User talk:Despayre/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

budget
I don't answer general article question on my talk page, that's what the article talk pages are for. And if you start throwing around accusations, I'm not going to answer entirely. I added another source for the budget. I'm sorry that everything isn't a mouse click away, but sometimes you have to actually use print sources. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek Portal
I'm glad that you're expanding the portal, however, you should not add a section header to portal contents like this... == Example == and you should only use images that are free from copyrights, use any image from the commons not the Wikipedia  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   02:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Use any image that is located here  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   02:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See Portal:The Simpsons, it's considered to be one of the best portals on Wikipedia, also see Portal:A Nightmare on Elm Street, I created it entirely by myself without a single edit from another user. Also, you should probably continue discussion on the portal on the portal's talk page  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   08:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek Portal
 • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   12:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Whale shark weight
Hi Despayre

Thanks for your message. My reference is the South African publication, Two Oceans page 256, and the authors are pretty expert so I tend not to doubt what they say. However, I see that Leonard Compagno, who is THE world shark expert, doesn't give a max weight (you may have seen his book co-authored with Dando and Fowler, Sharks of the World), and it is possible that that may be indicative of some uncertainty as to the reliableness of the data. On the other hand, I do know that sharks get to a certain length and then start to seriously bulk up -- a 6m great white, for example, is a monstrous thing, which is to say, doing a straight line extrapolation on the weight of a smaller animal (as you have done with the whale sharks you saw off Mexico) will absolutely not work in practical terms.

I hope this information is of use to you.

regards

Seascapeza (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit review
Hi, Despayre, and thank you for your interest in copy editing. I am happy to help you out by reviewing these two articles and showing you additional improvements that I completed. The first article I looked at was Archives for UFO Research. On, I used some scripts to fix dashes and un-link common terms. I also used asterisks to create a bulleted list. People viewing the site with a screen reader will immediately realise that they are being presented with a list when you format it that way. On the, I did some more clean-up and copy editing. The punctuation mark goes before the closing ref tag, not after it. The term "approximately" is not required because it is obvious that the number has been rounded off. Terms are linked only on the first occurrence. Use of "etc" is considered too informal for the encyclopedia. The website does not need to be listed as an external link as it already appears in the article several times. I cleaned up the grammar and punctuation. It is normal to have information in the lead that is repeated elsewhere in the article, as the lead is supposed to summarise the article. I will look at the other article tomorrow. Hope this advice is helpful! --Dianna (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC) The second article, Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, is already at Good Article status and is undergoing a peer review, which is a step on the way to Featured Article status. That's the reason why it's already in really good shape. Thanks again for your interest in helping out with copy edits. -- Dianna (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Albion class landing platform dock
Hello Despayre. Thanks for joining in our copy editing efforts. I saw your note about Albion class landing platform dock on the requests page and took a look. You did a nice job on choice of wording, although you did overlook some rather strange commas and a non-sentence. I've done a quick tweak, and here's the diff. If you'd like to discuss any of it, please do (I'm watching this page), and of course, if I made any mistakes please correct them. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're talking about that sentence with the tractors, and yes, that was apparently where the coffee started wearing off! I re-read that this morning and thought "that doesn't make sense", but didn't have time to correct it before I left for work, but had made a note to fix it today. And good catch on the 8th ship being actually the 9th. The only change you made which I didn't think was needed was in the section at the bottom, with the sub-heading "HMS Bulwark". That section is only about that one ship, so I would have thought it's unnecessary to state the name of the ship again to start off that second paragraph. "The ship" seems shorter, and doesn't lose anything. But that's minor minor too, I think. You definitely improved it from where I was, and I'm just glad you didn't find 50 things! Thanks for the look-over. --Des pay re ( talk ) 21:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, the one with the tractors. The reason I changed "the ship's" to "the Bulwark's" there wasn't from any feeling that the subject was unclear, but to avoid repetition, since "the ship's" is used in the next sentence. You get this a lot in popular culture articles especially, with sentence after sentence of "the show this, the show that, the show whatever, ..." (and "the singer", "the song", "the film", etc). It gets very wearing. Possibly I've become over-sensitised to it, but I think on the whole it's best to refer to things by name or by pronoun, and only use oblique phrases when there's a reason. Best, --Stfg (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems pretty reasonable to me. Also, I notice that I took 12 edits to get through all that. When you do your c/e-ing, do you try and keep it down to just a couple of edits, and do many different things at one time? I tried to go through in stages, looking at different things, rather than alter the article (which could be objectionable to involved editors) with a big brush all at once. I also find it's easier to disect that way, just wondering. --Des pay re ( talk ) 10:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If I'd been doing the main copy edit, I'd have probably done about 12 as well. The reason I did this one in one was that I could see that what was needed of me would be quite minor, and could be done in one zip-through. Less waiting for the server to generate pages and display them :)


