User talk:Despayre/Archive 2

Talkback
SudoGhost 16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost 17:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have the article on your watchlist I'll stop nagging you each time I respond, but I've replied on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SudoGhost 18:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit?
Hi Despayre, hope things are going well. Thanks for the help on William S. Sadler a couple months ago, it was promoted to featured article recently. In case you're interested I just put up an article at the GOCE request page. It's also about a UFO-based religion, oddly enough. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry, I forgot to throw up a template before I left, I'm out of the country until the 10th (Wedding, not mine ), but if still needed, I can look at it then (and I"ll probably ready it anyway, sounds like the kind of thing I'd be interested in!). --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 11:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Periyar Source OR opinion
Hi Despayre. A few days ago I had opened a discussion on the noticeboard for discussing potential Original Researchon whether the use of a couple of sources regarding the source of Periyar would constitute WP:OR. I got your response to which I had replied back. I don't know whether you saw that or not. Since you are an editor here, I would appreciate your feedback on the issue. Thanks. Ashinpt (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry, I forgot to throw up a template before I left, I'm out of the country until the 10th (Wedding, not mine ), and probably won't be contributing much before I come back, but if still needed, I can look at it then. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 11:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll wait for you to come back. Meanwhile the discussion we had has been archived and is placed here. Enjoy the wedding . Ashinpt (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. When you recently edited Martial Arts Odyssey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MMA (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) 11:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of CDF Dialogue for Roman Catholic Church's stance on Rydén
Hello Despayre - Thank you for your very constructive feedback on the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the Church's stance on Vassula Ryden. The purpose of this RSN is to acquire some community wide general consensus for both text and references that can be used for the article. There are a couple of things I would like to ask / clarify regarding your input once the process has been concluded. Since its my first RSN I imagine the discussion is closed once it goes into the archives. If it does not work this way, feel free to let me know how RSN discussions usually are concluded. Thanks! Arkatakor (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a question about what I said on the RSN page, you can post your questions there, if it's directly related to my answer (If it's not directly related you can post it here, or if you have other questions about that article regarding other sources/sections, start a new section at RSN). If the section is archived, and you have new questions, you should start a new section. Discussions are usually concluded when the editors that work on that page have had about 5 days to comment on it, and haven't added anything further, and there have been no additional questions from the person who brought the question forward. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Despayre. Unfortunately when I attempted to post my questions based on the feedback (creating another subsection within my RSN post) I was informed that doing so would be disruptive to the consensus process and that the discussion was closed. Thus I understood I had to wait for the RSN post it to expire into the archives before asking any questions. Based on your feedback I wanted to ask 2 questions.


 * 1) Regarding your final comment which stated "Hvidt is an RS source for his claims." I interpreted that this means that the text I proposed has been given the green light since the text is based on Hvidts source.  Is my interpretation of your comment correct?
 * 2) The reason I had proposed sources 2, 3 and 4 for usage in my text was not for interpretation purposes, but simply as cumulative proof to acknowledge the existence of the 2004 letter by Joseph Ratzinger. The interpretation part of the letter and the explanation of how it came into being I had intention to leave entirely to the paragraph in Hvidts book (source 1).  However if wikipedia guidelines do not allow the usage of such sources even to acknowledge the existence of documents such as Ratzingers 2004 letter, then I wont press this matter any further.

If you prefer, I can repost this query by opening a new RSN topic for this.

The purpose of starting this RSN was to acquire community wide consensus on proposed text and references which can then be inserted into the article without any further dispute. The reason I am proceeding with this method of community wide analysis and approval is that the Vassula Ryden article is heavily contested and virtually every line of text is disputed by the editors involved. Arkatakor (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood the nature of the problem at RSN. the only problem was the unneeded bickering with other involved editors. That's not necessary at RSN. You can open as many sections at RSN as you like, with different questions. Or ask more questions regarding answers you recieve from RSN. It's not a good idea to address comments from other involved editors, specifically after an RSN editor has closed that discussion.
 * 1. Yes the Hvidt source is RS for what he says. As long as your text accurately summarizes his words, that is supported.
 * 2. All the other sources failed my RS requirements based on policy, therefore, anything within them cannot be "trusted" by WP as reliable. Yes, it *looks* like those are the letters from Ratzinger, and they may well be, but based on policy, we have no way to ascertain that, and they are not reliable as guarantors of that information being accurate. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 18:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Despayre - thanks again for the feedback. I have now inserted the text based on your reconfirmation of my thoughts in this discussion. However I remain certain that a group of editors who have been involved in the dispute will do everything in their power to remove it. I hope just for once I am wrong. Also there are fragments of text that use EWTN as their only source - based on your latest feedback I am assuming that said text can be removed. However I will take it one step at a time and wait for the reaction of the CDF text I inserted. Arkatakor (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do not find the EWTN website to be RS for this material. If EWTN is the only source, it should probably be removed. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Despayre - As I anticipated, one of the editors removed the text (check after line 70) in its entirety. Despite the positive feedback from Hvidt's book from you and Fifelfoo, he refuses to acknowledge (check comment dated 13:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)) the validity of Hvidt's source. Furthermore, this user uses primary sources like EWTN to insert material in the article. So in short, he is removing material that complies with wikipedia guidelines, while inserting material that does not comply with wikipedia guidelines. He now insists that the material I want to insert has to pass the consensus on the talk page, knowing full well that the current group of editors currently participating share his questionable views (see Fifelfoo's comment).

