![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Sudo Ghost 16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Sudo Ghost 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. - Sudo Ghost 18:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
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 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)
Guild of Copy Editors
July 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 25 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—May, June, and July 2011—by about 40%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 264 articles so far, to around 2500 articles. Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, your best copy-editing work of the month will be eligible for fabulous prizes! See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.
>>> Sign up now <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 16:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Theologian Dr. Niels Christian Hvidt commented that Mrs. Rydén is certainly one of the most debated modern mystics. Hvidt further stated that in the Catholic Church there are some who accuse her of being a guru of the New Age movement, a witch bent on destroying the Catholic Church, or simply the greatest false prophet today; some criticize her for not becoming a Roman Catholic. Hvidt further states that members of her own Orthodox community have accused her of being a promoter of Catholicism.
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)
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)
Guild of Copy Editors
July 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Participation: Out of 45 people who signed up this drive, 31 have copy-edited at least one article. Lfstevens continues to carry most of the weight, having edited 360 articles and over a quarter of a million words already. Thanks to all who have participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, will be available early in August here. Progress report: We are once again very close to achieving in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog. Only 35 such articles remain at press time. The total backlog currently sits at under 2400 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We are just two articles away from completing all requests made before July 2012 (both are in progress). Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, you'll be able to submit your best copy-editing work for palaver, praise, and prizes. See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
23:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
Thanks for your participation in the July 2012 drive. We hope you'll join us again! — Torchiest talk edits 01:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
Invitation from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 18:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC) |
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'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)
Reminders from the
Guild of Copy Editors
A quick reminder of our current events:
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 04:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
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:
--The Olive Branch 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
Guild of Copy Editors
September 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
>>> Sign up now <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 21:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
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)
Guild of Copy Editors
September 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
23:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Fall Events from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 19:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia: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)
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)
Guild of Copy Editors
November 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
>>> Sign up now <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 19:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC) |
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 (swallingwikimedia.org) with...
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! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
Guild of Copy Editors
November 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 38 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy-edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. All the barnstars have now been distributed. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing November and December 2011 from the backlog. For the first time since the drives began, the backlog consists only of articles tagged in the current year. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2690 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 56 requests outstanding before November 2012 as well as eight of those made in November. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the October 2012 competition, and prizes have been issued. The November 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The December 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. ![]() Coodinator election: The six-month term for our fourth tranche of Guild coordinators will expire at the end of December. Nominations are open for the fifth tranche of coordinators, who will serve from 1 January to 30 June 2013. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
21:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
|
End of Year Events from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:
![]() Coodinator election: Nominations are open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January to 30 June 2013. Nominations close on December 15 at 23:59 UTC, after which voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 00:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC) |
Guild of Copy Editors
2012 Annual Report
The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2012 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
00:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
Guild of Copy Editors
January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter
We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive. The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
February blitz and
March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
23:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Guild of Copy Editors
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2013 wrap-up
Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
21:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Guild of Copy Editors
March 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
We are halfway through our March backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
15:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Guild of Copy Editors
March 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
We have completed our March backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
20:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Guild of Copy Editors April 2013 events newsletter
We finished the April blitz and are preparing to start our May backlog elimination drive. The April 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
May drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
04:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
|