User talk:Vassyana/Archive011

Refs reorganised

Hi Vassyana, I've Harvardised the main refs in Osho. Do you reckon it's good enough now to pass muster? --Jayen466 00:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look over it and post to the article talk with anything I think either excels or needs some work. Vassyana (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada FAC nomination

I am sorry about your injury and hope that it is healed enough for you to do what you want to do. :) I hope your are allright to have a peek at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anekantavada. I am trying to assume good faith, but somehow certain objections raised seem to a bit frivolous even after giving proper explanation. I hope you can chip in something. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns about the reliability of the portion of Jain World used. It's part of a collection of stories that lacks any indication of the author or source. If the story is noteworthy to the topic, surely some other clearly reliable source has used it as an example?

On another note, there seems to be an inordinate number of quotations in the article. In general, quotes should be used sparingly to illustrate (for the reader's benefit) what is being said in the article or in the rare case when a quotation would provide greater clarity to the article. Vassyana (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have addressed the concerns. I have removed the Jainworld reference all together. The quotations aspect has been addresed by making the smaller quotations as part of prose. I hope you find the article worthy of featured status--Anish (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still very uncomfortable with the number of quotations used, but I wouldn't oppose the article's promotion. I admire the hard work you've invested. Vassyana (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It now a featured article....the nomination and review process was very rigorous and stressful, but worth it and productive after all the unproductive edits wars over Indian religion page. However, I need your help once again. One anon IP is making edits on Indian religions page and adding some material that all Indian religions are offshoots of Hinduism. This is contrary to the consensus with IAF. The IP is refuisng to have a peek on the talk pages and have a debate. I have reverted him twice, but he is insisting on adding his stuff. Can you check out the page?--Anish (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi. I just want to remind you of the mediation case concerning Fatimah. Hopefully, you could help us end the dispute soon. En Ne talk 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm heading to a university library over this coming weekend to find sources for a few things, including the disputed material in Fatima's article. Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana, please be aware of developments on AN/I here, which notes that User:Enforcing Neutrality has been indef blocked. I have withdrawn from mediation on this basis, as nobody other than EN was involved in the dispute: other editors who reviewed the cases were in basic agreement over the inadequacy of the sources. While more sources may be beneficial for the section (although the Encyclopedia of Islam's coverage of the issue is probably sufficient), it isn't something that requires either page protection or formal mediation. Regards, ITAQALLAH 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Unfortunate, but unsurprising. Thank you for notifying me of the updated situation. I will still keep the issue on my search for sources list and if I find anything solid or worthwhile, I'll let you know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sirjoh

Yep, clearly the same user. He was indef-blocked 19 months ago after waging a rather bizarre campaign on Indigenous Australians, trying to get cannibalism added to the article even though all the sources he had for it were more than 70 years old and most of them have been discredited. He's also been adding information suggesting or promoting the idea that the Aboriginals are a dying race, which has not been mainstream in Australia since the 1950s and is arguably disputed by Census figures. His odd campaigning extends into other trigger issues for the far-right in Australia such as Flag of Australia, Australian flag debate, Republicanism in Australia, Australian republic referendum, 1999, Eureka Flag, Eureka Stockade and anything to do with Aboriginals. Essentially he routinely abuses WP:UNDUE, WP:TALK and WP:NPA, adding reams of stuff to talk pages and highly contentious stuff to articles. We all thought he was gone until some odd stuff on my watchlist revealed some odd activity on the republic articles which then led to discovering the rest. Most of his editing is from IPs, relating either to Bigpond (a very large Australian ISP) or Uni of Newcastle. "Sir Joh", by the way, would relate to Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the right wing Premier of Queensland from 1968 to 1986, who's something of a folk hero for people of that persuasion. Orderinchaos 07:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

GEC Conspiracy theory

Hi, I've submitted this article to AfD, quoting your prod reason. I hope that's ok with you. All the best, Verbal chat 16:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

MedCab Co-ordinators

Hi,

I'm wondering what sort of work you do as a MedCab Co-ordinator? cheers   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MedCab is quite informal, and the coordinator position is no exception. There are no defined or specifically expected duties. Generally, I offer advice to volunteers, keep an eye on some cases, ask around for additional volunteers when we need it, and so on. Vassyana (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if...

Hi Vassyana, I wonder if you could take a look at Ronald Reagan, where a dispute between myself and another editor, User:Jimmuldrow, is starting to get out of hand. Here is the page history and three chronological discussions, starting with Talk:Ronald_Reagan#FAR. Here's the general lowdown:

1. On July 30, User:Jimmuldrow inserted a section desribing Reagan's "environmental policies"
2. I reverted, citing the fact that this article is about Ronald Reagan the man, not entirely about Reagan's presidency, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:SS, but I encouraged the user to place a NPOV paragraph related to this subject into Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, a subarticle.
3. The user reverted my edit, saying, "Why talk about Reagan's Presidency but not his policies? If I left out more positive environmental stuff, add facts in instead of removing facts with references."
4. User:SandyGeorgia reverted that edit saying, "Discuss on talk, marginally related to Reagan, likely belongs elsewhere"
5. Jimmuldrow then nominated the article for a featured article review, and created a talk page discussion (under his IP address, later signed properly).
6. On July 31, Many discussions took place, including those at the talk page and the FAR. At both, I outlined my reasons for opposing the insertion of this full paragraph and closing the FAR. The FAR was quickly closed by User:Marskell.
7. Following the closure of the FAR, Jimmuldrow inserted a very similar paragraph to the first one.
8. I shortened down the paragraph, placed it in another paragraph (still getting the general idea across to the reader), thanked Jimmuldrow for his attempts to include necessary context but again encouraged him to place the full paragraph in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration per WP:SS.
9. The user began a talk page section and reverted me in article space.
10. I responded on the talk page and proposed re-implementing this per WP:WEIGHT, WP:SS, and WP:SIZE. I did not revert in article space.
11. After two days without a response from Jimmuldrow, I implemented my proposal. He reverted just over an hour after I put in, saying, "this is closer to what the cited references say".
12. I did not revert him, but commented at the talk page.
13. The following day, Jimmuldrow responded, asking a question regarding WP:WEIGHT.
14. I responded, answering his question in the hopes that we can reach an understanding.
15. Following my answer, he cut out one sentence but apparently some non-NPOV language that we had previously taken out is back. The new paragraph is about Social Security and the environment, two unrelated ideas as well, which I've expressed in my latest comment at the talk page discussion.

