User talk:Vassyana/Archive004

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Creator deity; East Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency); Michael Mates; Religion in India; Poultry; Divine United Organization; Gymnasium (school); Swarupanand; Fermanagh and Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency); Tao Yin; Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Scottish Parliament constituency); Edinburgh Central (Scottish Parliament constituency); U; North Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency); Es (Cyrillic); Satya Yuga; North-East Cork (UK Parliament constituency); Duke of Zhou; Mid Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency)

Cleanup: The Da Vinci Code (film); 2nd millennium; Reydon
Merge: Relics attributed to Jesus; Scottish representatives to the 1st Parliament of Great Britain; Hercules
Add Sources: Wu wei; Neale Donald Walsch; Aspects of Pluto
Wikify: Pauline McNeill; Chris Heaton-Harris; Young Marble Giants
Expand: Moral realism; Stir of Echoes; Power vacuum

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory mediation

We don't seem to be able to get very far without you. Would you be able to step in and get us moving forward again? Jonathan Tweet 14:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaj Marg

Hello Vassyana. I did not realize until this morning that this article is mediation. FYI, I did quite a bit of research and found no third-party sources on the subject besides a small entry on Melton's Encyclopedia of Religions. On that basis, I have suggested that the articles are merged and a stub created with just basic information. This could diffuse the dispute, I believe. As I know that mediation is a delicate affair, I will refrain from engaging editors so that you can have the space needed to mediate the dispute without interferences. Be well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of User:Kelpin

Hi Vassyana, thanks for letting me know. Hope it goes well. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with this. Please ignore my last email Akhilleus has sorted out the ip block. Kelpin 15:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Thing

Hi. Vision Thing is continuing to edit war on various articles. For example, he has just reverted about 8 editors on Anarchism back to his own version. [1]. -- infinity0 12:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to know that infinity0 again broke his revert parole. (report) -- Vision Thing -- 13:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. Furthermore, you are gaming the system by repeatedly asking me to provide already-given reasons on Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism instead of responding fluidly in a discussion. -- infinity0 14:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Thing is reverting yet again on Anarchism, and is using the fact that I am on revert parole to push through his POV. If you will read through the talk page, you will notice around 5 editors from WP:3O have formed a consensus which Vision Thing repeatedly undermines. -- infinity0 14:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been away from the Anarchism article for a couple of months, believing that the lead was somewhat "settled" and stable. Real changes to the lead were only beginning to be made in the last week or so [2]. These changes were unsourced, and any editor should have been able to remove these edits. There has not been a significant talk page discussion that the lead of the article should be changed. Remember also that it is the editor who adds something to an article who is the one who should defend these changes first on the talk page. Striving for quality articles means that edits must be sourced, unless it pertains non-analytical common knowledge. Intangible2.0 20:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both infinity0 and I were possible subjects of last years Arbitration Committee remedies. However, only he was put on revert parole and that was for a good reason. If you take a look at recent revision history of Anarchism, you will see that infinity0 wasn't trying to enforce consensus. Current version, although I haven't made no edits to it, is basically the version to which I reverted to. I strongly feel that your decision to block me was a wrong one, if anything you should have protected Anarchism page. -- Vision Thing -- 07:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft/Changes since 20-June FOF

Hi Vassyana, I have noted massive changes on the Fellowship of Friends external links section with most of it having been eliminated. I found no discussion entries from you after 9 June on that page, but these changes happened after 20-June and the rationale behind the changes seems to be that the editors are merely conforming to your most recent draft. Since both you and Coren determined that the links are valid and acceptable previously, I found this puzzling. Could you shed any light on this or what the justifications were for eliminating most of the links? thank you Nixwisser 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, Nix - FYI - Just took a look at the page for the first time in a few days, and reverted an edit that deleted a link that had previously been agreed to.--Moon Rising 04:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)p.s. I replaced a total of 3 links that were removed anonymously.--Moon Rising 04:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've closed the mediation for now. Many thanks for your thoughtful guidance. It's nice to know you're still available for help if needed. It's been a pleasure working with you. Warm regards, --Moon Rising 22:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Religion, Religious conversion and Guru