 * How you work is a very personal thing. For me, it depends on the size of the task. I don't like to have the edit window open for too long, so I usually go by sections, or even part-sections if it's complicated. I try to do everything for one tract of text in one edit if possible, rather than, say, editing for wording in one pass, then punctuation in another, things like that. Some exceptions are reference formatting and running the dashes script, where the whole article is operated on at once. But as I say, this is personal. If your method feels comfortable, it's probably efficient. Hope this helps. --Stfg (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Despayre, I'm glad to see someone else interested in copyediting around here, the project really needs it. A couple thoughts on copyediting: editing per section is a very good idea if you are working on a relatively high-traffic article or you think others may be editing at the same time--it saves you from the dreaded edit conflicts. Also, if there are changes that you're unsure about, it's best to make them in their own edit so someone can revert them easily if need be. Some of the best copyeditors I've seen make a ton of small edits, and others try to do it in one or two passes, so I think it is a preference thing. One thing that I've found helpful personally is to look at experienced editors making changes at WP:FAC and note things that they point out. Then I try to look for them when I'm going over an article. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that seems like good advice too. I am trying to not screw anything up too much right off the bat; I like to wait till I really know what I'm doing before I muck it all up. ;) Also, I was trying to stick to smaller articles and then stick that GOCEinuse template at the top. I was tempted to try the Adriatic one, but that seemed a little too daunting for me at this point. --Des pay re ( talk ) 06:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, wow, the Adriatic is quite large. Oh, and if you want to practice on a relatively small article, feel free to take a run through Elias Abraham Rosenberg. I think it's in Ok shape, but I've read through it so many times there's a chance I'm missing some obvious stuff. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That one definitely looks more my size, I'll take a look and see what I see, thanks. --Des pay re ( talk ) 06:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Article copyedit
Hi Despayre, hope things are going well with you. I'm wondering if you would be willing to help with a copyedit of Ahalya? It was unsuccessful in its most recent FAC and has just undergone a significant peer review. The article's creator asked me to help out, so in addition to going over the article myself I thought I'd mention it to a couple skilled copyeditors I knew as well. It is a kind of long article, so if you don't have time/interest enough to go over the whole thing doing a section or too that would still be much appreciated. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look over the weekend, I signed up for the copy edit backlog drive, so I'm trying to get through as many on that list as I can (and I'm wading my way through the big mess that is Megatron at the moment), but I'll stick my nose in over there too and see what I see (BTW, I think describing me as "skilled" might be over the top a little, but I won't complain!) :) --Des pay re ( talk ) 23:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll leave notes on that talk page just like that the last one I looked at, if that works for you. --Des pay re ( talk ) 23:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, any help is appreciated. I'm impressed that you're working on Megatron--that looks like quite a challenge. Well, even if you're not "skilled" yet, you'll be there soon if you keep practicing--my copyediting skill (or lack thereof) has really improved in the past six months or so. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weekend turned out to be just a little overbooked, I will take a run through that article tonight. --Des pay re ( talk ) 21:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Oil Industry Safety Directorate
I suggest that possibilities other than deletion are options. See also Energy law. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Borgmann
Hi, Despayre. Thank you very much for your interest in helping out with copy edits during the GOCE March copy edit drive. As a routine part of the drive, a random copy edit of yours was checked for quality control. The article is in good shape, but here are a couple of further improvements I was able to complete. Those wacky Germans capitalise all their nouns, but we do not. I fixed several instances. You need to decide whether or not serial commas will be used in an article, and stick to that choice throughout. That's everything! . I hope you find these suggestions useful. Thanks again for your participation! --Dianna (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. When you recently edited Futoshi Matsunaga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Most Wanted (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