So it seems we have made a little progress, but still appear to be engaged in a stalemate. Sorry about the long list, but as a member of MedCab, any comments would be appreciated. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to some personal preconceptions, it would be better if I did not personally become involved. However, with your permission, I will gladly open a MedCab request for you. It might be wise to request a third opinion first, to see if an uninvolved view might help resolve the dispute (I could also file the request for you there if you would like). Just let me know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Well I think things are going better, but if they turn around I may go for that MedCab. I don't think it is necessary at this time, though. But thank you :) Best,

Happyme22 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: original research in Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi

Vassyana, I know you opined on this a few weeks back, but I just learned of this thread a few hours ago. Would you mind revisiting this discussion in WP:NOR/N? I have added some more information, which includes Casteau's decision to completely delete the passage in question. (You can take your time over this: I'll be offline tomorrow & Wednesday due to personal business.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but inasmuch that no one has responded to my latest comment at WP:NOR/N (except Yom, who might be considered biased), should I consider the matter closed & despite everything I wrote C. is in the right about this matter? -- llywrch (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No bother at all! Yom's response seems fairly appropriate and more or less approximates my own opinion. The matter is closed IMO, as the original concern was addressed and there seems to be a clear way forward. Vassyana (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of satanic ritual abuse allegations

Hi,

Waaaaayyy back in March you removed info about the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria allegations. They were replaced a couple weeks later. I've no familiarity with the case, but I wonder if they're appropriate to be included. References were added at the same time as the replacement, but I don't know if they're appropriate and reliable. Thanks, WLU (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a case that makes no assertion to being an SRA case. I removed it and another that similarly lacks SRA elements. Vassyana (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. WLU (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

3O at Talk:Toyota Prius

Hi Vassyana, thanks for your contribution to the discussion at Talk:Toyota Prius#Third opinion. I have replied to it there, and I wondered if you would like to make any further comments. Best regards, -- de Facto (talk). 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-02 History of the Jews in Poland

Hi,

This case is starting to get out of hand, what makes it worse is the other mediator has effectivly bailed out due to ISP issues. I would like someone with experiance, perhaps a member of the mediation commitie to sit in on this one because this is proving a real headache. Thanks   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC) (I have put this notice on the other co-ordinators page also)

I'm asking around to see what assistance I can find. Do you think that a formal RfM may be in order? Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

You previously helped with some editing disputes at Patrick T. McHenry. I've tried the BLP noticeboard, requesting a third opinion--and so far no response. I know admins are busy though. Here are the links where I've tried to work out the dispute: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Patrick_T._McHenry
Talk:Patrick_T._McHenry#Neutrality
User_talk:Ziegfest
User_talk:Ystava
Thanks!! Ystava (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was in the process of providing a third opinion. :D If you have any questions or further concerns, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Toby Keith

Hi there,

You provided a helpful response and solution to the dispute regarding an unsourced edit that an editor insists on adding to the article. Well, the editor is back to adding in the information with no regard to the comments that have been made on the talk page. Do you have any advice on how to further resolve this issue? Thank you.--Startstop123 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you fixed my Twinkle revert (which didn't restore the correct version). I have also left a message on the user's talk page about the matter.[1] Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!--Startstop123 (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I need help

I've tried everything I can to work with an editor, and they just continue to feet-drag, are disruptive, and talk right past me. The relevant conversation is here. You may note that this person seems to subsist only with reverts to Atropa belladonna. I'm at my wits end. This guy just cannot be worked with. I need some administrator intervention. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This can't be right....

MartinPhi has just returned to editing but he has met with this:[2], [3]

and this was added: [4]

I'd like him to stay around but this doesn't encourage in anyway. How can this be fair? (olive (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks this has been taken care of.(olive (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

RE: Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.

I don't think the mediation call is valid any longer. The user that started everything has since disappeared from the scene (at least as far as related pages goes) so there has since not been anything 'provocative' happening, as the log will illustrate. Since that time, the regular contributors - of all backgrounds - have continued to work together to build a NPOV article based on consensus. Thanks for your offer of assistance. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to ask people if mediation was actually still needed. *chuckle* Thanks for the heads up. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. All the best, A Sniper (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Togo

Hi,

You have helped me out before and I was wondering if you can help me again or give me advice on how to go about resolving a situation. An editor keeps adding in unsourced information. The information is already within the article (written better and with a better flow) and I do not want to enter into an edit war. Do you have any suggestions?--Startstop123 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I reread the edits and I think if I just fix some grammer, it will be fine. Sorry to bother you. Thanks.--Startstop123 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI double post

Don't worry about the double post. One thing to remember, however, is to remember to sign your posts. At first, I thought it was Red4tribe forum shopping in a third location, which is a bad thing to do at ANI ;) Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I figured it was something that minor. It's all good. Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi violating the terms of the editing restrictions

In this edit, Martinphi removes a reliable source by an extremely respected scientist (Sean Carroll) that was added by me. I believe that this is a violation of the restrictions you imposed. Can you act? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Osho

Hi Vassyana, the implementation of one or two of the suggestions arising from your informal review is being discussed; I would be grateful for your input. Cheers, Jayen466 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FR Yugoslavia is Serbia and Montenegro

We have the People's Republic of China and (officialy) the Republic of China (in fact Taiwan) but when we say China we mean the PRC and not ROC. Also when a two or even several women, men, chilidren have the same name (even the same date of birth) we know that it is the case of two or even several different people. Why do you insist on claiming that the EBU database (probably made by a meere IT specialist) is correct. Do you know that "Yugoslavia" in the ESC 1992 appeared under the flag of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and not under the flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I think that your opinion did not help us because you haven't noticed that in the EBU database this appearance of "Yugoslavia" has been listed under the flag of SFRY and it did NOT appear under that flag but under the flag of FR Yugoslavia.

Also I would like to mention the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo. They are two different states. The list could go on and on.

Please consider looking at the database and this message more closely (even if you do not agree).

Imbris (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While the points you raise are certainly valid concerns, Wikipedia isn't the place to raise them. Those facts may seem of importance, but we shouldn't include them unless they are prominent in the body of reliable sources. Eurovision's official website recognizes the 1992 entry as representative of SFRY.[5] The authoritative source on the contest lists it as an entry for SFRY. It probably be fine to note in Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest that while the entry was accepted for SFRY that Eurovision itself notes that "Yugoslavia was ... de facto dissolved in 1991 with no leaders representing it". Vassyana (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Binary prefixes

Regarding Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-13 Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and whether it is still needed: That was started by Thunderbird2 because, IMO, he was still unwilling to accept the consensus view. He was looking for some way to get his way. There recently was a spat where he and another editor were “revising history” through a series of edits to Binary prefix. It took only a modest amount of effort for three or four editors (and a 24-hour block on T-bird for editwarring) to put an end to that. So… From my point of view, things seem stable and there is no need for the cabal. However…

It wouldn’t surprise me if T-bird finds this post by me and states a contrary opinion. My fear is that this issue of the binary prefixes with him will be like having a herpes infection: you think it’s all over and then there’s yet another outbreak and this dispute never goes away. Just in case, I’ve copied all the code to make responding to his claims a little easier. Greg L (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Vassyana, there was this exchange between T-bird and the other fellow behind the cabal, Tom94022, that indicates that the cabal can be considered as abandoned. Thanks for checking into this. Like I said about herpes infections periodically raging up (no, I don’t have herpes), I see that T-bird is still maintaining his “list of damaged articles” on another user’s page (an edit T-bird made quite recently, at 09:53, 19 July 2008). So we’ll see whether this issue ever goes away. Greg L (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ellen_Barrett

I think it's deployable by now :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Toyota Prius consensus failure

The third opiniont you gave for the Talk:Toyota Prius page has been rejected by de Facto. The user will not accept consensus on anything if it disagrees with his/her POV. The situation has become intolerable and is going to require higher level dispute resolution. This is the most frustrating example of wikilawyering I've ever seen and is frankly just tiresome. I would like to find a way to get this resolved other than just caving into the whims of a single editor. We are having pointless, endless discussions without resolution. Please advise. Red Harvest (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You won't be surprised to hear that I totally disagree with that interpretation of the situation. Your opinion wasn't rejected, it was given due consideration and acted upon. I desisted from restoring the addition, and let it rest for close to a fortnight, based on your concern that I may be giving the piece undue weight. Then a couple of days ago I started doing a bit more research. Now that the episode of Top Gear that contained the item, which was only broadcast for the first time a couple of months ago, has permeated more thoroughly around the word, the notability of the exercise is increasing, including this mention in The Australian (Australia's leading national newspaper) it appeared to me that the item had probably achieved enough weight to be considered. It was only then that I decided to re-open the discussion on this topic via a bit of BRD. There is still discussion ongoing here, and your comments would be most welcome. -- de Facto (talk). 11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No it was rejected by you the same way as you have rejected that of every other editor, de Facto. This is ridiculous. To avoid 3RR you have resorted to endless squabbling on the article talk page and even on user talk pages. It's the same thing, you've just moved the venue to skirt the rules. Red Harvest (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

re: MedCab check-in

I appreciate your interest. Sorry for the delay in replying, but I have not logged in for a while - frankly I was disillusioned with the entire project - I hope that you can revive my interest.

