User talk:Sasanack

Welcome

Hello, Sasanack, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Vassula Ryden. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of criticising anyone! I simply added a piece of relevant information about Vassula and her messages. I would be grateful if someone can point out what is wrong with the paragraph I added. If it is still there when I go to look now, I will add the ISBN number of the book which contained the information I posted.

You called removal of your edit vandalism, which it certainly wasn't by our definition. You still haven't found a source for the reaction to the material from her book. See [[WP::RS]] for the sorts of sources we would be looking for. Not blogs or personal websites, something mainstream. See also WP:UNDUE. I've removed it again. I suggest you discuss it on the talk page of the article since you have 2 editors disagreeing with you. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry if my use of the word 'vandalism' was inappropriate. Surely I don't need to find a source for the reaction to the material. I am not particularly interested in the reaction. I am simply trying to put the information of the message about the Towers, on to the section about prophecy. People can then make their own judgement. But they cannot make any judgement of I am not allowed to put the information in the article! I am genuinely puzzled by all this. Isn't Wikipedia about the truth?

@Dougweller; Ryden, being the controversial figure that she is, is also regarded by some as a visionary which can also mean prophet. Visonaries (or prophets) often record messages which some will interpret as prophecy, others will scoff at. The choice for them to do that is entirely theirs BUT they should at least be given a chance to read it and determine for themselves. Arkatakor (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this is slightly complicated. First I'll have to note that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question" so yes, you would need to find a source for the reaction of readers. See WP:RS for the criteria for such sources, which don't include blogs, a lot of websites, etc.

Another relevant part of policy that relates to this is WP:UNDUE. In other words, one source would probably not show that this is significant (as the word is used in our policy).

If you want to discuss this further the talk page might be a better venue. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've copied the above to Talk:Vassula Ryden#Alleged prophecy where it belongs, I hope that's ok with both of you. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I groaned

First, it's my impression that you can be religious and be either an opponent or supporter of Ryden, and WP:AGF says please show good faith.

Secondly, let's look at the edit summaries of the editors reverting you.

One says "Relevance? Primary source."

The next reversion says "I realize TLIG.ORG wants its messaging in the article, but edit warring isn't the way"

Third says ". No consensus. Promotional spam. Improperly sourced"

And the last one says "Problem I'm having is that this edit is sourced here "as well as in the published books of the True Life in God messages.""

It should be obvious that you are going to have to convince editors on the article's talk page that something along the lines should be included, and you will have to address the points they raise, without attacking the editors. Believe me, you won't get anyone to agree to including " The letter and its clarifications are available on the internet as well as in the published books of the True Life in God messages." - we simply don't do that. So, go to the talk page and agree to drop that bit and ask if there is anyway to include what Ratzinger wrote. Note that words like 'thorough' would have to be sourced, we don't give our opinions.

Whatever you do, don't just try to put it back in again after 24 hours, as that is still edit-warring and blockable, 3RR is not a right. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it is difficult to stay cool with many of the responses that come from these editors. If you view some of the discussions that the only other pro-Vassula editor, Arkatakor, has bent over backwards trying to be reasonable with them (see the Vassula talk page and his own talk page) but without any real engagement. The reason I have resumed trying to insert this specific information about the dialogue between the Vatican and Vassula is that Arkatakor has not got anywhere being reasonable with them. This is NOT because his arguments were weak.

But to be specific with the item I am trying to post, the text I used comes mainly from the actual letter from Cardinal Ratzinger which is its reference! You say that it is not acceptable for me to put "The letter and its clarifications are available on the internet as well as in the published books of the True Life in God messages." without a reference, yet I am not allowed to insert a referenced link. And it is Cardinal Ratzinger himself in his letter who states the clarifications are available in the published books.

The bottom line is that a very important dialogue took place between Vassula and Cardinal Ratzinger AFTER the negative Notification, yet Wikipedia is not allowing ANY way to insert this information, despite everyone accepting it happened!

