your sandbox. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 14:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly good at editing existing pages, but I haven't had much experience at dealing with Wiki article flags. If I understand correctly, you flagged It Shoulda Been You last week for not meeting notability standards. I've added significant additional information and sources that should address you concern. Do You agree? Should I remove your flag, or should you? Irelandkm ( talk) 15:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Irelandkm: Actually I don't agree, because the new references barely mention the musical, what we need is extensive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The awards could give it some notability but it has only been nominated and has not actually won these awards. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeraphine: Thanks for your patience with me as I learn more about notability - and editing talk pages. The following Playbill article links to reviews of the show from many of America's top newspapers and entertainment news sources: http://www.playbill.com/news/article/the-verdict-read-reviews-for-new-musical-it-shoulda-been-you-on-broadway-346801 - including amNY, Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, DC Metro Theater Arts, Deadline, Entertainment Weekly, Hollywood Reporter, Huffington Post, NBC New York, New York Daily News, New York Post, New York Times, Newsday, Time Out New York, USA Today, Variety, Vulture, Wall Street Journal, The Wrap

If I understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines correctly, the existence of extensive sources is sufficient to meet Wiki standards, even if the sources aren't all referenced in the article.

Does this address your concerns? Irelandkm ( talk) 16:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfect. If you could make use of some of those reviews and use them as references in the article then that would be excellent (although of course you're not required to do any more work than you want to). I'll remove the tag. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 16:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to you, Jeraphine, but please note that I did read the Wikipedia guidelines, and your material on autobiographies several times. I did as suggested there, I expanded my user profile and I suggested an article on myself in what seemed like the appropriate place. I did not post an article on myself, only suggested one. Of course I don't view Wikipedia as a networking site, or a vanity post. If somebody thinks I am worth an article, perhaps they will consider it. If there is another way to go about this other than the way I did it, please let me know. Daviddrum ( talk) 22:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this conversation is already happening on your talk page so I will respond there. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 07:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome message! 70.36.233.104 ( talk) 14:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! You might wish to contribute to the discussion the References column width at User_talk:Jochen_Burghardt#Philosophy_of_mind (sorry for the misleading section title). - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 13:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Josephine, I don't understand why the book I added to the Urantia biblio (by Malcolm Locke) doesn't appear when I google Urantia? thanks. wakan ( talk) 14:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Wakantanka:, the quickest way to find out what happened to your edit is to go to the article's history and look at the edits that follow yours. The history page for that article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Urantia_Book&action=history and the "diff" where I removed your additions is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Urantia_Book&diff=next&oldid=668233251

My edit summary says "rm self-published book, rm duplicate". "rm" means "remove", regular users often abbreviate words to edit more quickly. As you can see from the diff, I removed the Locke book and also "The Urantia Book" because that already existed in that list. I think you may have copied it accidentally. Anyway, I removed the Locke book because it is self-published via CreateSpace. Self-published books are about as good as blog posts -- they are typically not "worthy" of being listed in Wikipedia articles.

Also, in that article, it looks like the sources listed in the "Bibliography" section are sources that have been used as references in the article -- you can see that in the article's "References" section. So, if you would want to add a book to this article, it would go in a "Further reading" section, which currently doesn't exist in that article but it can be created (below "Bibliography" and above "External links"). But I still think that a self-published book is not appropriate to be added there. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 15:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:The_Urantia_Book#Malcolm_Locke.27s_.22The_Urantia_Revelation.22

Hey Jeraphine,

How do you get badges, group memberships, and the other cool stuff you have on your page? (On this one, with the Gryphon. Your other page seems spartan.) Are they self-declared?

Shankarsivarajan ( talk) 13:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Shankarsivarajan: Oh yes, you can put whatever you want on your userpage (within the limits of the Wikipedia:User pages guidelines of course). You just need to know what piece of code to use so that a specific template shows up. Most WikiProjects have a membership userbox, you can find it somewhere on the WikiProject's pages, for example WikiProject Paranormal has a selection of userboxes here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal#Membership. In most WikiProjects you just need to sign up your name in their members/participants section, adding a userbox to your userpage is optional.

If you want to identify yourself as being a certain type of an editor, like a Wikipedia:WikiGnome or Wikipedia:WikiDragon (see Wikipedia:WikiFauna) then the specific pages for those wikifauna typically include a userbox template too, so just go and look.

And then there's a whole lot of other userboxes, see Wikipedia:Userboxes.