Following your kind invite, I spent a couple of hours working on the grammar of these pages, cutting out what seemed to be clear POV and research that had been proven wrong, removing repetition and un-encyclopedic phrases, and condensing what remained, but a user named Sfacets undid everything in about 5 minutes, calling it vandalism. Working on the assumption I didn't explain what I was doing properly, I will try again tomorrow. But I get the feeling some assistance might be required if these sloppy and turgid pages are to be improved. I think someone likes them that way. (No accounting for taste.) Rumiton 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, call off the emergency response team, another admin has done some changes that are working well, and hasn't been reverted. Looks promising. Rumiton 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User gstaker

Hello Vassyana. I want to bring to your attention that Gstaker has reinserted onto his talk page the libel about ex-premies (myself included) and more links to his website one-reality.net. Now he's added an unsupported accusation at the bottom of his talk page saying that ex-premies hacked his website's server. I would appreciate it if you look into Gstaker's persistent use of Wikipedia to personally attack and libel people, at your earliest convenience. Thanks, hope you're well!...Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 12:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vassyana. I have placed two warnings in that talk page and another one at Sylviecyn's talk page. Before this escalates any further, I would appreciate your intervention. I would suggest deletion of both user and talk pages, allowing Gstaker to start a new user page that is compliant with WP:USER and WP:TALK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Help

Hi, six of my articles have put up by AfD by the same person and are being voted on all by the same persons.. I was wondering if you could look the articles over and the things written on the discussion pages and give me your honest answer as to should they be up for vote or am I being paranoid? The articles are:

Last week I lost one of my articles and I thought it was a good faith AfD but now with six more up for vote this week I think there is more behind these AfD then good faith. Callelinea 13:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the Rape Talk Page

There is a discussion on the rape talk page that has errupted. An anonymous user originally requested a citation to a fact that was cited later in the article. The discussion has changed to how my posts are to be interpreted and has become ugly on all sides. There is no issue as far as the article is concerned, and I am of the opinion that the whole discussion would best be removed now that another user has become involved. I would not remove other individual's edits on my own, and the description of the mediation process seems more geared towards disputes over articles rather than something such as this. I was unable to find where such a request would go. Yours or another's guidance in resolving this matter would be appreciated. Legis Nuntius 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaj Marg page

Dear Vassyana,

Rumiton suggest I write you for advice (I posted the same message on Jossi's board per his advice as well).

As you probably know, we've posted a pretty clean stub for the Sahaj Marg page, that a few of us have been tweaking today and this past week.

Now that it's up, I am wondering how we keep it relatively intact? Rumiton suggested putting a box at the top cautioning people about changes. This might work but given the passion of some editors it might take daily vigilance to keep it clean. Another idea is to protect it, with a mechanism for changing it (something like, "This page is protected yet open for improvement. Please discuss suggestions on the talk page and they will be discussed/considered once weekly [or monthly]"). Would this be reasonable?

Advice is appreciated.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection is a last resort, because the default ideal is a page open to anyone for editing. A relatively pleasant way to encourage people to be cautious would be to place {{subst:Controversial-Article}} and {{Underdiscussion}} at the top of the article. Here explains the first. And here you can see the second template. For your own reference, here is a big list of templates and message types. If you have any further questions, please ask. Vassyana 21:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vassyana, Thanks for your quick response. I'm traveling today and will look at these carefully in about 24 hours. Appreciate your help. Renee --Renee 01:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat

Vassyana

I’ve put an updated version of the Rawat article at Rawat Bioproposal nr2 and a notice on the PR talk page. I don’t know whether this acceptable, but having already tried to engage with other editors and not exactly achieved a meeting of minds I thought that actually presenting something comprehensive was the best way forward. Anyway I would welcome your thoughts on the update.

--Nik Wright2 10:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arran

Hi Vassyana. I would like to ask for your help with regard to the article Arran (Azerbaijan). It recently became an arena of edit war, when certain users moved it to a new title of Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan) without consensus on talk. But now it seems that a solution to the dispute, acceptable for everyone, could be moving the article to Arran, which is now a disambiguation page. The current contents of Arran can be moved to Arran (disambiguation), and the page Arran (Azerbaijan) or Arran could be moved to Arran. I would like to keep the history of the article about Arran, and therefore I need assistance of an admin. I would appreciate if you could help. Thanks in advance. Regards, --Grandmaster 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not touching this while the arbitration is active, in the absence of consensus. Vassyana 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. I proposed this move on talk, and no one objected. So now I proposed this move once again in a separate section on talk, so if everyone agrees, it should be alright. But I will understand if you prefer to stay out of this. --Grandmaster 11:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