If I may, I would like to quote something Jimmy Wales said recently on his talk page, "I believe that the most effective change we can make to policy in this area is for WP:V to be changed to move the words further apart, so that "verifiability, and not truth" tends to go away as a mantra. It is false. It doesn't describe how we work, nor does it describe how we should work." I'm sorry, but this blocking of any attempt to mention the 2001-2004 dialogue on the Vassula page is simply wrong and I feel sure Mr Wales would agree.

The letter from Cardinal Ratzinger, as quoted on the genuinely 3rd party EWTN website (which is actually against Vassula!) confirms the dialogue. Please can you explain why this can not be mentioned on the Wikipedia page? Sasanack (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden discussion (copied from the Dispute resolution noticeboard shortly before the discussion was closed)

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Filer has edit warred heavily on the article and has not rebutted any of protocol arguments for exclusion advanced by other editors in question.Curb Chain (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The issue seems to be that an editor wants to add the following material:

Later, from 2001 to 2004, a thorough dialogue took place between Ryden and the CDF. At the conclusion of the dialogue, a letter from Ryden was published supplying useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which had been suggested in the earlier Notification. On 10 July 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to some Episcopal Conferences informing them of this. The letter and its clarifications are available on the internet as well as in the published books of the True Life in God messages.

And the citation is to http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfrydn3.htm. It appears that the material is relevant to the article, but the issue hinges on the source ... does it meet the WP:Reliable source requirement? The source is www.ewtn.com, which is not a rock-solid scholarly source. I would suggest that editors that want to include this material find other, additional sources that cover that letter and other related issues. The thing that is missing from the source is a discussion or analysis of the letter by a commentator or analyst. See WP:SECONDARY. If ewtn.com is the only source on that letter that can be found, that may indicate that the material is not appropriate for the article. --Noleander (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the above contains the item I am trying to insert (although I'm open to a change in wording). The reason this item is important is because in 1995 the Vatican issued a negative document about Vassula. This item is referred to in the Vassula page with EWTN being the reference. But I am being blocked from inserting information about the positive dialogue that took place a few years later, using a similar EWTN reference!.

There is no issue about the existence of the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger about the dialogue, it is available on this site but I am not allowed to reference that. Detailed and accurate information about the entire dialogue is available here but I am also not allowed to use that.

Surely it goes against all the principles of Wikipedia to prevent highly relevant information being made available for no good reason other than (apparently) it is viewed to be propaganda because someone who supports Vassula is inserting the information!--Sasanack (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The primary source and associated text is being inserted to infer that Vassula has more acceptance from the Catholic church and that the 1995 notification is possibly no longer valid, which effectively misleads. there is already a very lengthy discussion here: [1]. I also think editors who have no particular interest in Vassula, such as myself, are perfectly positioned to objectively look at the issues and do not see why that would be an issue. I also note that you have not shown here the particular text you want added and the source. Also, if the material is important then a reliable non-primary source would have highlighted it, but they haven't. I also think the reasons for not including the text have already been mentioned repeatedly on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie's objection that the insertion is designed to "infer" various things, explains why he is objecting to the insertion! Of course the dialogue of 2001-2004 changes the picture of Vassula's stance with the Vatican. That is why it is important and why it is quite wrong to block it from the Wikipedia page. A later letter from Cardinal Levada indeed confirms his view that the 1995 Notification remains valid but that letter also confirms the 2001-2004 dialogue which is being blocked from the Wikipedia page. I should add that most of the discussion on the talk page has been about inserting details of the dialogue from the www.cdf-tlig.org website. Despite this being the most suitable reference, I accept that Wikipedia doesn't like that kind of site, consequently I am using, instead, the EWTN website reference that has been accepted by everyone until now as appropriate for Wikipedia. To respond to IRWolfie's other point that I have not shown here the text I want to insert, I draw his attention to Noleander's 'Comment' which includes the text which, I say again, I am ready to modify if appropriate.--Sasanack (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason why the self published opinions of a Supporter of vassula's should be reported as fact. you appear to be effectively trying to get the opinons of this supporter included indirectly. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• 'Note Another SPA, Arkatakor, who was posting on the same issue has iniated an identical thread at WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