The MOSNUM issue is an ongoing problem that really needs a solution, although it is unclear to me how to get there. The way I see it, it is caused by a piece of MOSNUM text that does not have consensus (11 editors voted against it in March-April 2008, with none in favour). But the present residents of MOSNUM will not even permit a discussion about it - shouting done attempts to bring it up by several different editors (including myself, Omegatron and Quilbert). Their argument is that the new text was carried by a 7-3 vote in June, but I don't see how that counts for consensus when less than half (4 I think) of the original 11 editors were aware of the new vote. All I am asking for is the right to hold such a discussion without my proposal being ridiculed. I would very much appreciate the help of a mediator to achieve this. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbird2, please do not continue to misrepresent the situation. There is consensus and that is shown by reading the evidence provided on the mediation page. This evidence refutes your claims about the "11 editors" not being aware because Headbomb (or others) actually contacted them. Also the evidence shows you cannot keep on misrepresenting the consensus reached by trying to cite a much older vote on a tiny individual issue. As the evidence shows there were many discussions and later votes that lead the the current text. Also as the evidence shows and as Headbomb keeps on pointing out to you there were no substantive arguments from you or anyone else against the current guideline text. The much stronger arguments relevant to Wikipedia policies and guidelines helped shape the consensus for the current guideline text. You have every chance to hold a discussion on the WT:MOSNUM talk page, but you must provide substantive arguments. To date you have not done so, what you have done is present your personal point of view which got refuted by multiple editors and in multiple talk archives, again this is shown in the evidence presented. Consensus does not require that we include refuted minority points of view in guideline text because weak points of view would make weak guidelines. If you want your point of view included in the guideline text then please present stronger arguments. If it feels to you that you get shouted down then you would be correct to assume that is because your arguments are weak and editors get annoyed when you keep on repeating the same weak arguments (Read WP:POINT to see why). Headbomb told you this many times, please listen to him. Take my experiences as a good example: When I first started editing Wikipedia and became aware of WT:MOSNUM I presented weak arguments (about binary prefixes) much like your weak arguments. These weak arguments were mostly based around personal opinion and little factual basis. I too got shouted down and looking back I can see why. I took the time to learn the Wikipedia policies and guidelines because they hold a lot of pre-existing knowledge about things like consensus and reliable sources. By learning these guidelines and policies I was able to help to slowly change the guideline to its much better present form by presenting strong arguments relevant to Wikipedia. In summary I learned that my personal opinion on WT:MOSNUM is irrelevant, I had to present strong arguments relevant to Wikipedia and provide evidence to support those arguments. You must also learn that your personal opinion is irrelevant and you must also learn to present strong arguments relevant to Wikipedia with valid evidence. I hope you take this advice from my personal experience well, as it is intended that this advice is to help you become a better editor and that you learn from it. Fnagaton 07:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

Regarding the matter which you have just closed: do I understand this correctly - that use of language such as piece of shit is in order here? This was the principal civility offence of ScienceApologist and I am surprised that it should be thought unimportant. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I note above that ScienceApologist regularly comes to you directly for help. If he is your protege, your action seems improper. Please explain. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think any explanation is due here. I get lots of questions on my talk page from folks that aren't a "protege". Warden failed to WP:AGF. Toddst1 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling an article by an expletive is not the height of etiquette, but I don't see it as crossing the line laid down by ArbCom or general community standards. It may be impolite or uncouth, but a vulgarity does not instantly turn a comment into an insult or plainly uncivil behavior. I do not believe he would be reported for incivility if he simply called the article "extremely terrible" or "very inappropriate". Please try to discuss the content issues at hand with those involved. If a discussion doesn't help settle the matter, seek outside opinions or assistance to help resolve the disagreement. Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I beg to differ. The use of such profanity to describe another's work is fighting talk and destroys the collegial atmosphere which WP:CIVIL aims to promote. When combined with intemperate edits, it seems obvious bad behaviour and that is why I presented it. You are perhaps over-familiar with such behaviour due to your regular association with this editor. I remain shocked. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you continue trying to get people to intervene on your behalf or get those you disagree with sanctioned without even trying to discuss the matter with the other involved editors, you will continue to be shocked. Similarly, if you continue filing complaints at noticeboards over one-off incidents that at best are questionable circumstances for a sanction, you will continue to be shocked. I also assure you that given those circumstances, I will not be the only administrator to shock your sensibilities. You've been around long enough, active enough, involved in enough controversial areas and reminded enough to know exactly what is expected of you and how to pursue dispute resolution. Try and resolve the conflict in an appropriate fashion. Vassyana (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I did first discuss the matter with the closing admin Sandstein and his response indicated that he wished to avoid drama and was otherwise ineffectual. I contemplated various forums such as ANI and the incivility noticeboard. I have little experience of any of these places but supposed the Arbcom forum would be the most appropriate place since there was a tailored process specifically for ScienceApologist there. If I should consider him uncivil again, please indicate the more appropriate fashion in which this should be addressed. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Raising the issue to Sandstein is not trying to discuss the matter with the other involved editors. Regardless, his advice was spot on and simple: Try discussing the issue with the other involved editors. It is the first step of dispute resolution. That's not being "ineffectual". That's telling you, in a very polite fashion, to follow the basic wiki process. If you feel a comment was uncivil, you could discuss it with ScienceApologist himself. In recognition of his sometimes heated commentary and his restrictions, he even provides an easy process that will lead him to immediately refactor his comments and reconsider future comments along those lines. Take part in discussions when you disagree about content decisions. If that doesn't work there's plenty of options for assistance. Try discussing your concerns with ScienceApologist if you feel he is being uncivil. If (and only if) a good faith and considerate attempt to address your concerns directly with the editor does not work should you post an enforcement notice. Vassyana (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of indicating some inappropriate bias towards ScienceApologist, I think you will find things quite different than your implication. Neither of us treats the other poorly because of this history. There is no reason for us to not treat each other civilly and seek assistance or advice from each other. As examples, I ask him about scientific topics (such as this) and he asks me to review situations as an admin who has been willing to step into some topic areas (even though it's obviously not always been to his benefit). Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Vassyana's assertion of impartiality in this matter. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I could use your assistance

Vassyana, I have been having some problem with User:John Foxe. He entered a 3RR warning on my discussion page today stating that I have been warring on his talk page. He was warned by a User:Voire Dei for warring on Golden Plates, but continued to war. When I issued a warning, I noticed that he had deleted a first warning, which I brought back. I also told him that deleting legitimate warnings from his talk page is against policy.

My request is:

1. Will you revert his inappropriate 3RR warning on my talk page or note that it was inappropriately issued.
2. I know I have read something about not removing warnings, but can't find it. Do you know where it is.
3. Let Foxe know that it is not appropriate to issue warnings with no basis.