balanceRestored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You may be interested in taking a look at this ANI thread. Thanks. Abecedare 07:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how long will I have to edit with the required conditions? It becomes too difficult to address issues. It is easy for other editors to just revert the edit and ignore the talk. That is what AB did. When I complained at ANI, I got blocked. It was ABs mistake but I got punished because of the condition. Look I am here to present facts but if people do not want to accept that because some factual errors could be there for more than 5000 years, that is when Indian's learned to write lot of manuscripts. Again, trying to bring facts some times I will get alone.. :-) .. Never Mind I've learnt to exercise patience a lot from my pervious block. Can you please help me out here, or alteast direct me to texts that will help me reaching my problems. I know you and many more editors are watching everything and you all are very helpful. Is there a way I am mediate expert opinions about the research that's being done so that the facts are brought up.BalanceRestored 09:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found citations with all the detailed study about the 5 Vedas being present. I used this new book to mention the 5th Veda.BalanceRestored 18:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a look at this new ANI complaint filed by BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) ? He has also raised the issue at Talk:Vedas, Talk:Nastika and User:Buddhipriya's and my talk page. Abecedare 05:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Christian Church; Folk Christianity; Stephen Morris; Creator deity; 349 Dembowska; The Tao of Physics; Tao Yin; 423 Diotima; Swarupanand; 471 Papagena; Peter Gandy; 354 Eleonora; List of messiah claimants; Christian republic; Divine United Organization; Evangelism; Alexander of Constantinople; Missiology; 418 Alemannia

Cleanup: 2nd millennium; Chinese Orthodox Church; Chronology of Jesus
Merge: Relics attributed to Jesus; Sunday Christian; Essenes
Add Sources: Religion in Russia; Revelation; List of Christian denominations by number of members
Wikify: Seth; Argument from free will; John Ankerberg
Expand: 2047; Whit Monday; Atonement

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Sig

Seems fine too me, "sex" is not that awful of a word. Also, I'm not sure how to fix the edit section issue. Do you? Please fix if you can.—trey^{is the editor that has sex in their sig} 21:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out if you click my rule box, you edit the test section. It is all off by 1.—trey^{is the editor that has sex in their sig} 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Gstaker
Hello Vassyana,
I can see from your pov how my message of concern would be regarded as soapboxing. After a few seconds of reflection, I deleted the remaining page contents. This unfortunate conflict has a history that predates Wikipedia. Old habits can be difficult to break.
It has come to my attention that Sylviecyn has disclosed on a public forum my full name, and posted a link to my (now deleted) user talk page. I understand that disclosing the name of an editor in such a fashion constitutes sufficient grounds to have Sylviecyn's user privileges revoked. So far, I have not proceeded in that direction. I would rather let this storm in a bubble die a natural death. However, what steps should I take if I decide to proceed?--Gstaker 02:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please disregard the previous request. --Gstaker 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising sites

Hi Vassyana, what happens when one stumbles upon a site that is basically just advertising? Discount Tire Company seems to be one such, unless they really are the most wonderful tyre retailers in the whole world. I have left a dire warning on their discussion page. What should I have done? Rumiton 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit it down mercilessly. Add any cleanup tags (or better yet {{sofixit}} if possible) as appropriate. AfD if it should possibly be deleted all together. If it should be immediately deleted, go ahead and let a sysop know it is and under what criteria. Hope that helps. Cheers! Vassyana 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Since you blocked an editor for moving without any discussion would you mind looking into the talk page of the article A.R.S.R. "Skadi", which he also moved under identical circumstances? For some reason it is impossible to undo eventhough a request at WP:RM was filed.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lack of consensus on that issue, reading the talk page. Work something out that is agreeable to the majority of participants, if you can. If you need assistance, you can seek assistance in settling the dispute.Vassyana 00:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BalanceRestored

BalanceRestored is engaged in a complaint process at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Promoting_Racial_Slur_at_wikipedia in which I have made mention of the block history for the user as part of the discussion. Would you please review that discussion and the recent edit history for BalanceRestored and determine if the extended conflicts on multiple articles that are taking place now are consistent with the terms you set for lifting the block? See: [3]. Buddhipriya 07:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was deleted from ANI by User:Zscout370 since it got too silly even for that page, but here is the permalink. Balancerestored is now continuing the endless debate on Talk:Nastika page.