EWTN is not a great secondary source, but their summary of the Vatican CDF's four Ryden-related documents here fails to mention dialogue, positive or otherwise. TLIG.ORG i.e. Ryden's supporters, appear to be the only one that is advancing the idea of "positive dialogue". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

With respect, have you actually read any of these documents? I quote from Cardinal Ratzinger's letter which is the 3rd document on your linked page: Afterwards, and at her request, a thorough dialogue followed. At the conclusion of this dialogue, a letter of Mrs. Ryden dated 4 April 2002 was subsequently published in the latest volume of "True Life in God"--Sasanack (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the article Talk page, there are lots of words and phrases contained in those primary sources. Which ones should Wikipedia emphasize? Which ones should Wikipedia overlook? Depends on your point of view. Which is why Wikipedia editors don't analyze primary sources and selectively emphasize words and phrases from them. Instead, we wait for independent secondary sources to do that for us. Also, there seems to be some confusion on your part about what is a primary source vs. a secondary source. This is EWTN's own summary of the four documents, which if EWTN were reliable and independent, could be considered a secondary source. This is the text of one of the four documents that's been reproduced on EWTN's website, it's still a primary source. All this may seem like mere technicality to you, but the encyclopedia's policies, taken as a whole, are intended to prevent individual analysis and WP:UNDUE emphasis on fringe or non-notable points of view in our articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Whilst you have now succesfully clarified for me the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, I am unclear whether you are saying a primary source is better than a secondary source or vice versa? It all seems a rather academic to me. Cardinal Ratzinger's letter is not very long, maybe you are ok about it being printed on the Wikipedia page and then people can interpret it whatever way they want?--Sasanack (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Re being unclear whether a primary source is better than a secondary source, I believe that WP:PRIMARY will answer all of your questions. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sasanack, I think the Roman Catholic Church's stance on Ryden section of the article needs some cleaning up, but I don't think highlighting one letter out of four would be an improvement, and indeed it would go against WP's undue emphasis guidelines. The mainstream independent sources that have mentioned Ryden's status with the church as of 2005 merely note that the Vatican has issued warnings about Ryden, they don't go into any detail or analysis such as you wish to add. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In which case, are you agreeable to me inserting something like: "Later, from 2001 to 2004, Ryden was in dialogue with the CDF which ended with the Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger, sending a clarification letter to some Bishop's Conferences" with the EWTN site as reference?--Sasanack (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No because that emphasizes a trivial detail that hasn't been emphasized in a secondary source. However (and other non-SPA editors would need to agree to this) I could see one possible solution might be to rewrite the article's Roman Catholic stance section to summarize EWTN's summary of those four letters (clearly attributing it to EWTN and linking to it as the cited source). That way readers clicking on the source get links to the individual letters, and WP gets a dispassionate. TLIG.ORG-spin-free overview of the RC church's correspondence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a viable option. EWTN is not a relaible source for the interpretation of Vatican documents. They lack credible expertise and do not have a sufficient reputation for fact checking. They're pretty low on the food chain as far as Catholic information sources go, and I would never use them for anything that's controversial, like this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