William S. Sadler
Hi Despayre, I was wondering if you could take a look at this article that I've been working on, if you have time/are interested, of course. Any help would be welcomed though, feel free to make copyediting changes or leave suggestions on the peer review that I have open. You input was pretty helpful on Elias Abraham Rosenberg, I'm just about ready to try for featured status with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting looking article! I haven't got to your last one yet (but ya, that one was a long one!) I probably won't get to this one before the end of the month either (at least with more than a cursory look-over) when the copyedit drive is over, I'm almost done an 11,000 word article, and it's painful :) It'll be more so if I don't get it done before the end of the month. I will definitely look at it as soon as the month is over. --Des pay re ( talk ) 03:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, it could easily wait until then. Going over an 11k word article, wow. I just reviewed William McKinley at FAC (also 11k words) and it took me quite a while to get through it--and it was very well written. Going through a poorly written article that long would be herculean. Don't worry about the last one, I dragged a few other people into it, so it has turned out pretty well. I've realized that to get articles to top quality, I really need input from a number of editors. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, 29 articles, good job--you had a busy month! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help on the article, it's hard to find people who will go over articles in detail like that--I really appreciate it. Hopefully I'll be able to bring it up to featured status sooner or later. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

One-Shot Entanglement-Enhanced Classical Communication
I have removed the PROD tag from One-Shot Entanglement-Enhanced Classical Communication, it was kept as no consensus at a previous deletion discussion (see Articles for deletion/One-Shot Entanglement-Enhanced Classical Communication, if there are copyright violation concerns, it may be eligible for deletion via db-copyvio, providing you can show where the source material comes from. If not, it will have to be nominated through the AfD process.  Cheers. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Ata Hussain Fani Chishti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hakeem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

test
tested --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 03:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

State of flux
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of State of flux, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/state+of+flux.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of State of flux


A tag has been placed on State of flux requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ben Ben (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of State of flux


The article State of flux has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Dictionary entry WP:NOT. Already exists on .

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ben Ben (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for tip
Sure, I get your point :) Wasn't sure if I should pipe up but the pointlessness of the issue's been annoying me all evening it's hard to stop myself now. Malick78 (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Jstor
Hi, Despayre. I see you have placed your name on the waiting list to get a Jstor subscription. Please let me know how this turns out. Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will keep you posted, I also noted on the talkpage that you can get access if you have an address in Victoria State in Australia, I have friends with relatives there, so I might pursue that avenue as well. Also, have you seen the highbeam applications page? --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 01:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 04:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Account activation codes have been emailed.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks, RS/N
Thanks for becoming involved in WP:RS/N! I've only recently noticed your participation, but it is valuable and helps the community. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"Secular Islam Summit" RFC
Hello. You're receiving this message because you commented in the RSN discussion of sourced criticism at Secular Islam Summit. There is now an RFC on the subject at the article's talk page. Please consider visiting the RFC to help build a consensus. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

One Major Single Source & POV
Reference to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 120(Defence.lk), I have added the Tags "Single Source" and "POV" on Lies Agreed Upon.

Since you are involved on the above discussion, please discuss further on regarding the Tags added and the reliability of the content on Wikipedia based on the single major source.Sudar123 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

NGO Monitor @ RS/N
Hi, I followed your suggestion at RS/N to simply use the two separate sources but this hasn't really helped. I'm now being criticised for SYNTH, so I was wondering if you might be able to weigh in at the dispute resolution noticeborard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#NGO_Monitor) with your reasoning for this not being SYNTH. Thanks. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
My bad, thanks for letting me know. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Proforma
You have been mentioned at WP:ANI. JJB 21:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Advice
I would appreciate it if you would advice me here. Its a bit urgent, hence the notice. Hope you're not too busy. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RSN
Hi, Despayre. I apologize for becoming a pain in your a** in RSN. I'm unfamiliar with the forum to know whether I'm now arguing with "uninvolved" regulars there or spillover from the other article. Thanks for your help! Location (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem. We often see this kind of thing spill over from the article page to the RSN page. Comes with the territory I suppose. I just skimmed the talk page, and saw that with the exception of I think 3-4 editors, everyone else is involved. On principle, for your purposes, I would pretty much ignore their comments unless they bring up something new, that isn't supposition or opinion, they're only going to re-iterate what they already said on the talk page, they aren't looking to see what uninvolved editors think. That's been my observation after seeing this same drama at RSN many times before. You may also have noticed, that as soon as the "regulars" from an article start arguing, 3rd parties stop getting involved generally. Mostly they aren't interested in your article enough to argue. The short, simple, questions often recieve either obvious, or multiple, responses. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 20:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What about this change?