Foxe is a knowledgeable fellow, but with a very strong POV. Any assistance you could provide would be appreciated. Thank you. --^StormRider 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would still like some assistance. I will not revert the improper posting of a 3RR warning on my page; I will leave that for an admin to do. I would like the appropriate warnings that were given User:John Foxe returned to his page with an additional warning that it is not acceptable to remove warnings that are appropriately issued. He has backed off of his edit warring and is taking a slightly more reasoned approach. He still is not much on discussion, but I can work with that for now. Am I off base on this?--^StormRider 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that not restoring removed warnings is the common and accepted practice. Is there any other way I may be able to assist? Vassyana (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet blocked?

See User talk:Thunderstruck45. He's able to edit the page it appears. .:davumaya:. 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-11 Parkour

Hey. Out of curiosity, what's the status on this case? Looks like it's dwindled down and could be closed from what I can see. Wizardman 17:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The activity is very sporadic and spread out, however slow progress has been continually made through working out things in draft. There's still a few things left to resolve (the material about lawsuits) and it was one of the central points of the dispute, so I'd rather leave the case open until the sources are compiled and a version agreed upon. Vassyana (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Just checking since the date jumped out at me. Wizardman 01:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection

The chiropractic article is once again in need of protection. A group of editors are making edits without finishing the ongoing discussions on the talk page. Not a very collaborative editing style. One is quite probably a reincarnation of the indef banned CS per WP:QUACK. Precisely same style and obstinate determination to own the article. -- Fyslee / talk 05:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me get to the point. A sock has returned. It is time to block the account and IP (User:Soyuz113, User talk:208.101.118.33). QuackGuru 19:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been some controversial editing without waiting for discussions to reach a consensus, thus resulting in edit warring. Another interesting development is the apparent reappearance of the indef banned User:CorticoSpinal, under the guise of User:Soyuz113. A check user would help here. He even forgot to log in once, a common mistake CS used to make, thus revealing his IP, which he had previously used before being indef blocked, and is in the same range as CS'S other known and confirmed IPs. See more. -- Fyslee / talk 01:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though the user has received a {{second chance}} from the blocking admin. I will defer to AGK's judgment in this matter. Vassyana (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Supporting sockpuppetry is disruptive. Please stop. QuackGuru 03:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Where (dif) and when did this happen? He received more than one "second chance" and ended up being indef blocked three times! He even used an IP sock to evade the second indef block! Now he's evading the third indef block and making his presence felt yet again. This guy can create great disruption again. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

AGk says so here. If you disagree with this, I am positive he would be responsive to polite and reasoned feedback on the issue. Vassyana (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

AGK was never interested in dealing with this matter and I think Vassyana should also not deal with this matter. Both admins have not taken any action against the sockpuppetry. Vassyana, do you agree to defer to any uninvolved admin? QuackGuru 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am always willing to defer to a clueful uninvolved admin. I even openly advertise that I encourage other admins to be bold in reviewing and overturning my administrative actions (via User:Bovlb/Userboxes/anti wheel war on my user page). Thus where I am involved, you should always feel free to defer issues to uninvolved admins for action or review of my actions without my prior permission or acknowledge (though I would appreciate a note that you did so). That all said, while a fresh set of eyes would be nice, I believe that you and Fyslee are correct to be concerned about sockpuppetry and the actions of Soyuz113. (However, I would recommend approaching the matter with supporting diffs and rhetoric with less of an alarmist tone in order to receive a better response. For better or worse, a paucity of diffs and the rhetorical equivalent of "the sky is falling" will generally result in reactions ranging from apathy to antipathy.) Vassyana (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action before he did more than he managed to do before getting stopped. His last edits provided more evidence that it was CS we were dealing with. They were precisely his issues, interests and arguments. Although I even agree with some of them, we can't tolerate block evasion, and this case deserves no mercy after so much we have already been through from him. Thanks again. We need more brave admins like you. -- Fyslee / talk 06:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of support. Both accounts approach editing in the same fashion, editing the same topics, pushing for the same points, sharing the same attitude and views ... mix in the use of the exact same IP and it seems like a blatantly obvious case. Nobody else was taking action on the case, so I moved to resolve the issue. Even if contrary to appearances Soyuz113 is not a sockpuppet of CS, Soyuz113 is obviously a sock account used for a prohibited purpose. If an uninvolved administrator feels I was way off base, they're free to step in and undo my actions as with any of my admin actions. That said, I would suggest that with checkuser requests that you be specific in identifying specific edit patterns, providing diffs as much as possible to support the assertions, or else they are likely to rejected as "fishing" requests. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Save A Little Dram For Me

Been waiting on your signature a few days. Durova^Charge! 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. My internet connection has been wonky the past few days. Vassyana (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WB! :) Durova^Charge! 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please see [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. The AfD was here. After the brief flurry of news articles last June or July, there have been no further indications that the project is still on, that Ben Kingsley is still associated with the project, etc. I confess myself puzzled. Jayen466 01:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to focus on the NPOV issues, particular proper weighting, and leave notability completely out of it. Personally, if the article was at GAC with the full text version of the film information, I would place the article on hold citing a violation of undue weight. A brief media flurry over a then-planned, but now canceled, project should not receive more than a passing mention (if any mention at all) in an article about a topic that has received such voluminous coverage overall. (NPOV and due weight are about the balance of the total body of reliable sources on a topic, not the subjective opinions of editors about what is "important". Similarly, NPOV is about editors being neutral in handling and presenting the material, not about balancing the article by some subjective standard of "neutrality".) Vassyana (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Your input is much appreciated. Jayen466 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If you need further assistance or advice, please do not hesitate to leave a message for me. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would appreciate it if you could keep a close eye on the article edits and talk page at the moment; I fear some editors' tempers may be in danger of getting a little frayed again, and I would like to avoid a breakdown of civility. Thanks! Jayen466 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an update: I have converted most of the quotes in the Reception section into text, and incorporated the apparent "hit piece" at the appropriate point in the bio timeline. Clarke is now integrated in the section for scholarly views. Hope that addresses some of the concerns you expressed in the informal review. Current article status: [11]. Cheers, Jayen466 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

notability RFC

I understand how you might be worried about the RFC. But as I try to empathize, I think it's based on a few misconceptions. Modifying or removing proposals would be horrifying if this were a vote, but it's not: it's a discussion that's meant to rule out certain possibilities, and measure the support for other ones. Leaving a proposal out would be extremely undemocratic if this were a vote, but it's not: there will be time to make further proposals, and even before this RFC began it was almost a certainty that they will be 100% necessary.