How can you say that "a thorough dialogue" (as described by Cardinal Ratzinger) between the CDF and Vassula is a trivial detail?? Nevertheless, as a way forward, I am open to a re-writing of the Roman Catholic stance which, as it stands, is highly misleading and inadequate. However, I don't know what Arkatakor's view would be. For the sake of the dispute editors, there seems to be only 2 pro-Vassula editors able to edit the Vassula page as it is currently locked.--Sasanack (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Editors should be editing neutrally, and not pro- anything. That you consider yourself pro-Vassula in your editing and want more for "balance" by gettting more pro-vassula editors to edit is worrying and suggests a WP:BATTLEFIELD type mentality. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is more than a trivial detail then we would have a independent secondary source to make that connection. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Some useful comments have now been added on another noticeboard which are relevant to all this. I think it is fairly clear from the above that a group of editors are blocking a piece of factual information which upsets them and it appears that there is no easy way to stop them. As Fifelfoo says on the other noticeboard about the best source of information about the CDF/Vassula dialogue, "The treatment of Hvidt's work above, and on the article's talk page, is frankly appalling.". Yet Wikipedia seems not to have any way to counteract such behaviour by editors. Nevertheless, I will continue to try to find other WP processes to deal with this problem.--Sasanack (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You may want to declare your conflict of interest as the owner of the tlig.org website. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never hidden the fact that I am a supporter of Vassula and promote the messages wherever I can. I am neither the creator nor administrator of the tlig.org website although I have a responsibility for the domain name. As I have explained before, one would expect supporters of someone like Vassula to be the main contibutors to a page of information about her. It has certainly been exasperating to deal with editors, who clearly knew virtually nothing about her or her mission, deleting material in such a 'gung ho' manner. Again, I repeat that the editors who are blocking information do appear to be irreligious and this appears to be their motivation in involving themselves in the Vassula page.--Sasanack (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a thread related to this at COIN. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

...At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sasanack. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

COIN has closed with agreement that Sasanack does have a conflict of interest. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What a pity that the Wikipedia dispute resolution system can happily make solemn pronouncements on conflicts of interest yet cannot do anything to correct the blocking from Wikipedia of highly relevant factual information about Vassula. For the record, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) wrote in 2004 that, "this Congregation published a Notification in 1995 on the writings of Mrs. Vassula Ryden. Afterwards, and at her request, a thorough dialogue followed. At the conclusion of this dialogue, a letter of Mrs. Ryden dated 4 April 2002 was subsequently published in the latest volume of "True Life in God" The original letter can be viewed here and the translation on the 3rd party website (which is negative about Vassula) here. Why is Wikipedia not able to show this information? --Sasanack (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Why is Wikipedia not able to show this information?". have you read WP:RS? I believe that the answer to your question is there. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

EWTN is a perfectly reliable and appropriate reference source and is used on the Vassula page elsewhere. So I repeat, why is the information being blocked? Also, just in case you haven't read the words of Wikipedia's founder a month or so ago on his talk page: "I believe that the most effective change we can make to policy in this area is for WP:V to be changed to move the words further apart, so that "verifiability, and not truth" tends to go away as a mantra. It is false. It doesn't describe how we work, nor does it describe how we should work.". Sadly, we have here an excellent illustration of Wikipedia acting just in the way Mr Wales is complaining about.--Sasanack (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I, like Curb Chain, Noleander, and Guy Macon, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN.:

• Comment re Jimbo: Though I think from your use of the word "complaining" you may know this already, but that statement by Jimbo was followed by his acknowledgement that, though that's his opinion, that the community recently considered and rejected the change to WP:V that he believes needs to be made. He wasn't happy about either the rejection or the manner in which the rejection came about, but he also made clear that he didn't want people to edit war over it based on his opinion. Also be aware that Jimbo has also said that "as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with 'Jimbo said...' is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think."

It is unfortunate that Mr Wales' proposals have not been accepted. This shouldn't be a surprise because I think there are probably quite a lot of editors out there who quite enjoy deleting stuff - a bit of a power trip I think.