My personal opinion is that, unless some experienced and neutral editor is ready to take the responsibility of mentoring this editor, keeping him unblocked under the assumption of good faith, (an assumption that has repeatedly been belied) will only drive away good editors through exasperation and degrade the quality of wikipedia articles. You can review the editors tendentious arguments at these pages: Talk:Vedas, Talk:Vishwabrahmin, Indian caste system. Abecedare 07:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been restored and archived: please see this and this. You'll note the unanimous opinion of the informed and neutral editors; hopefully that will clarify that this is not a content dispute, which would need to be settled through more discussion on talk pages. Abecedare 08:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This disruptive user continues to delete sourced material, as in this edit: [4]. This user has violated the "zero-tolerance" conditions. Can you please reply regarding your position on this? Buddhipriya 01:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is acting in good faith, if sometimes misguided. I'm going to apply some sense and not block him. I've been checking in from time to time. While he is apparently frustrating to work with at times and sometimes apparently overreacts based on his understanding of the topic at hand, he doesn't seem to be doing anything horrible for Wikipedia. Nor does it seem like he is falling into patterns of disruptive editing. When he makes a push on an issue, I fully admit he pushes hard and sometimes a bit inappropriately. However, it doesn't appear to me that he's taking it to a level of disruption and it seems like he's willing to accept consensus after putting some effort into explaining his side/debating the issue, even if grudgingly or without a complete understanding of why it is the consensus view. It's completely possible there are episodes or edits I may have missed. It's not that I'm unwilling to block him, as I have previously imposed a block for violating the conditions. It's just that at the current time, I see no need to block as I believe a block would be questionable and punitive, instead of clear and preventative. Vassyana 01:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that I am puzzled by your position on this. The editor clearly is engaged in disruption due to perceiving Wikipedia as a place for WP:TE#Righting_Great_Wrongs. You did not address this specific edit in which the user removed sourced material because it did not fit his or her religious views: [5]. Please consider the impact on the time and energy of other editors who must deal with this disruptive behavior. Since you are the person who unilaterally lifted the ban, I request that you take responsibility for the consequences of your action by watchlisting articles where the user is engaged in disruption, such as Vedas, and assist with the work of dealing with the religious lectures we are being given. Buddhipriya 23:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the latest example of the user's inability to understand consensus, and attempts at forum shopping in order to subvert it (recall that he has previously raised this topic at ANI, Vedas, and Nastika page). The only positive development I observe is that he is arguing (endlessly) on talk pages rather than edit warring in mainspace. I too believe that the user is well intentioned and therefore think his actions are disruptive rather than vandalism. Anyway, I don't really mind if the user remains unblocked as long as he does not resume edit-warring on article pages, but I do think he needs to be mentored. I have made that suggestion to him earlier but he rejected it saying that he did not mind being reverted. Abecedare 00:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example of where the user has just changed the content of an existing article to suit particular religous beliefs which are inconsistent with the available historical material already in the article: [6]. Here we have a fresh example of forum-shopping regarding the racial slur issue that has been raised in multiple places: [7]. Buddhipriya 00:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message regarding the second and similar behaviour in general for him. On the first, that seems like a normal content disagreement. In fact, he apparently did exactly what he should do. He explained his edits and provided a reference to support his claims. I fail to see exactly how that is a problem. Vassyana 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana thanks for your concern, the problem is not with Abecedare or Buddhipriya the problem is in the things we are taught. There are in fact 2 conflicting versions of Yajur Veda where I find linage of Vishwabrahmins in one and while in the other the linage is not present. I belong to South India and to the Vishwabrahmin sect while both Abecedare, Buddhipriya belong to north india. The thing happens is when I try to write what I am taught, it contradicts Abecedare, Buddhipriya and when they write, it contradicts mine. But, again what I find is both Abecedare and Buddhipriya are very strict when I am editing, and you will find 100% of articles with Hinduism actually not cited but both Abecedare and Buddhipriya are not that strict with them. The reason is simple and understood both Abecedare and Buddhipriya take these personally. But believe me since I stay in the Mid of India and I have to move to south often. I know these differences better. I am sure there are people from the north who will be shocked with things those are written. But, we are also there. We also believe in what we are being told. It is good you all asked me to provide evidences for everything which I've been providing. Again, I have no objection to what Abecedare and Buddhipriya cite. But just do respect what we have been following also. Again only by bringing out things there are other researchers who will be in a position to provide references for the same. Why not mention things with "People in South India" and "People in North India". But, not at all allowing to quote becomes a problem. BalanceRestored 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I also tried to edit an article Pranava Veda which is well known in South India. I provided all the references in the world I could, There is a myth that this Veda is hidden etc. But, inspite of providing all the references I was told this article should not be there because this is something that both of them never heard of. Again all the things those are being followed in Hinduism are a myth the documents are almost 5000 to 10000 year old. Now tomorrow even after getting the article people will say "hey what is the proof that it is original??", it is something like asking God "hey you have come on earth now prove that you are GOD, you could be someone with all the astonishing powers, but why we believe you are GOD" what is poor GOD to do here.BalanceRestored 06:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I am requesting is just let things get in there with a open heart, The boundaries of India also include south of India, again, wikipedia is a globally available place we need to learn to accomodate everyone. Just because both AB and BP are good and strong editors does not mean they should disregard all other edits.BalanceRestored 06:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources question