Current text:

New text: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * When posting, please be sure to include any of the the following information that is available:
 * ? But between your 2 choices, I prefer B. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 22:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, we'll go with your wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

RSN activity
I noted that you were a little discouraged by the comments made against you on RSN. My advice: it will be forgotten in two weeks, so do not let it get to you. I have seen your edits on RSN and they have been objective (although you disagreed with me once, you were fair) and I see you as an asset for Wikipedia. I have seen too many good users retire over these types of issues, and I think you should not join them. Personal attacks etc. are not worthy of bother. You should just shrug your shoulders and forget them. In the long term, those making personal attacks usually get on the train to blockland, and it will be forgotten. You are making a positive impact, because WP:RS sourcing is a bedrock of Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Editors can disagree with each other while using reason to interpret policy and documents. Editors can agree with each other while using different reasoning.  Even worse, some editors may be correct about claims, but not about the reliability of the source they suggest supports the claim.  Normally WP:RS/N only gets in trouble when fringe topics coincide with strongly held beliefs.  Like History2007 says, it'll wash clear with 20 simple responses to people trying to use unedited blogs to prove that a celebrity has green hair or is Unitarian. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the words guys, I'm not so overly sensitive that I'm going to take it too personally, I just wanted to express my opinion. I think we get a lot more work done on RSN when we aren't hosting spill-over page disputes where editors argue the same thing they couldn't agree on in the first place. I don't have a problem with other editors disagreeing with my opinions at RSN (although, even though I have no idea about what opinion H7 and I disagreed on, I'm still sure I'm right . I do have a problem with editors that think we should change how the page functions because he's cranky that a 70 year old propaganda film should be the top of the RS chart for WWII, and then go on to berate me in various places throughout the page because of it. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, as long as you just shrug your shoulders and not let it bother you, that is great. History2007 (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is more a WT:RS/N issue, but ordinary editors can close threads on WP:RS/N and the normal "community of review" in the past has proved to be other editors who habitually edit WP:RS/N. I only try to close threads where:
 * The result is WP:SNOW close, but editors are discussing the article subject. If it is SNOW but editors are having fruitful discussions of source reliability I let it run.
 * The discussion is not in line with the purposes of RS/N due to discussion of the article subject
 * The discussion has become stewed due to wall of text, or very long discussions by involved editors to the exclusion of 3rd party opinions
 * The discussion has been complex, and involved parties and editors have made different conclusions using good reasoning, but the thread is going in circles (here I normally close, making a BOLD reliability decision, and only if I've not commented at all)
 * Disruption, particularly due to collegiality issues.
 * I am reluctant to close if I've commented, and don't close with a summary of outcomes if I've commented unless it is clear SNOW. The 4th case is the most complex, particularly when civil editors in fringe areas with personal beliefs have been excellent and made excellent arguments.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective would be valued
There is a dispute about Sondra Locke's year of birth. Some sources say 1944 while others say 1947. Because of this dispute, both years are listed in the opening sentence of her Wikipedia page. None of the sources that say she was born in 1947 are reliable. However, there are many reliable sources that say she was born in 1944:

Sondra Locke's marriage license to Gordon Leigh Anderson on September 25, 1967 (available publicly through the state archives or Ancestry.com) lists her birthdate as 5/28/44. MSN movies and the Internet Movie Database  say that she was born in 1944. A 1989 People magazine article gives Locke's age as 45, correlating to a 1944 birth year. The Middle Tennessee State University yearbook from 1963 has a photo of her appearing in a university production of Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible. For Locke to have attended a university during the 1962-63 semester, she would have to have been born no later than 1944 unless she graduated high school early, which is unlikely given that she makes no mention of it in her autobiography. Locke does not mention her year of birth in her autobiography. On 28 May 2011, Sondra Locke turned 67 according to ABC News, Yahoo! News, the Associated Press , Leigh Valley News , and The Boston Globe ; this directly correlates to her being born on 28 May 1944.