• Comment re use elsewhere in article and blocking: I have not dissected the history of the article to see what's going on but the most likely answer to your objection that EWTN being used elsewhere in the article is very likely simply that no one has yet challenged those usages and that they, too, might very well be deleted if someone bothers to do so. We're all volunteers here and stuff gets put in all the time that violates the rules or shouldn't be here for other reasons (I'm not taking a position, by the way, on whether EWTN is or is not a reliable source; I've not looked at that question and, at this point in time, have no opinion about it, though for the nonce I do defer to the opinions of my colleagues here at DRN). Until someone both chooses and gets around to doing something about it, it sticks around. That could very well be what's happened with the other uses of EWTN in the article. About "blocking," I have not, again, seen what has happened that you are referring to as "blocking" but I suspect that your edits are merely getting reverted or objected-to. Without any intent to imply anything pro or con about the correctness or propriety of those reverts or objections, let me say that they are in no way "official," it's just those editors' opinions and, indeed, if my colleagues or I here at DRN have agreed with them then, with that same cavil, that's just our opinions, too. We decide things by consensus around here and just because one or a few editors feel one way about something, it doesn't mean that they're right. If you want to bring the attention of more editors (and, in theory, the entire community) onto a question the way to do it is through a request for comments, more about which in a moment.

There are two points to make about the EWTN references on the Vassula page. The editors who are blocking the insertion of information about the Vatican-Vassula dialogue are quite happy with the EWTN reference for the Notification information and the Levada letter, but when the reference is used for the Ratzinger document it suddenly becomes an unsuitable reference! EWTN (who are NOT Vassula friendly) correctly list four documents, yet my editor friends are blocking just the one document which refers to the dialogue. And yes, the blocking is achieved by these editors instantly reverting any insertion of the item about the dialogue, followed by accusations of warring if I revert them. With regard to the suitability of EWTN as a suitable reference, I fail to see why it is unsuitable. Noleander says the site "is not a rock-solid scholarly source". Well, probably not, but do all citations need to refer to 'rock-solid scholarly sources'? Undoubtedly the best reliable source of all the dealings of Vassula with the Vatican is the cdf-tlig.org site but this has been rejected out of hand because the owner of the site is a supporter of Vassula. But I am happy to see that editors have now come forward challenging that assumption.

• Mostly-rhetorical inquiry: In light of the Vatican's subsequent statement in 2007, I'm not at all certain why this 2004 statement is worth arguing about. What do you, Sasanack, see that it adds to the article? (For reasons I'm about to explain, this is mostly a rhetorical question at this point and place in time, though you are free to answer it if you care to do so.)

It is important to recognize that the 1995 Notification and the 2007 letter are effectively warnings and are not rulings. The Vatican has no jurisdiction over Vassula who is Greek Orthodox. Also, neither document involved any dialogue with Vassula on any level. The ONLY dialogue that has taken place between Vassula and the Vatican is that which took place between 2001 and 2004 and it resulted in the positive letter from Cardinal Ratzinger which is being blocked from Wikipedia. And Cardinal Ratzinger is now the present Pope. Hiding this information from the Wikipedia page totally destroys the neutrality of the Roman Catholic stance section.

• Possible ways forward: There is a mechanism here at Wikipedia for the inclusion of material which would be otherwise excluded by policy if the community believes that its inclusion is in the best interest of the encyclopedia: The IAR local exception process. The community can, by consensus, agree to ignore the rules and include the material. The best way to go about that would be to start an request for comments on the article talk page, clearly stating the desired edit, the policy-based objections which have been made to it, and the reason that you believe that its inclusion would best benefit the encyclopedia. I would strongly suggest that you very clearly and explicitly make a request that if the consensus of the community is that policy would ordinarily prevent the inclusion of your desired edits that you are requesting consensus for an IAR local exception to the rules, as otherwise you may simply get another "policy prevents it" result. A compelling answer to the inquiry I just made above will, I feel, be essential in obtaining such a consensus and it will be important to remember in constructing your request that the only proper reason for an IAR local exception is that ignoring the rules would benefit the encyclopedia in this instance more than following them. Arguments that the rules are misguided in general, or that an exception would benefit or be more fair to Ms. Ryden or her work, will probably be of no avail. Finally, an RFC can also be used to obtain the consensus of the community on whether the rules do, in fact, prevent the use of these sources, if that's all you care to do.