Dear Vassyana,

I saw Sethie's question and your reply about primary and secondary sources, which was very clear. I have a few more questions:

- I'm a little confused about the difference between secondary sources and third-party sources -- are they the same?

- Is it within Wiki guidelines to put organizational information, like size and location if that information just comes from the source itself? (Where is the line drawn between text and reported facts?)

- If an article has been published in a bona fide magazine or newspaper (with a fact-checking and vetting process), and has been reposted on the source site (because only paper copies exist), does this meet Wiki standards for evidence?

Thanks again for your help.

Renee --Renee 09:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary sources are those that collect and paraphrase secondary materials without new observations. An example would be encyclopedias, such as Brittanica and Wikipedia. Primary sources are allowed very sparingly in the established rules and consensus.
The best use of primary sources is "raw basic facts" such as date of birth, city of residence, membership numbers and so on. It is hard to abuse such "simple" facts to build original research. Basically, the more the facts are simple "raw data" the easier it is to use a primary source in Wikipedia. If the text does more than simply report that data, such as claim it is the highest membership growth in their category (i.e. "fasting growing church") or provide apologetics, you should be very careful. However, even simple facts provided by a primary source can be disputable/unreliable. For example, many churches are criticized for their claims membership numbers because it does not include apostates and other membership loss, just gains. In that case, the primary source can still be used to contrast the criticism, because a NPOV requires a balanced perspective.
Without specifics, I cannot really say. If the site itself is generally unreliable, their claimed use of a source is likewise likely to be considered unreliable, especially if such sites are the only source of that particular information. Otherwise, it's perfectly permissable (and in fact required to properly verify the sources used to use that article as a source, as long as you also provide where you drew the information from. That is, if X website reports about Y article, it is OK to source a claim in Wikipedia with "Y article per X source".

If you have any further questions, please ask. Cheers! Vassyana 01:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This helps a lot. Thanks. Renee --Renee 01:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. Glad my ramblings could be of use. :) Always feel free to ask questions if you have them. Be well!! Vassyana 02:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vassyana. Jossi had suggested a merge of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page with the Sahaj Marg page, but it seems the sentiment was against that, so I went with his second suggestion and proposed a stub given the lack of reliable secondary sources. I've posted it on the talk page and was wondering if you could look at it and give your honest feedback. I deleted anything that (I thought) could be POV, including size of the organization and numbers of centers as there's no verifiable way to prove that. And, I kept things that I know are important to the anti-SRCM persons like the secte information (previously negotiated & agreed upon as a NPOV) and Lalaji's sufi lineage. Thanks, Renee --Renee 14:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Thanks - that brightened my day as it's raining here. I must admit having the tools would be useful sometimes as when you find a vandal it's a slow ol' process to undo all their edit by hand but I still feel I wouldn't be successful as I'm not active enough. Thanks for the offer though. Sophia 12:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

o) I am glad it brightened your day. Vassyana 01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need some time