You might ask... why make an RFC that won't settle the issue? Because the issue itself is hard to settle in one sitting. Debating and discussing dozens of proposals would result in zero consensus. Focusing on a few proposals and two issues might not give us consensus on WP:N, but it *will* give us consensus on a lot of other things: that we are mostly opposed to one extreme or another, and that a few proposals in the middle are closer to gaining support. And that the final solution will probably improve on what one of the "middle" proposals did to attract a decent amount of support.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. That said... If you feel strongly enough about your proposal, I would personally invite you to re-add it. It certainly had a significant amount of support, and had a reasonable shot at gaining a consensus. But I think we're going to need another RFC no matter what. Hit me back on my talk page, so we can keep the RFC itself from being too cluttered. Randomran (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I have a certain amount of trouble distinguishing your new proposal from B.3. But I know there was some support for your initial proposal, and therefore you should add it the way you've written it, regardless of whether it's substantially different from B3 or just a fix with the same overall "spirit" as B3. As for where/how to include it, you might want to include it as B3.2, because I see it as quite similar. But at the same time, if you're concerned that associating with the "bad" proposal might hurt your "good" proposal, it might be better to propose it as a wholly independent proposal just as a matter of strategy. As for my personal opinion on the proposal, I like it -- but I'm concerned that there's no practical difference between "we presume that sufficient sources exist to assert notability" and "we presume the article is notable". It might help to explain this difference, and how it would affect AFDs in practice. Or if there's no difference, you might as well jump in and say "it is notable". (Or maybe "it will soon be notable, if it isn't already". e.g.: it just won an award, so it's only a matter of time before someone covers it.) Just thinking out loud. You should definitely trust your judgment. Randomran (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're essentially saying that in borderline cases: where something meets an SNG, but there's good reason to believe it doesn't meet the GNG because sources are severely lacking, a merge is probably appropriate. I'm not sure you want to be that prescriptive. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I imagined a slightly different approach. "SNGs can create a presumption that an article meets the GNG, by creating the presumption that third-party sources exist on the subject and only need to be found. As time passes and Wikipedians undertake an actual search for sources, it may become evident that sources actually do not exist. In order to determine if an article meets the GNG, failed efforts to find appropriate sources should be weighed on balance with the presumption that they exist." -- In other words, we defer to consensus, and probably don't delete something unsourced that meets the SNG after a few days or weeks. We'd have to tag it for months, and see a decent effort to verify it, only to give up once and for all. But that's the way I'd understand it. Maybe there's a clearer way to say it, or you'd want to say something completely different altogether. Randomran (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it over. It would definitely be something I support, although just like many of the other proposals we'd have to iron out the kinks in the wording. I've been a little busy so I haven't been able to monitor the RFC as closely as I would have liked. But my only hope is that it's finally chugging along on its own, with no major disruptions or controversies. Would you say that's true, based on what you've seen over the past few days? Randomran (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you've identified the issues. But don't let that list of 7 challenges make you "overwrite" this proposal with lots of instruction creep. There should be a way to rewrite or clarify what you've already written without too many more words that would be more clear. I'm not sure what it is. But if you need some help hashing it out, I'll have more time during the week. Let me know how you want to proceed. Talk to you soon, Randomran (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit

I am not interested in getting into a revert war; however, consensus can change, and adding an additional idea with hopefully fresh eyes should be a valid option. No one owns the RfC and there's no reason why we cannot consider other alternatives and ideas. Discussions should not be restricted from discussing all avenues of action. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds

It'd be useful to talk to you about this, particularly I'd like to finish up the gospel songs. Poke me when you're online next? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FSC

I've set it up - thought it would be best to do it in two sets, as discussion could easily run away from us if there's 6 at once. So, just need you to sign: Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/Three_gospel_songs_from_1943 Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

I trust your judgment and unbiased opinion so as to ask you to give me some feedback at User_talk:Jossi/What_shoud_I_do ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion - Talk:King David Hotel Bombing

Hello, I'm one party to a dispute on the Talk:King David Hotel bombing page which was subject to a request for a Third Opinion. You deleted the request, stating that, " Third Opinion is not for behavioral disputes." Could you please advise on where it would be appropriate to go to seek resolution of the conflict instead?

From my point of view, I would find a third opinion on a few points valuable and worthwhile having. My understanding is that it is permissible to comment (in a civil manner) on the actions and editing behaviour of editors on Talk pages; Jayjg's stated view is that only the content of articles, not editors (including, their actions and behaviour), should be discussed there. Therefore, I would appreciate comments about the correct interpretation of the rules about Personal Attacks, how they are applied in practice and whether the deleted comments have breached the rules. Also, my interpretation is that the deletion of comments should only be done in exceptional circumstances (such as when personal details have been disclosed) and therefore I would appreciate comments about whether the deletion of my comments was justified.

Thanks. -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The policy on personal attacks is summarized as "Comment on content, not on the contributor." The same is repeated in the introductory paragraph. Certainly when raising conduct concerns, there is not choice but to comment on the contributor. However, this should not on the article talk page, but rather other appropriate places. Removing personal attacks is a matter of some controversy, regarding where the line falls for appropriate removal. Generally, one should request that the person making inappropriate comments removes the comments themselves. Alternatively, it perfectly acceptable to civilly and calmly request that an administrator do so. Both of these options are relatively uncontroversial.

That said, you should focus on the content, rather than the contributor. My recommendation would be to talk purely about the article content at hand. Address the concerns other editors are raising. Show them (using reliable sources) that the information you're adding is not only forwards by a tiny minority. Reputable textbooks can be very helpful in establishing what is considered a mainstream or large minority view. Bear in mind during the discussions that we should not go beyond what the sources explicitly state and that we should not use multiple sources to build a position. If you stick explicitly to the sources and provide overview references (textbooks, review literature, etc) and/or multiple reliable sources in cases where people feel the information is put forward by only a tiny minority, you should be fine.

On one final point, the lead should reflect the article, not be treated as distinct component of the article. I would recommend tabling the lead discussion until the rest of the article is resolved, or at least taking form. Vassyana (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for your advice and for taking the time to reply to me. As far as resolving the dispute is concerned (I would like either the removed text restored or for a third person to state unequivocably that my comments were personal attacks which deserved deletion), what would be the appropriate next step? In the policy on personal attacks, it says that it can be appropriate to comment on the actions or editing behaviour of a contributor. Does that conflict with the summary which says that editors shouldn't talk about the contributor, do you think? -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I try to reply to any reasonable messages or questions left for me. If you would like feedback about whether or not a comment is a personal attack or otherwise over the line, this venue may be helpful. I believe that the "exception" in the NPA policy about commenting on the contributor refers to raising concerns at places like wikiquette alerts, the administrators' noticeboard, request for comments on user conduct and requests for arbitration. Personally, I would recommend letting the old issue just pass away and refocusing on the content issues. However, it is your choice about how to move forward. Vassyana (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Osho#Charisma

Dear Vassyana, I would be grateful if you could have a look over the recent talk page discussions, especially the last section, "Charisma", regarding possible SYNTH – I would appreciate your feedback and advice. Cheers, Jayen466 17:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be best to stick to the sources as closely as possible. I would tend to agree that there is a legitimate concern about synthesis. Statements that X group of people or Y category of scholars hold an opinion or agree on a certain piece of information should be avoided, unless the sources explicitly support such a statement. How exactly to handle the material that can be sourced is best left to those involved parties with a better familiarity with the subject and literature than I possess. However, it would be best to scrupulously avoid going beyond the sources. Vassyana (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Vassyana. We'll do some more work on this section. Jayen466 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - revised, as per sources. Jayen466 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten a part of the Teaching section in a sandbox; is this the kind of thing you had in mind to arrive at a more neutral style? Would be grateful for your feedback. Jayen466 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Technical question

Hiya Vassyana .... hope all is well with you.

I have a technical question. I am dealing with an IP ..... this IP has a long history of problems which is ongoing. Something I was not aware of until I checked the history, and saw many warnings which a user had deleted. I checked the IP, and I think it is a shared IP, but I am not 100% sure. I tried reading up on policy about this, but did not find it to be clear.

Does this make a difference? If it is a shared IP, can the warnings be restored by anyone (I have seen this done many times)? For what it is worth, the IP is 24.184.206.83. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're unsure if an IP is shared, using a block that allows logged in users to continue using the IP and tagging the appropriate talk page with {{anonblock}} is usually the approach that I use. Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

FS promotion

Congrats. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Vassyana (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured Sound promotion

Congraulations! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability RFC

Thanks for your response. I'm a bit busy today, but I'll look at this some more tomorrow. While we aren't quite there yet, I'm happy that we have so many people working so hard on a solution. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here is a quick attempt at tightening the proposal, but only covers the first step.