All the above advice is most useful and needs reflection before a decision is taken as to the next stage.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC) PS: Though my foregoing wall-o-text is already far too long, I neglected to mention that, yes, indeed, I am also the coordinator at the Mediation Cabal that closed your request for mediation there because this discussion here at DRN was not yet concluded. You are free to refile that request if you do not like the results here and choose to go that way, rather than go on to an RFC. I would note, however, that all that mediation (whether through MEDCAB or formal mediation at WP:MEDCOM) can achieve is negotiation of a settlement between the editors who are already in the dispute. If any of them are intransigent or are unwilling to engage in the mediation process, it is not likely to succeed, whereas RFC can bring new editors and new opinions into the mix. It's your choice, if you choose to do anything at all. — TM 15:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to make a quick response, TransporterMan, to your lengthy and detailed response. You have restored my faith in Wikipedia! For the first time since editing the Vassula page someone has made a serious attempt to look at the problem and respond in a constructive way. I want to respond to everything you have said tommorrow after reflecting on all your points. But thank you very much for this response which is greatly appreciated.--Sasanack (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now responded to your points, TransporterMan, inserting my responses in italics under each of your points. Once again, many thanks for your help. --Sasanack (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

==Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Vassula Ryden". Thank you. ==

Since you have been involved in the Vassula Ryden talk page with the CDF discussion I felt it appropriate to notify you that there is an ongoing dispute which can be found here, should you wish to participate. Arkatakor (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Your recent editing history at Vassula Ryden shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It is incredibly disappointing to get this message! From the article history page which presumably prompted the above message, you should have been able to see that I made just 3 edits within a very short period of time. My edits were simply a rather messy attempt to remove DominusV's 2 non-English citations. Messy because the DominusV editor started reversing my edit before I had finished! My removal of the non-English citations was based on the reasonable assumption that such citations would not be allowed. But through this simple attempt to improve the Vassula page, I am accused of 'warring'. All this does lend credence to my belief that there are strong forces at work trying to stop any attempt to make the Vassula page more balanced. I hope you have been reading the constructive DRN discussion going on which includes many helpful contributions from experienced and neutral editors. The most thoughtful is worth copying below:--Sasanack (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've now thought about this for several days and my belief is that the Roman Catholic Church stance section cannot be based upon the four Vatican documents (that is, the 1995 and 1996 Notifications, the 2004 Ratzinger letter, and the 2007 Levada letter). While I believe that sourcing issues for these documents have not been adequately resolved, that issue plays no part in my feeling about this matter. The problem lies in the fact, first, that these are indisputably primary documents under Wikipedia policy and under that policy any interpretation or synthesis of them is absolutely forbidden. Second, I have read and re-read these documents, Hvidt's very useful but Wiki-unreliable analysis of them and history of Ryden's relations with the Vatican at cdf-tlig.org, Hvidt's interview with Ratzinger which touched on these issues, and a couple of other sources, and am still uncertain what exactly those four Vatican documents mean. They are extremely vague and, indeed, appear to be self-contradictory even within the same document, and can thus be read in a number of different ways. (Indeed, I keep re-reading them and thinking, "oh, THAT'S what they mean," only to decide a few minutes later that I'm wrong about my conclusion.) In light of that, it is now my belief that no direct summary or abridged verbatim recitation of them can be undertaken without, or without implying, some degree of analysis or synthesis, and that is absolutely forbidden by the primary policy. Even stating the conclusion that no clear conclusion can be drawn from them requires analysis and synthesis. To set them out in their entirety would give this issue undue weight and, even if it did not, the situation is analogous to Wikipedia's position on scientific and medical research papers, whose use is disapproved because, among other reasons, they can easily be (intentionally or unintentionally) misinterpreted by non-experts. For that reason I believe that all discussion of the Roman Catholic Church's stance should be excluded from the article unless reliable secondary sources can be found which analyze it. Hvidt's book is one such secondary source, but it makes no reference to the 2007 Levada letter and appears to have been published before that letter