Dear Vasyana,

I am quite busy (also out of town), I will be responding in due course of time. (will be back after 28th july).but will be relatively free in two or three day's.--Shashwat pandey 10:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you for the notice. Vassyana 01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sahaj Marg pages

Hi Vassyana,

I feel if there are two Sahaj Marg pages one Sahaj Marg (California) and another Sahaj Marg (India) that will solve the dispute, With one SRCM page, in any case court case will decide which group is going to remain and which group has to go, but they both will teach Sahaj Marg only, hence if there are two Sahaj Marg pages both with their own method's that will solve the purpose and the dispute as well. kindly advice your view's.

thnaks --Shashwat pandey 22:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could explain how the two groups are different and how such an article split would help resolve the dispute on the mediation page, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Vassyana 18:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Religion

Hi there buddy. Do you still think the above article needs an expanded Guru section? The two Guru pages which are linked to it are pretty comprehensive. Cheers, Rumiton 08:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man

Wowza...69.110.68.221 was not happy with you, me, nor Riana! Ah, good times. Thanks for deleting the page; I should have been all over it! Jmlk 1 7 05:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've protected the talk page to prevent further abuse.[8] I've also blocked the IP directly.[9] Vassyana 05:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome...thanks, and good job :). Jmlk 1 7 05:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

69.110.68.64

Thanks for taking care of that guy, it strange, he only had an auto block and when nuts like that, some people are strange. Take care! --Chris ^g 06:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've also blocked the IP directly due to the abusive edits.[10] Vassyana 06:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

You can actually close the case if you want to. I think that the case is not such an big issue; it's not really affecting their editing, nor has any recent discussion fired up. The main problem was "edit war", a problem which usually cools down quickly. MedCab does say that "We facilitate communication and help parties reach an agreement by their own efforts", and nothing much has been done between the two editors to solve the issue. If they really want some sort of judgement, they can ask other ports of dispute resolution. Sr 13 06:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Vassyana 06:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing mediation

I noticed you are a part of the mediation committee. Please help me out with this vital issue. This mediation request needs to be resumed. The dispute is based primarily on two users, others were later invited. The mediation should not be cancelled due to one disruptive user who has played a minor role. The naming policy has not yet been taken into consideration. This isssue has long been unresolved. Please let me know if this mediation can be continued, or let me know what can be done otherwise. It is very important that this be solved, as the major parties are determined to help get there. Thank you. --Shamir1 12:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-17 Adolescent sexual behavior

Both parties have been made aware, and I have posted a reminder a week ago on the article's talk page, but they seem to still be edit warring. As this is a volunteer process I do not want to yell too much. ;) --Cerejota 12:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:touching base

I asked both parties to return with sources to improve the article, but it has not happened and one of the parties has since stopped editing the article. It looks like South Tibet might end up being redirected, because sufficient sources do not exist. I'd say that the mediation can be closed, because the original reason for opening it (conflict between the two parties) no longer exists.--Danaman5 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleep OR/Synthesis

Thanks for jumping in on the NOR talk page. I feel like I've been beating my head against a brick wall trying to convince the opposing editors that the content I've identified is indeed OR/Synthesis!

I've tried to lay out all the information to them, and even created a sandbox for everyone to produce and discuss sources for the OR...but the argument still continues and no sourcing has been done (except for one small find - someone calling it 'pseudoscience' - which I actually thought would be easy for them to source...but it took days for them to get one...;)

And hey, I totally agree with your comments on the 'revert limitation' proposal in the Paranormal ArbCom. Hopefully it won't pass. Dreadstar † 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, almost forgot..I put an 'unsigned' tag on your post. Dreadstar † 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is such an excellent post, [11]! It's so good that I quoted you on the bleep talk page. Dreadstar † 06:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the disputing editors decided to post an RfC on this issue. I quoted you again...but feel free to add your comment to the RfC section of Bleep's talk page! I'll retract my quote of your comment if you want me to. Dreadstar † 10:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy misunderstanding

It is easy to see how your misunderstanding arises, however you need to read more carefully the paragraph you have twice edited.

German scholar claims Paul and Peter clashed.
Bible says Paul and Peter clashed.
Bible is quoted.

I'm happy for you to change the paragraph and put the primary source first.