Also, if you see something cool on someone else's userpage, then feel free to steal it from them. ;) Just go to "edit" their userpage and copy whatever code you want. (Just don't save any changes.) (If you go to edit my userpage then there's a huge bug at the top, it's there to deter possible vandals. Just scroll down to see the code.) —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 14:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and you might like these too: Wikipedia:Service awards. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 14:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm surprised this isn't more popular; I found out about WikiFauna from the gryphon on your page. Perhaps if someone were to link the relevant WikiFauna page in the "see also" sections of these creatures...? (That seems non-vandalous, right?) Shankarsivarajan ( talk) 15:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If you mean the actual articles about griffins and dragons etc then that's a definite no-no. Self-referential (referring to Wikipedia) content in articles is not okay, except when the article is about Wikipedia. And even there it's not allowed to wikilink to any pages in the "Wikipedia:"-namespace. I have seen it in some places, for example the article on Vandalism links to the Wikipedia:Vandalism page in a hatnote, but that's a special case. Linking to humor pages about WikiGnomes probably can not be justified. :p —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 18:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring. You are not helping by restoring those templates. Augenblink is indefinitely blocked, they are not causing any disruption by removing those templates. --  GB  fan 12:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The template is literally in the middle of Darkwind's message in the middle of a sentence. How hard can it be for someone to understand that mutilating someone else's message is not okay even on their own talk page? Feel free to unwatch the page if you find it annoying. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 14:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I know exactly where the template was and stand by my decision to let Augenblink remove it. If you feel it is inappropriate feel free to discuss it with Darkwind or if it bothers you that much you can unwatch Augenblink's talk page. Restoring things to a user talk page is not an exemption to the three revert rule. --  GB  fan 19:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Kinda looked like vandalism to me. I "stand by" my view too that no one's allowed to remove something from the middle of someone's message for no good reason, at least that's what our guidelines say. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 20:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I was a bit unsure about the rules about this, so didn't revert Augenblick. Removing a template from the middle of Darkwind's comment does make that comment look like it doesn't make sense, though ("Therefore, Please be aware that any further disruption..."). Whether that bothers Darkwind, I don't know. Darkwind? Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I woke up this morning and I felt bad because I was afraid of this thread (and probably also because I skipped my meds last night). Whoever might see this please do me a favor and don't reply. This is not a problem anymore. I was just trying to do the right thing. I don't fight with vandals (Augenblink) endlessly, I do know when to stop. I think GB fan intervened a little early but I guess that's debatable. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 06:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jeraphine Grypho:

I just read your note on my talk page.

Recently, I finished fixing literally 1000s of broken ISBNs. Theoretically, you're right--templates are for editors. In practice (i.e. I've seen with my own eyes), though, a huge percentage of editors don't know about templates as simple as {{ issn}} or {{ asin}}. Instead, they leave an ISSN unlinked or they hard-code an external link to an Amazon page.

We're trying to help them by putting wikilinks to directly relevant templates in the "See also" sections of articles such as Amazon Standard Identification Number.

Templates have wikilinks to articles in their "See also" sections; why not the other way around? :-)

Articles **do** link to "Wikipedia:" pages, and if you like, I can show you several existing articles that include wikilinks to templates (see Bibcode, for example).

Your statement "Each article needs to be able to stand on its own" applies to articles in a "See also" section, too, not only templates.

Again, we're trying to assist editors to more easily find the right tools **and** maybe encourage some readers to start off on the right foot as editors.

I hope you will rethink the situation. Knife-in-the-drawer ( talk) 15:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Who's the "we"? As far I've seen, see also sections are meant for articles, that's the standard. To change that standard I think you would have to gain consensus of a wider audience in an appropriate venue, like the Village pump. Because I think this is a bit of a big deal and can't be decided on user talk pages. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 15:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! I started a discussion at Subjective idealism#See also section doubled. You are most welcome to comment! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 16:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey jerpahine,

why you think the information i added is not appropiate to an encylopedia. it was information about numerology relationship to astrology. This is general information for anyone doesnt know about it, to know more.

I am waiting for your reply, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingoftheweb ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Your contributions so far make it look like you're trying to advertise a certain website. Please see WP:RS for an explanation on what kind of references are acceptable ("reliable sources"); and in any case it is not allowed to use Wikipedia for promotion. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 19:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any wiki page on how can I learn to be a better editor and use more advanced tools/html? Like a page for beginners? Thanks. Ledzeppelinite ( talk) 13:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Ledzeppelinite ( talk) 13:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Why, so you can vandalize more effectively? Please get your attitude checked and learn to respect Wikipedia's policies, maybe then I'll feel inclined to give you advice. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 13:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jeraldine, I saw you undid my edit on deviantart about the site having a search box. I realize the edit was debatable, but I'm imagining a certain number of users wouldn't realize how easy it is to search for art on deviantart (it took me a while to realize it), therefore I think it's reasonable to point it out to readers of the Wikipedia article. I would like to put the edit back up, would you be amenable? Greg Dahlen ( talk) 13:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's not. It's just silly. Every site has a search box. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 14:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but art-making is an exceptionally sophisticated activity, the same person who might understand how to use the searchbox on a site devoted to simpler activities might be overwhelmed by the whole field of art and not understand how the search box opens up the dA site to them. I think making an exception to the rule and mentioning the search box in the dA article is reasonable. You might change your mind? Greg Dahlen ( talk) 17:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument. No. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 19:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