At this point there is no mention of the CDF dialogue whatsoever in the Church's Stance section and this user seems keen on keeping any mention of it out completely. How would you advise I proceed? Arkatakor (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:DRN. You are correct if the only grounds they are removing your text on is for RS reasons. There may be other reasons, such as WP:WEIGHT however that may apply. Further, I have re-evaluated EWTN, and still do not find it an RS source for anything contentious. For uncontentious material it's borderline. If consensus is that the text you want is being kept out for RS concerns, then I would suggest WP:BRD, because there are no RS concerns for Hvidt's text (don't edit war, just in case you read my suggestion that way). --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 00:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I will make certain to exhaust all possibilities before going to WP:DRN. It seems that the latest reason to keep out any mention of the CDF dialogue now is entirely WP:WEIGHT. Note that the users in question were arguing that Hvidt was not an RS until I posted the RSN. Hvidt not being a RS was used as a primary justification to keep his material out until the RSN process was concluded. Now they have put full focus on the WP:WEIGHT argument since they lost the RS argument.

WP:WEIGHT points out that all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources should be represented. Would it be fair, in your opinion to presume that Hvidts viewpoint is significant in WP:WEIGHT terms on the grounds of him not only being a theologian of repute (a subject matter expert if you will) but also in this case a primary witness of the CDF dialogue with Ryden? If this is the case, considering that Hvidts publication is now confirmed as an RS, I would presume that this, combined with Hvidt falling under the category of WP:WEIGHT's "significant viewpoint" clause (based on his reputation and primary witness status), would effectively green light the usage of the material I proposed in the article under WP:WEIGHT. Or I could be interpreting "significance" wrong. Let me know what you think. I am sorry to bother you with all this and would like to thank you for your feedback thus far. Arkatakor (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that the other editors there are not going to let you add your text without having some 3rd party attempt to mediate this. Again, I would suggest DRN since you tried the talk page, you brought it to RSN, and now they are (according to you) switching their argument from one thing to a completely different thing. If that's the case, even if you prove weight, then they will probably go back to consensus to revert you. If you think this should be in the article, and you're not violating any policies, you should go to DRN next, I don't know why you would drag this out longer than it would need to be. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your observations are pretty much spot on. Would you consider the DRN an appropriate venue if you want to resolve more than one item regarding a group of users? This discussion has only been about the CDF text, yet there are many other issues that I would like to bring up in the DRN regarding the article. Arkatakor (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * DRN is the right place to go, but I would pick your battles carefully, no one is going to want to babysit any particular article. I would start with the CDF text, if things go well, ask the mediator if you can start another discussion about the next biggest thing. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Noted and thanks - do you have any thoughts on my thoughts of WP:WEIGHT regarding significance on my post of 09:37, 14 June? Arkatakor (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter, although I would think having a dialog directly with the Catholic church would be pretty relevant in an article about a theological subject, esp. given the fact that Ratzenberger himself wrote letters about it. -- <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 14:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes this makes sense - your observations seem accurate. That was my last question for now.  I would like to thank you for you all your patient answers to my numerous questions thus far.  I will now consider how to proceed with the difficult user(s) in question.  Arkatakor (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I just had another thought - sorry to bother you with this last question - if it could be accepted by the moderator(s) of the DRN that my proposed text and references are not in violation of any policies, would the opinion of the moderator(s) in the DRN override any consensus attempts to block said text by this particular group of editors? Arkatakor (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The goal of DRN is not to override editors, but to arrive at a compromise that involved editors can all live with. -- <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 09:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I have followed your advice and gone ahead and posted in the DRN. It would be great if you would be willing to this section in your talk page available for viewing until the DR is resolved as I may want to refer to it in the DR itself. Thanks! Arkatakor (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather astoundingly, IRWolfie and another editor are both continuing in their refusal to acknowledge Hvidt as an RS in my in my DRN post. The other editor has said "I agree with IRWolfie that the source, though published by a university press, is not reliable enough to offset reliable sources backed up by official Vatican documents. The author of the source is an avid champion of the subject of the article by his own admission, and was not only a witness of secret Vatican talks, but was a partisan participant, as well. His report and conclusions are seriously inconsistent with those in the other reliable sources available. These facts were not available to the editors who gave opinions on RSN, so I do not hold their opinion as well-informed or binding."