Subject notability guidelines serve as complementary criteria to the general notability guideline. However, meeting an SNG criterion is not a specific exemption from the requirement to meet the GNC criteria. Instead, it is presumed that sufficient sources probably exist to demonstrate notability for articles meeting the SNG criteria, in other words the article will be given the benefit of the doubt. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

talk:Osho discussion dispute

You'll have to excuse me, I'm generally disinclined to look for help or advice on here but your comments indicate that you are generally fair in your repsonses so I will present an issue that you may be able to give feedback on.

In talk:Osho I created a section Medical condition as possible pretext to enter America - source review, provided a source overview of disputed material, and asked that people keep discussion on topic. User:jalal decided to ignore the request not to add information that was not discussing the sources presented, and also placed comments retroactively which proved only to muddy the debate.

I then created a badly attempted thread split and placed his material in a new section with a request that he refer to the original notification about discussing only the sources presented on the page: this is clearly stated.

The User then made a number of reverts, reported me for vandalism, and accused me of bullying, despite the fact that I instigated the entire thread, presented multiple source extracts to make my case, and clearly stated that I would like a third opinion before any reverts of the thread split be made. I also asked him to view details on thread splitting: which I was attmepting to figure out the linking procedure for when the reverting started.

I would appreciate some feedback on this becasue I have gone out of my way to tease out facts, and taken the time to present material for discussion, in efforts to improve the factuality of the article. I don't see a point in doing this in future if users do not adhere to discussion requests, veer off track, and place comments retroactively.

BestSemitransgenic (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I think it would be best if everyone revisited this issue after some cool-down time. I have posted to the Osho talk page with my thoughts and recommendation. Vassyana (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I have said all I have to say on the matter on the talk page. Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured Sound!

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured sound status, Image:Save a Little Dram for Me.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yay pretty templates! Thanks! :) Life has been ... consuming ... lately. I have a couple featured sounds on the burner to nominate (and I promise I will over the next few days). Vassyana (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Forget my rambling...

I closed that case with a sturdy compromise.

<flexes>

Though there's another case - Banu Nadir - that is entirely based on sources I don't have. Not as big a deal, though. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dang it! I was starting on a fun reply. :) Vassyana (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't let me stop you :-P

It would have been fun to do what I had in mind, but it turns out I was just as brilliant alone :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC) On a side note, can you find Stillman, Norman, The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book? I have two editors taking things far too seriously as evidenced by their overuse of bold font kthx. Remind me never to go into pure source disputes if I don't have the sources.

I must decline to offer assistance or advice on that case. I agree with some of the parties that others are clearly engaged in original research and soapboxing. Vassyana (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Gospel!

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured sound status, Image:The Golden Jubilee Quartet - Oh Jonah.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured sound status, Image:Cochran Field Singers - My Lord Is Writin'.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured sound status, Image:Bertha Houston - We are Americans, Praise the Lord.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah! Thank you! Vassyana (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP issues

Hi Vassyana. I know that you've already had some involvement in the previous round of mediation on Mark Kimmett. I'm mediating the new case, and one of the users is still very concerned about possible BLPvio on the talk page. I know very little about the intricacies of BLP, and you were recommended to me as an expert. When we reach that phase of the mediation (we're currently hammering out the content issue), would you have the time, interest, and energy to help out? I completely understand if you don't. Thanks! Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 04:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not call myself an expert on BLP issues, but I will be glad to offer advice and opinion if you feel such would be helpful. If I am not very active on-wiki when the time comes, please drop me an email. I should note that I immediately noticed that allegations in the article involve the citation of primary sources to report the allegations and investigation. That is definitely a BLP concern. BLP encourages us to be very careful in our sourcing, encouraging the use of highly reliable third-party sources. Part of the reason the article concerns me is because the primary sources are used to obviously cast the subject in a negative light. Regardless, I will be sure to make myself available to answer any questions and/or offer opinions as needed. Vassyana (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I hadn't even considered the issue of primary sources. I'll have to think about that one. Thank you for agreeing to help; I'll ping you when we get to that point. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No original research

Vassyana, do you think that the current NOR policy text should be modified? If so, what would you propose as a change? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I would say that I'm fairly strongly opposed to any changes that open up loopholes in the policy, as they are far more likely in practice to be abused than used for purposes in line with the principles of Wikipedia. That said, I would support a drastic chop-down of the whole policy, doing most anything that heavily reduces its size without opening large loopholes or moving away from the essence of the policy. I would also support a drastic revision of the PSTS section that moves away from the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction and instead focuses on a distinction between sources most likely to be appropriate and sources more likely to be abused for original research. Unfortunately, I do not think either approach would receive much broad consensus, largely due to inertia and other social factors. Thanks for asking though. Vassyana (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But Vassyana, the default "related to" wording is a much bigger loophole. What we are trying to do here is only make the loophole smaller. It would be helpful if you provided some specific suggestions about how Jayden's latest proposal should be revised. Even though we won't solve all the problems you mention about the NOR policy, I think our efforts are a step in the right direction, wouldn't you say so? --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I was responding to the question as posed without thinking about the current context. :) I pointed out some specific complaints about the proposal, which Jayen agreed with. I prefer the "directly related" solution, but that appears to lack viability. In the absence of strengthening the policy, I would rather leave the wording as it currently stands. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

Vassyana, would you we willing to take a look at this article? El C has just protected it, which I think justified. The subject of the article admittedly represents a minority view, but it has been subject to treatment to make it appear it is a fringe theory; and it has been taken to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard and there has been an AfD too. Perhaps I am misjudging the situation. I would appreciate it if you could review the article, and the editing situation, because I think an outside view would help. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I owe another religious article a review, but after I complete that, I would be happy to look over it and offer some advice/help as I can. Vassyana (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance to look at this article, perhaps you can evaluate statements of Malcolm's such as [12]. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I asked for Vassyana's opinion because I think he is fair. If he thinks I am in the wrong I will stop editing that article. The COI, in the sense I used it, could apply to anyone, including me. It was not intended as an insult. Also, I think that if everyone was just a little less sure about being right, it would be easier to edit the article. Sorry if I offended you though....that was not my intention. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this. I will comment later this evening. Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

Hi Vassyana,

Awhile back Malcolm Schosha asked you to take a look at this article, but you may not have had a chance. I wonder if you could take a look, not so much for article content, but for user conduct. There is an editor that I feel is unproductive, if not outright disruptive, and you can see an example of what it's doing to the discussion at Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis#.22However.2C_in_anthropology_the_situation_appears_to_be_different....22. Thanks for any input you can provide. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the snark is flowing freely from all sides there and that everyone needs to remember to take a breath and move towards polite conversation. That said, it does certainly seem like some people are at least coming close to pushing the line of disruption and tiresome interference. Collecting some evidence for review may be helpful, but with the frustration and incivility flying from all sides, it would probably come down on a lot of heads. If you would like, I will post a polite reminder for everyone to cool down and treat each other with some respect. I would also be willing to volunteer as an informal mediator to see if I could help people reach some agreement. (I promise I would use less wikilinks in the process! *chuckle*) Just let me know how I could best help. Vassyana (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, thanks for your response. It's obvious that I am frustrated with the state of affairs at the article, and I've sometimes been too sarcastic in my comments. But honestly, it's ridiculous when editors complain for months (literally, months) about sources that they haven't even read, and contend that the Oxford University Press has a COI problem because it "also publishes bibles". That's a decent example of WP:TE, don't you think?