Bible quote.
Bible says Paul and Peter clashed.
German scholar says Paul and Peter clashed.

The secondary source is subordinate to the primary source. The scholar is verified by the primary source. The reader can verify it for himself.

Sourced material, let alone sources is not to be removed. Edit warring is also proscribed. Your second rv w/in 24 hours initiates an edit war. I presume, like me, you are too busy to keep files on changes for 24 hours or a week. I recommend you allow the original cited text to stand. And not push yourself to a 3rr breach. Use the talk page to gain consensus. If your argument has merit, it will be seconded.

As it turns out, your original research argument is invalid and would not over-ride the other policies -- clearly sourced, not to be removed w/out consensus, don't edit war, let original edit stand. Look again carefully at the context. I doubt even a single other editor would second your personal judgement in this, let alone a consensus. Prove me wrong!

Please follow Wiki procedure and attempt to gain consensus on the talk page if you are so confident you have a case. Cheers Alastair Haines 13:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying to me so promptly. Thank you also for sharing how you feel about things. Let me admit that I found your second reversion irritating. I respect you for your first edit (even though I disagree). I also respect you for interacting with me on my talk page. It is VERY easy to see you are acting in good faith.

I am not aware of a single scholar who denies that Paul and Peter argued, or of a single scholar who argues that their disagreement was over whether Jewish customs were madatory for Christians. On the other hand, I am aware of hundreds who consider the significance of the issue.

Now, I am actually far from clear about what your objection is. OR, OR, OR you say. OR can be a big problem with primary sources. It is not a necessary problem, or primary sources would never be quoted at Wiki, which would be crazy. But nor are secondary interpretations always cited with primary sources. President Bush spoke of an "axis of evil". Which some people interpret to mean "..." This is not needed, because everyone knows what he meant, there is no diversity of opinion on what he meant, just a diversity of opinion on whether he was right to say it, or act the way he has.

As it turns out, I'm an expert on the Bible. That does not mean I know what every part of it means. Nor does it mean I know which secondary views are right and which are wrong. All it means is I'm very familiar with the contents and meaning of the primary source, and of places where that meaning is disputed, the alternative views, who holds those views and why. Jehovahs Witnesses think Jesus is not God, because the Trinity is illogical in their thinking and so they translate some Greek in funny ways. I can see their point. I personally disagree as it turns out. But if I was writing a Wiki article on John 1, I would include their view, and the reasons for it, and where they give their reasons. But I would also give the readers English translations and Greek language sources so they could evaluate the positions. I would have a lot of fun trying to ensure the strongest possible case for each view was presented.

Regarding Paul and Peter, there just is no debate. Well, there is, but no one denies they argued, nor do people suggest the reason was anything other than over whether Gentile Christians should be made to adopt Jewish customs. Circumcision was the biggest point, but there were other features.

Let me also add. I think the German scholar's opinions were quoted in the article without sufficient context. When I showed up at the page, there was a sentence that made it look as though his views implied Christianity was shaped by Judaism in an ongoing fashion in the first century. That is not what the scholar says himself! An editor quoted a secondary source out of context to push his own POV. That's another version of the whole OR issue. Secondary sources can be mistreated just as badly as primary sources.

How did I deal with this? Delete the sentence? Call it OR or POV? No, I modified it so the scholar was reported as saying what he actually said, and provided additional evidence from the primary source the scholar was using to make his point. I gave more information, in fact, the only additional information was sources and what those sources said. I didn't express an opinion, didn't even relate it to the article. Perhaps one day I'll get around to doing that. Hopefully someone else will do it sooner. It's very interesting and very relevant to Early Christianity, the topic of the article.

Anyway, four concluding points:

I commend your diligence at Wiki, please consider correcting by addition rather than subtraction (it's gentler, and disk space is no problem)
Please keep thinking about how NPOV and sourcing (NOR) work together for the same aim, there is a profound unity
Please think about the difference between uncontroversial and unambiguous information and the NPOV policy on debatable info

(if it's unambiguous and uncontroversial it won't be challenged -- if it is challenged both views need fair representation)

Please respect whatever currently stands in an article, especially if your edit is challenged, in the same way we can edit other people's work, our own edits are open to challenge -- reverting is a necessary feature of Wiki, reverting a revert is never necessary, it's edit warring. If you engage with someone within 24 hours you can talk. Let the original text stand and use the talk page.