 * Let me know if you want to reconfirm your position in Hvidts work in the dispute. However I do not think it will necessary as I have already linked your comments in the RSN. Arkatakor (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Despayre - A non involved editor joined the DRN that I posted and has made some very useful comments about the article in general and how to remake it. However, just as he stepped in, certain editors played the "Hvidt is a supporter" card in order to discredit Hvidt's publication as an RS which I am concerned might have influenced this users conclusive statement which is as follows - "Do not attempt to portray him as a reliable source for interpreting Ratzinger's positions. He is not a reliable source on that topic, and you are not allowed to use it to cast doubt on what appears to be a well-documented position of the Roman Catholic Church. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)".

Do you agree with the above, and if not, would you like to reconfirm what you stated in the DRN, notably that "It's my opinion that the RS value of the Hvidt source is not in doubt, it is RS for the material presented at RSN."? I will also contact Noleander to get his opinion. Arkatakor (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversy
Helly Despayre, hope you have enjoyed your vacation!

I dropped in here to ask for your opinion on creating a new Controversy section within the Vassula Ryden article based on a paragraph in Hvidt's work, a source that you claimed as an RS for its claims. The paragraph under the (new) Controversy section I would like to create is the following:

I am asking you this because certain users removed my new controversy section with the aforementioned text and shifted the above text to the Supporters section. However, I find shifting a neutral observation by a subject matter expert (Hvidt) to the supporters section is inappropriate. Hvidt's statement is not a viewpoint, its an observation by a subject matter expert in a book published by OUP which briefly mentions Ryden in a disinterested but analytical tone (likely in accordance with OUP standards).

You made the following statement in the RSN: "I understand that he is a follower of Ryden. I do not believe this outweighs his substantial credentials in this field. There is no evidence that is a case where he has put his personal beliefs ahead of his scholarship that I can find.". However it appears that your statement has not held ground against this particular group of users. I have since, tried on many an occasion to point out that Hvidt's work, a scholarly source, is mutually exclusive of the fact that he is a supporter.

Do you have any thoughts on this? Can the aforementioned quoted material (or any other text based Hvidt's source) be used in different sections other than just "Supporters" in the Vassula Ryden article? Arkatakor (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hvidts reliability in doubt
Hello Despayre - sorry to bother you with this again. I have posted an RFC to include some material based on Hvidts work (whch you stated was an RS in the RSN). It seems that once gain Hvidts reliability is being cast into doubt on the grounds that he is a supporter of Ryden. The material I want to insert is based on a paragraph of the book can be viewed on my RFC. As you have reviewed this source on the RSN, I would like to ask you if you have anything to add to the conversation in the light of the latest comments regarding Hvidt as an RS. If so, would you mind posting it in the RFC? Thanks again. Arkatakor (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC
Hi there. I was hoping you might want to weigh in on the definition of an active player, where a thread has been opened at this talk page and in hopes of forming a consensus for other articles, at WikiProject Baseball. Zepppep (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't actually follow baseball at all, so my opinion wouldn't mean all that much, but thanks for the invite. -- <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 17:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference
I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka
I have brought this a week ago to ANI and on the advice of an Admin, one of the editors has taken this issue to the DRN and it was resolved. But User:Himesh84 is constantly pushing his Original Research as a single person. Since you have already involved in the Sri Lanka related issues on defense.lk and Lies Agreed Upon, I need your involvement how to tackle this user who is so adamant to listen others and pushing his Original Research aggressively without heeding the Wikipedia guidelines.Sudar123 (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia 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.

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

United Nations
I have created a sub section here on "UN admits Sri Lanka civil war failure"; Please review.Sudar123 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR
Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swalling@undefinedwikimedia.org) with...


 * the subject line "JSTOR"
 * your English Wikipedia username
 * your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
User:Qwyrxian, an Administrator, I think in a border line violation of his Admin tools. He reverted the disputed content and then protecting the page with his own explanation on the talk page. Since I also once reverted the disputed content, I think, your opinion would be helpful on the talk page Sri Lanka.Sudar123 (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Image on Reform and criticism section on United Nations


I have re-added the above image which is removed by User:Rich Farmbrough without edit summary on the Reform and criticism section on United Nations; since the image depicts one of the worst human tragedies human kind ever faced and reviewed by the UN itself its fault and found guilty.Sudar123 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)