So why are they, removing my edits? They are pissing me off and that I got upset that I got blocked for 1 month, I AM DONE HERE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.14.181 ( talk) 10:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess that I will stop editing, so I guess I needed to leave their message and make new sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.14.181 ( talk) 10:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Every one of those three recent edits of yours were reverted by editors who gave a reason in their edit summary. If you don't agree with their reasoning then talk about it on the article's or the user's talk page. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 13:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sir,how to create the profile in encyclopedia. And I want to add all information regarding myself there but I'm unable to do so.. Sandeep SandeepAiel ( talk) 19:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll put a notice about this on your talk page, hopefully it's helpful. And please don't call me a sir. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 19:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeraphine Gryphon, I have written a section on the fans' reaction to the series cancellation from independent, third-party sources. I haven't included it yet. Should I? SciGal ( talk) 13:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Um... yes? —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 14:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. Besides, it's already done. I posted it after I wrote to you here. SciGal ( talk) 14:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up a speedy tag. To clarify, does that mean an admin will be making the proper Minds.com to Minds move (instead of redirect I did)? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azntaiji ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Azntaiji: Yes, but it may take a bit of time (usually less than 24 hours). An admin is needed because the old title has to be deleted before the article can be moved. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 16:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Jeraphine Gryphon: Perfect, thanks for clarifying!

The discussion continues from here: [1]

Yes I mean ' biased' because you have been reverting my edits without even considering the context of the articles without reading or editing similar articles. For instance, you edited and placed maintenance tags on Sultan ul Faqr Publications but did not even read similar publication articles even mentioned on its Talk:Sultan ul Faqr Publications i.e. [2] [3] [4]. This behavior of yours correctly defines the word ' bias'. Rest assured, I certainly have no personal interest in promoting any website. That’s not my thing and that’s not what I am here for. All edited articles are Sufi-related and required the link. However, I have studied the Bahoo website and found out that it is the topmost website which talks abt every topic about Sufism In detail. Hence, it can be taken as a definite reliable source. Most Sufi topics when ‘Googled’, provide answers related to this website which is the only reason for me to have provided its links in most cases. You may wish to study the website yourself to increase your knowledge in Sufism. Please do not provide such warnings, as it seems absurd that you point out my good-faith edits as vandalism. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.However, if you believe that I have overdosed the link, then I apologize to you as I am a recent editor at Wikipedia when compared to you. Also let me know the names of the articles which you have created so I can acquaint myself with your method of writing. Markangle11 ( talk) 13:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Markangle11: Okay, and then you go and revert completely random edits of mine as revenge? Here and here. If you want to know which articles I've created so you can put revenge tags on them then please, the list is on my userpage. Go nuts. I'll go and report you meanwhile. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 14:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Is reverting a crime? I wonder why you are taking things so negatively (advertising, vandalism, revert, revenge). This world is running on the basis of positivism. If you have to be so negative all the time, never write on my talk page again. Markangle11 ( talk) 14:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverting for no good reason pretty much is a "crime", yes. If you do something that violates policy then I'm afraid I will have to post on your talk page. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 14:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

And don't try to lecture me on being positive when you go and do those completely childish revenge undos. What were you thinking? —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 14:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Is reverting a crime? You have reverted all my edits but I did not say a word to you nor did I even think of complaining about you. But only 2 of my edits are piercing your ego so much. I wonder why you are taking things so negatively (advertising, vandalism, revert, revenge). This world is running on the basis of positivism. If you have to be so negative all the time, never write on my talk page again. And for God's sake just calm down. Markangle11 ( talk) 14:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I heard you the first time. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 14:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. The discussion for the concerned articles continues on their talk pages i.e. Talk:Sultan ul Faqr Publications and Talk:Mahnama Sultan ul Faqr Lahore. Markangle11 ( talk) 19:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Come on now. Your first post on my talk page User talk:Markangle11, under section July 2015 accuses me of being disruptive. [5]

I have already proved your bias as well. See the beginning of this section.

However, if you are careful about your edits why would I want to complain about you? The matter has already been settled, so why are you even talking about it?

Peace out ! Markangle11 ( talk) 15:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You didn't "prove" my bias anywhere. I already gave you a reasonable explanation for why I noticed/edited those pages specifically and not the ones that you listed. I don't have the time to fix everything, I make my choices, and it's not your business to tell me what other pages I should edit so that I would be non-biased. This is ridiculous. If this matter is settled then leave me alone. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 16:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

By proving your bias I meant when you reverted all my edits e.g.:

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

I never told you to fix anything. You did everything out of your own will.

However, yes the matter has already been settled and over from my side as I already told you way back. All the discussion comes to an end now.

Happy editing!

Markangle11 ( talk) 13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

What is my bias, exactly? Bias against sufism? Bias against you? Or maybe... it's bias against bad edits that violate policy? Look, you're a new user who has made some mistakes, I noticed those mistakes and fixed them for you. You seem to be taking it very personally. There's nothing actually wrong with my edits, or is there? "Happy editing!!" —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 13:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

see Talk:Freelancer/Archives/2015#Formal_freelancer and Sole_proprietorship#Other_countries -- Krauss ( talk) 19:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)