At any rate, if you would be willing to mediate, I think that would be fantastic: you seem to have the requisite patience. However, since one of the major matters in dispute is the use of sources, could I ask what your procedure for mediation is? Would you, for instance, read the sources under dispute to check whether the parties are representing them accurately?

Also, since you mentioned that the snark is flowing freely, I would appreciate it if you pointed out any posts where I've gotten out of line, or gone over the bounds of WP:CIVIL. It seems to me that your judgement on such matters is sound, and I'd like to make sure that I'm not behaving badly (not too badly, anyway...) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My method of mediation varies a bit depending on the exact dispute at hand. Usually, I proceed by asking a fair number of questions to clearly see where everyone stands and identify the underlying dispute. This can sometimes require a series of follow-up questions. After that, I usually move things to working on a sandbox draft or into a guided conversation to try and reach a consensus. In this particular case, I would probably try early in the discussion to try and forge some agreement regarding the use and reliability of sources, addressing issues like university presses and low-impact journals. Without being somewhere in the same neighborhood on that issue, an agreement will not be forthcoming. I will examine the situation and sources used, though I would keep my opinion relatively muted while participating as an informal mediator. If someone is behaviorally way over the line or misrepresenting a source, I would interject with a clear opinion.

In your case, there is nothing that is too much of a concern. However, some of your comments are mildly inflammatory. Some of your posts do little more than serve to express your frustration and fan the flames of the dispute. An example is the frustrated and sarcastic post here. That's not to say the points you raise are invalid, but sarcasm and snark will naturally do more to raise hackles than to get your point across. We're all human and frustration will get the better of all of us at points (I've certainly made comments along those lines in the past), but it is important to recognize when our frustration is impeding our ability communicate effectively.

What seem to be the central points of dispute (purely in relation to the content) to you? Who are the principal parties? Vassyana (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, thanks for the note. I had seen your post above, but was waiting until I had some time to craft a full reply. Just a short note instead--thanks for noting the diff above, I agree that I was letting my frustration show too much and that sarcasm doesn't help the situation. However, I don't feel that constructive posts are advancing the situation either. Really, I feel the situation is pretty ridiculous--I don't know if you've looked at the talk page lately but one editor seems impervious to reason.

I'll try to leave a more detailed response later. Thanks for your attention to this matter. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I will remain available if assistance is required. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana, things seem to have calmed down on this article. I think most of the issues relate to the conduct of one user, and there are two behaviors that I find especially problematic: first, that he extends talk page discussion past any productive point, refusing to truly understand and respond to other editors' arguments, and instead engages in soapboxing. Second, he has rather, shall we say, idiosyncratic ideas about what constitutes good sourcing--his argument that the Oxford University Press as an institution has a COI on this topic is just one example. It's worth pointing out that the user in question makes very few edits to the article, and almost exclusively edits the talk page. So in one sense the disruption here is minor, but discussions with this user are time-consuming and hold up progress on the article. I'm not really sure how to deal with this; a reminder from an uninvolved party that talk pages are to be focused on article content might help, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a few good editors....

...who are willing to help hack through the labyrinth we call Wikipedia Policy. I've started up a project called Wikipedia:Policy condensing to help address the increasingly problematic instruction creep on the 'pedia. Ideally, this project will work to condense, merge, and in some cases delete the jillions of policies and guidelines into their basic components, so that both new and experienced users only have a few pages to read through if they have a question or concern instead of many. I'm hoping that once this project is through, we'll be able to reduce the number of policy and guideline pages by half while still keeping all the nuances and interpretations clearly available for users to understand. I'm contacting you about this because either you have previously expressed an interest in this, and/or I know I can count on you as a reliable editor who knows their way around the project. I'm not advertising this in the open just yet, as I'm hoping we can get a good foundation started with the few editors I'm contacting now so that when we do make this more public, we've already got a head start to show people what this project can do. So, if you've got the time and are willing, please stop by Wikipedia:Policy condensing and jump right in. If you have any questions, post to the project's talk page or leave me a note - I'll see it quickly either way. As always, thanks for your help. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

NORN

I am curious to read some further input from you at this topic at NORN. An editor has compared this to an ongoing dispute at Chiropractic and I gave my own comments on how I felt it applied. I am interested in reading your thoughts on the matter if you have the time. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for the invitation to comment. Vassyana (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your in depth commentary. I posed some follow-up questions for you when you have a moment. Much obliged! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I would just be restating what I said in any reply to your questions. Is there a point I made where I could more clear or is there a point that I raised where you disagree? Vassyana (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I want to clarify a few things with you and see if it affects your thoughts at all. Mainly, you state that there are only few researchers (mostly within chiropractic) who dispute the use of general SM studies used to discuss chiropractic. Actually, quite the opposite is true. It is the chiropractic profession that has often conflated the two. And it is the mainstream researchers (mostly outside of chiropractic) who have disputed the chiropractic profession's use of general SM research as proof of the effectiveness of chiropractic. For instance, there was a RAND study on the appropriateness of spinal manipulation which came out quite favorable for spinal manipulation. When chiropractors jumped on that research to proclaim things such as "Chiropractic works!", the chiropractors were in turn jumped on by the researchers who said that these studies were not about chiropractic specifically, but rather spinal manipulation in general and that chiropractors were in effect misusing these studies by relating it to chiropractic. RAND spokesperson Dr. Paul Shekelle, released this statement:

"...we have become aware of numerous instances where our results have been seriously misrepresented by chiropractors writing for their local paper or writing letters to the editor... RAND's studies were about spinal manipulation, not chiropractic... Comparative efficacy of chiropractic and other treatments was not explicitly dealt with."

Another example comes to us from Edzard Ernst, who in reviewing a study performed by chiropractors, criticized that:

The authors also claim that 43 randomized, controlled trials of spinal manipulation for back pain have been published, but they fail to mention that most of them do not relate to chiropractic spinal manipulation.''

So Ernst feels that most of the published RCTs for spinal manipulation do not relate to chiropractic spinal manipulation. So knowing Ernst's position, but not knowing how we as Wikipedian can distinguish which ones relate to chiropractic and which ones don't relate to chiropractic, can we honestly ever satisfy WP:OR by including general spinal manipulation research at Chiropractic to discuss the effectiveness of chiropractic? Especially when much of this research does not specify or even mention chiropractic whatsoever in their conclusions?

During this dispute, I have often quoted the following passage from OR:

...to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic and directly support the information as it is presented.