could be taken into consideration by Hvidt and its use alone would, I fear, raise neutral point of view issues. It appears from the footnotes in Hvidt's book that there has been, at least in the past, a great deal of secondary writing about Ryden and the Roman Catholic Church. Those references, like Hvidt's book, may be too outdated and/or non-Wiki-reliable to provide a complete and neutral point of view, but the number of them gives me to believe that there have probably subsequently been at least a number of potential secondary sources written which take into consideration the 2007 letter. My opinion is, therefore, that all use of those four Vatican documents and the Hvidt book as references should be removed and that unless new Wiki-reliable secondary sources can be found for the section that it ought to be removed from the article altogether. The Wikipedia verifiability standard is that no information is preferable to inadequately or non-neutral information. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan's response was on whether secondary sources can be found, and they have. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You people must spend your life in Wikipedia.... But with regard to your response, let's see what TransporterMan thinks of your responses to his item. I would be very surprised if they changed his or the other DRN chap, Guy Macon's position which is fair and balanced.--Sasanack (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You made 3 separate reverts. I wanted you to understand that a 4th revert could get you blocked. Have you read WP:3RR? This is a technical thing. There were no BLP issues or vandalism involved. Whether you were right or wrong doesn't matter. I accept that you didn't realise that non-English sources are allowed. I haven't looked at Wikipedia for the last few hours, so unless you've continued to revert there is no chance of your being blocked, and I would never block you. But do read WP:3RR carefully. And that was an edit war or at least the potential start of one - you remove material, someone reverts you, it happens again - that's how edit wars start. 15:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your response on my talk page but you haven't understood what I was trying to say. I made ONE revert but then things got technically messy as I tried to remove 2 separate citations while DominusV (unknown to me) reverted my original edit. I think if you are going to warn people in that formal way you should be certain of what has happened. The whole situation remains very strange from a 'part-time' editor's point of view. The whole behaviour of the 'group of 4' editors (as I like to call them) is aggressive and negative yet they are never criticised. The DRN has at least brought forward independent editors making helpful and constructive comments and suggestions. Sadly, as I explained on that noticeboard, there is absolutely no readiness by the g of 4 to compromise or accept any of the suggestions. I think you are unlikely to need to ban me because the whole experience on Wikipedia has been so discouraging and negative that I think I probably need to get out of here sooner rather than later.--Sasanack (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking again and seeing that there were 0 minutes between your revert and the editor's revert, I'm surprised there wasn't an edit conflict. Anyway, I've struck my warning. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of COI

Regarding my recent comments on WP:DRN, I was telling the person who accused you of having a COI to talk about article content, not about other editors. I didn't want to get into it too deep because then I would be talking about other editors, but I want you to know that as far as I can see you are doing everything right by being forthcoming about being a supporter of Vassula, and Wikipedia has no problem with that - NPOV means that your edits have to be neutral, not that the editors have to be neutral. The best thing to do is to ignore such comments and focus on article content as you have been doing. if the COI accusations get worse I will take the appropriate action.

(For the benefit of anyone reading this, the above does not support or oppose Sasanack's positions. I personally have nearly zero interest in the topic other than wanting to see the dispute get resolved) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Warning about personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

This edit summary of yours: [[2]], is a serious violation of our civility policies, especially WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Outbursts like this are disruptive and not conducive to collaborative editing by establishing consensus. Please refrain from making such comments in the future, and focus instead on content. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am with Dominus Vobisdu on this one. That was completely out of line. I suggest apologizing and saying that it won't happen again. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just apologized on the article talk page (before I saw this). But I need to get out of here rather quickly as I'm getting a very nasty taste in my mouth about what is happening. --Sasanack (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

There is a thread at WP:ANI that concerns you, Second Quantization (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)