Sondra Locke's Wikipedia page, in my opinion, should only list 1944 as her year of birth. There is no question that she was born in 1944. I am requesting that you make this correction to Sondra Locke's page, because every time another user has made this correction, their edits have been reverted without merit. 131.239.63.5 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note but you should pose this question at WP:RSN. If the sources are found to be reliable, and the other sources are found *not* to be reliable, then you can proceed on that basis. If the edits are still reverted, then you should take the problem to DRN or ANI, as the problem isn't with content, but with user behaviour. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 03:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, this particular editor's problem is that he is indefinitely blocked, and his edits keep being reverted because of block evasion. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99 for details if you are interested.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. It did seem a little odd that he would bring that issue directly to my userpage since I have no idea who he is, or anything about that article. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 07:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Adam Dunn controversy
What is the policy for statistic dates? I have been listing the previous day because my stats updates are based off of information that is updated through the previous day. Any new information from the current day would not be reflected. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to my comment at DRN, I was using the comment from Z. at the article talk page, where he explains the reason that the date will actually appear to be 1 day in the future. I don't know of a specific WP policy if that's what you're asking, I just meant for stats in general. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 17:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just concerned that maybe it is a bit misleading to say the stats are correct through today when really they are only updated through yesterday. And what does S. O. P. stand for? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That was my thought too,but apparently that's the style used by other RS sources for stats. Although having spent a few minutes looking at the link provided by Z, I cannot find any dates on the stats listed, so I will strike that portion of my comments. Thanks. SOP=Standard Operating Procedure. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 18:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying the abbreviation. I'm pretty sure that Baseball-Reference stats are correct through the previous day. I shall inquire about what policy to use at the Teahouse. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

He now claims that my stats update was not correct, while failing to provide any evidence to support his claim. He also did not specify what was incorrect. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I saw your suggestion on the noticeboard. What does ANI stand for? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already filed an incident report at WP:EWN regarding the issue. WP:ANI is for more time-sensitive urgent matters, I think the response time for this doesn't need to be quite as immediate. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 18:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for intervening. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Despayre, thanks for helping at DRN (and welcome to the dispute resolution community). Would you please close the thread, when you think that it's time, using the & etc. closing templates and syntax listed at the top of the DRN page? Again, thanks, and best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, but the behaviour only stalled, not stopped, and has now resumed, I have filed a report at WP:EWN, so I'd rather not hat the issue just yet, but I will close it in the next 24 hours if nothing new develops, thanks for the note. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 18:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks very much for your recent answer on my post on the RSN. It was really helpful and well thought out, and I especially appreciated that you didn’t just answered my query, but actually went to the trouble of finding a better source for the article! This resolved the issue, and I have used your source on the article. So, I guess what I am saying is: thanks for going above and beyond the “call of duty”.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, glad I could help. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 13:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

anna-news.info@RSN

 * I also appreciate your response, though not in that matter. I'm a bit perturbed at the s/n ratio of that discussion which might just repel some of the regulars from weighing in. Perhaps you could contact some of the regulars directly? That's just a suggestion/plea. __meco (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * what does s/n ratio mean? Sayerslle (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Meco, it's friday afternoon on the west coast, let's wait and see who weighs in after work, or tomorrow (the weekend), it's likely other RSN regulars will have something to say, although, generally when the squabbling starts amongst the involved editors we generally get less involved because we don't feel like arguing with people that have some kind of axe to grind, when we don't really care about the subject in the first place (like what I'm trying to avoid getting dragged into), and yes, the S/N ratio is getting pretty high on this one.
 * @Sayerslle: Signal-to-noise ratio.-- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 23:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is extremely unfortunate, because the situation is not quite as your statement "when the squabbling starts amongst the involved editors" would suggest. I have presented the issue initially when posting the request for an assessment but have ostensively refrained from partaking in the discussion. The other three editors that have carried over the "squabble" from the article's talk page, Sopher99, Sayerslle and EllsworthSK, are all adamantly opposed to having this source being approved as RS. I'm obviously not attributing this filibustering as a conscious ploy on their part, simply for the blatant absence of rhetorical acuity among them all, but they are nevertheless succeeding in their objective. __meco (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've gotten that impression from them. Esp. regarding the red herring about the Libyan money, I've already said twice they were not RS for that statement, and I see that Ellsworth is still telling me it's not RS for that statement. *sigh*. We'll have to see if anyone else comments tomorrow. If not, I'll see if I can get an opinion either way about it from other regulars on the board. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 07:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