Please feel free to point out all my errors. I make plenty, and I never worry about it at Wiki, because there's plenty of people to correct them. Cheers Alastair Haines 15:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a request

Thank you for taking the time to to respond to the helpme tag on article Student. Sorry about its miss use. It is a slow learning process to learn all the features of Wikipedia and how to use them properly. Thanks for your on going support of Wikipedia and I hope that your semi-break is productive. On a separate subject, I was wondering if you would consider adding your vote to the article University of Saskatchewan request to be considered for acceptance as part of the Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive#University of Saskatchewan. They are celebrating their centenial this year and moving the article to feature status would add to that celebration. Your support would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your input on Student and also for considering this additional request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbiel (talk • contribs)

Sorry about forgetting to sign the post. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc/user for Shashwat pandey

Dear Vassyana,

Users Sethie and Reneeholle have filed an Rfc for user Shashwat pandey.

Because you have contributed in some manner to either the Sahaj Marg page, the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page, or both, we would appreciate it if you could provide your comments of this user at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Shashwat_pandey

Here are the guidelines for responding [12]:

Other users can endorse a view (under 1.7), by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.
You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement (under section 1.7), and/or the subject's response (under section 2).

Thank you for your time. It is greatly appreciated! 18:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: touching base

Hi Vassyana, The mediator seems unable to run the case, so it just stalled at the very beginning. If this should continue, we'll need another experienced mediator, or perhaps we should move the whole thing to MedCom. What are your thoughts? Tewfik^Talk 19:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reopen the case to solicit another volunteer. Vassyana 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in 3RR

I saw your message on Digwuren's page. I suggest you apply the rules with the same harshness in the case of another vandal: User:Anonimu. Take a look at the history of Romanian Communist Party and you will understand what disruptive means. Dpotop 08:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the page is protected and the situation is being handled. If that is incorrect, please let me know. Vassyana 21:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pages for Harris

Pages 263-268 for the whole paragraph.

It's my understanding that page numbers are only necessary for direct quotes. If we add page numbers, we multiply the number of footnotes for Harris, and it's not necessary, so I wouldn't do it. That said, I'm not sure how to indicate that a reference applies to the paragraph as a whole, and I don't want to put a reference on each sentence, so I don't have the perfect solution, either.

Jonathan Tweet 02:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleep OR straw poll

There is a straw poll being conducted on the Bleep OR issue. Your input is welcome. Dreadstar † 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Christian Church; The Tao of Physics; Missiology; Creator deity; 418 Alemannia; Churchianity; Folk Christianity; 423 Diotima; 482 Petrina; Tao Yin; Swarupanand; Divine United Organization; 471 Papagena; 349 Dembowska; Duke of Zhou; Alexander of Constantinople; List of messiah claimants; Flavia Maximiana Theodora; Stephen Morris

Cleanup: 2nd millennium; Bernard Sumner; List of Jesus-related articles
Merge: Scrying; Eastertide; Essenes
Add Sources: Religion in Russia; Chinese Orthodox Church; Revelation
Wikify: Martin Hannett; John Ankerberg; A Slight Ache
Expand: Moral realism; Stir of Echoes; Whit Monday

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPOTLIGHT

Feel free to join us in the #wikipedia-spotlight irc channel. :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Clarification

Dear Vassyana,

Sorry to be dense, but I'm still confused then as to whether or not what we put in is okay? All we did was say, "taken to meditation" and list it under attempts at dispute resolution.

I modeled the Rfc after some of the other current Rfcs and they list mediation or arbitration (e.g., [13]; Rktect -- lists request for arbitration; Kuban kazak - lists closed mediation case; Assault 11 - lists request for mediation; Rhode Island Red -- lists refused attempt for mediation).

I totally understand not using any of the discussion in the mediation, but I'm still not clear if it's okay to revert back to what we had, where we list it as an example of something done with the user to try and get consensus?

Thanks, Renee --Renee 10:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vassyana, I just put in "mediation was attempted" and gave the posting saying mediation had been agreed to and not the mediation site itself. [14] Thanks again for the advice. --Renee 02:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Mediation

Were you able to check with your other mediator buddies? Jac_roe^Blank 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]