He's at it again
Carthage44 reverted an update to Jose Quintana's page, claiming the stats were incorrect. I didn't find any errors and I asked him about it on his talk page. He then deleted my question. What recourse do we have to put an end to this? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would say revert him, when he hits 3RR report him to WP:EWN. Support with diffs. I have been keeping half an eye out for this. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 07:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I just don't want to get in trouble myself for edit warring. Besides, he may be too smart for that. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not edit war. I want to be perfectly clear on that. Just for when I get hauled into the noticeboard too, again, DO NOT EDITWAR. ok, legal disclaimer done. Revert him, leave me a note. If he is reverting, he will get to 3RR before you will, we already tried to revert him without editwarring, we tried DRN, and we tried talk page, and we tried personal talk page, and I took it to EWN, and they said he hadn't done anything wrong yet. Admins can hardly turn around and with a straight face and claim we provoked this issue when we asked for help before already and they told us it wasn't an issue yet, on top of all the other steps we've tried. If he only does it once, there probably isn't much you can do about it other than revert him, try not to get annoyed that he's going to do it once every time you do it, and move on. Eventually you could try taking him to the Tendentious editing noticeboard that exists around here somewhere, but I've never been there (and couldn't find it just now when I looked). -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I'll let you know when he reverts my updates. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

RS/N post regarding The Zeitgeist Movement
Hi Despayre, this is regarding my RS/N post. Sorry about the wall of text. I generally try to be concise, but Goldberg's article is very long, and has many problems, and this is the only reason my post is long. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Length of your article isn't a problem, it's your "analysis" that made it mostly too long to read. We don't need that at RSN since we evaluate it ourselves (for obvious reasons it's a bad idea generally to assume what ppl are supporting their arguments with is necessarily correct). All you really needed to put there was "here is the article (link), does this source (link source) provide an RS for this edit (link, diff, quote). Wait and see what happens. If you have further questions after you get some input, that would be the time to ask them. We look at a lot of sources there, and while everyone thinks their situation needs pages of explanation, really, from a policy point of view, it seldom does, for the purposes of RSN anyway. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 15:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Question
Out of curiosity, what is so significant or surprising about the quotes you linked to on your userpage? <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the beginning of what I expect will be a very long list one day. With those 2 in particular, it's just surprising to me that someone can actually compare going to the pharmacy to getting nominated for one of the most prestigious awards on the planet, and actually use that as a defense of his position, as if that's a reasonable comparison and I should agree with it. If I ever get nominated, I sure as hell want people to know about it! If I win, I'm making it into a necklace I can never take off. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 00:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith assumptions
Hello. Please explain your utterly bad-faith assumptions at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I think it's pretty clear that your comment there did not assume good faith, at the least. Thanks. →<font face="Segoe Script"><font color="#F52887">B <font color="#348017">music <font color="#3BB9FF">ian 13:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be more specific I think. You think it was a BFA that I assume he didn't read the instructions? Or did you think the lack of courtesy shown to me to begin with was a BFA on my part? People bring questions to RSN every day, we assume AGF, we don't assume they can't read, we assume they chose not to. Sometimes they get the template, (which fyi, I didn't put there, but would have if another editor hadn't already). As it clearly says, "Source reliability, or unreliability, can only be assessed in context." It then goes on to give examples for people that aren't clear on that concept. It's also listed at the top of the page, and on the edit page. I've now looked at his question more closely, and yes, it does fit into that format, if he'd like to ask it again instead of whining against his goverment, who I *also* don't work for, he might get a better response. Also, I see now from his latest reply that I am the reason that people leave Wikipedia...(and you're asking *me* about AGF??) to which I would suggest that not all departures are a loss to the project... I have no problems walking editors unfamiliar with the system through it, I do it every day, but when they are talking out of their ass, it's best to leave the attitude at home while they do it. We're not asking for anything more than grade 8 research skills here, if you don't have those, should you really be editing? And if you should, is giving other editors attitude at the same time the best idea? -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 15:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure: "... I refuse to help people that can't read 3 simple sentences in english", "We don't expect you to understand it all, which is why we have a template for people like you ...", "... sorry we're placing such a huge hardship on you" are clear bad-faith assumptions bordering on personal attacks. He was asking a question in good-faith - keep that in mind. →<font face="Segoe Script"><font color="#F52887">B <font color="#348017">music <font color="#3BB9FF">ian 08:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)