I have quoted this because I want the "other side" to demonstrate that they are not presenting OR. So knowing that the mainstream researchers don't necessarily relate spinal manipulation studies to chiropractic spinal manipulation, my position is that if we at Wikipedia make such a relationship ourselves by using spinal manipulation studies to discuss chiropractic spinal manipulation, we are in effect using a source in manner which the authors of the source did not intend; in a manner which is disputed by many mainstream researchers such as Ernst and those at RAND; and in a manner which is not directly supported by the sources. Thus, to do so, we are violating WP:OR. So what do you think? Do I present a reasonable position here? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously possible that I misunderstand the balance of sources. If my understanding of the available sources is correct, then it would be appropriate to treat the matter as an appropriate subtopic (since reliable sources generally treat it as such). If my understanding is actually inverted, then it would be inappropriate to treat it as a subtopic and the article should only use sources that explicitly discuss chiropractic practices and/or the chiropractic use of such studies. Basically, the distinction I would draw is between a recognized subtopic and a topic touched upon by some explicitly on-topic sources. Recognized subtopics are explicitly treated as a subtopic of the overall topic by reliable sources. "Touched on" topics are simply relevant information and claims made in reliable sources in relation to the overall topic. I think the distinction is important. Do you understand the line I am trying to draw? Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I thank you for your thoughtful response. If it helps, here is the source where you can read Edzard Ernst's opinon that most spinal manipulation RCT's are not related to chiropractic. Given Ernst's influential opinion, my main contention at Chiropractic remains: How are we to determine which spinal manipulation RCTs are directly related to chiropractic and thus can be included in the Chiropractic article without creating an original research violation? My answer to this has been: Unless the source explicity states that its conclusions are related to chiropractic or some other researcher has published a reliable source which states that the research is related to chiropractic, we cannot include general spinal manipulation relation without violating WP:NOR. Does that seem like a reasonable position to take? My idea is that such non-chiropractic related spinal manipulation research can certainly be included at the Spinal manipulation article, which discusses spinal manipulation in general (as performed by osteopaths, physical therapists, chiropractors, among others). Reasonable? Once again, I greatly appreciate your thoughts here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously a very complicated/confusing issue, as indicated by my initial misunderstanding. I will be honest and tell you up front that I have neither the time nor impetus to research the issue to the degree that would be necessary to provide fully informed feedback on the issue. The best thing I can offer is to say that if you are following the general principles I elaborated on, I would be likely to agree with you. I know that's probably not what you were looking for, but it's better to provide an earnest response. Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate that this is a complicated issue. I can also appreciate the insight which you have already provided has already helped me shed light on the subject even more. I thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Vassyana, I just discovered this exchange and think you should be alerted to a serious case of "confusion" and misquoting above (to put it civilly, since this matter has been brought to Levine2112's attention elsewhere, yet he persists...).

There is a big difference between "chiropractic" (a profession) ("RAND's studies were about spinal manipulation, not chiropractic..." - Shekelle) and "chiropractic spinal manipulation" (a technique) ("but they fail to mention that most of them do not relate to chiropractic spinal manipulation." - Ernst) Notice that Ernst doesn't leave out "spinal manipulation" and write "do not relate to chiropractic", which would be another matter entirely.

One is a profession, and Shekelle was incensed that positive research on general spinal manipulation performed by both chiropractors and non-chiropractors was being claimed as a vindication of the entire chiropractic profession, with all its false claims, dubious practices, quackeries, and healthfraud issues. No, he wasn't about to allow such misuse.

Ernst, OTOH, was just complaining that Meeker & Haldeman had improperly failed to declare upfront that they had used both mainstream and chiropractic research on spinal manipulation. They had also left out some negative research and had thus drawn false conclusions. Ernst had no problem with such mixing, since he himself later performed similar research that included both types of research, but he properly declared upfront that he did it. They hadn't done that.

Levine2112 then goes on with his own form of OR when he writes:

* "... where you can read Edzard Ernst's opinon that most spinal manipulation RCT's are not related to chiropractic."

Notice he leaves out "spinal manipulation" at the end, yet attributes it to "Ernst's opinion", which isn't true. He is misquoting Ernst to further his own interpretation.

In that statement he is also making Ernst's opinion much broader than it was meant by stating that "most spinal manipulation RCT's". No, Ernst was speaking about a specific and limited group of "43 randomized, controlled trials of spinal manipulation for back pain", not about all SM RCTs, as implied in Levine2112's statement above. Levine2112 is here giving a clear statement of his own opinion, one which is not shared by Ernst, Haldeman, Meeker, myself, or Eubulides.

Thus we see that these sources are dealing with two very different matters. Levine2112 has been warned about doing this type of misquoting before, and discussions are still ongoing at Talk:Chiropractic, where I have recently called him on this tactic here. So be cautious, this is a very complicated matter and Levine2112 is not telling the whole story, nor interpreting things rightly. He has to twist quotes to make his interpretation hold together. Eubulides has also corrected him on this. I don't want to call this deliberate dissembling on his part because it really is complicated, but the effect on Wikipedia is the same. It games the system and fools people into believing his OR interpretation, and it keeps Talk:Chiropractic hostage to a very long discussion that drags on forever and goes in circles. -- Fyslee / talk 06:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

HELP

New Thought has some aspects of it which are essentially "faith healings". Inasmuch as this is the case and New Thought practitioners make claims that they can cure diseases with positive attitudes, we have issues of neutrality and fringe theory advocacy. Apparently, a number of New Thought believers are none too happy with the proposal that we try to make it clear that these faith healing activities defy medicine despite the fact that this is done in many other articles. Can you help out?

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This topic falls more closely under my actual expertise in religious studies. I will endeavor to find some good sources and contribute to the article. Vassyana (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice please?

Hi Vassyana - I'm coming to you since I've noticed your activity as part of the Mediation Cabal and I hope you can steer me in the right direction. I've already raised this with PhilKnight, but he's said he's not able to help at this time. I've just copied-and-pasted my previous request below - please forgive the "form letter" approach, but there wasn't anything in there that was PhilKnight-specific - advice from any experienced mediator would be very welcome :) So...

For the last couple of months, there's been a series of disputes centred on the Battle of Britain and related articles. It's spread to Aircraft of the Battle of Britain, Supermarine Spitfire, Messerschmitt Bf 109 and others. Probably the most active disputes currently are on Supermarine Spitfire operational history. I haven't been involved in editing any of these pages, but since I'm very active in WikiProject Aircraft, I've been called on by the various disputing parties at various times when they've felt that admin action is needed.

As time has gone on, the disputes have become increasingly intricate and detailed and the quality of the actual articles has taken a real nosedive as the disputing parties stuff ever-increasingly minute levels of detail into them in order to support their views. Outright personal attacks have flared up from time to time, and contributors on both sides have been blocked on account of this.

I personally believe that one of the parties is actively pushing a POV, but would have trouble substantiating that opinion with specific diffs. Part of the problem is that the edit histories of the articles are now extremely convoluted; and unfortunately, none of the disputing parties are given to expressing their differences concisely, so the talk pages are a real morass as well, and it's very difficult to work out who's accusing whom of what (specifically). I'm extremely wary about how both sides are using their sources - I feel that there's a good deal of interpretation, generalisation, and Synthesis going on; and both sides have resorted to their interpretations of primary sources at various points.

The side that, in my opinion, is advancing a specific POV and "righting a great wrong" now appears to have exhausted the patience of the opposing side.

What would you recommend as a course of action? Any advice would be much appreciated! Regards --Rlandmann (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a brief look, but it is certainly complex. Give me a day or two to look over things in more detail before I give you a good response. Vassyana (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that I have no forgotten about this. Vassyana (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I may be able to provide some assistance as an informal mediator. The disputes seem resolvable. Do you think that everyone would agree to informal mediation? After taking a look over things, I believe it may help resolve the disagreements to have someone assist everyone in staying focused on the broader issues of article content and using reliable sources that place things in context. What do you think? Vassyana (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a reasonable chance that they might participate. I'll raise this with those involved. Thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now received indications from each of the three editors most closely involved in the dispute saying that they would be happy for mediation to take place. What next? --Rlandmann (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are the principal parties? Would you take part in the mediation process? What are the current centers of dispute, in terms of articles? Once I hear back from you on these questions, I'll create a case page for centralized discussion and invite everyone involved to comment there. Thanks for your patience with this. I hope that I may be of assistance in settling the dispute. Vassyana (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the principal parties are User:Minorhistorian and User:Dapi89 on one side and User:Kurfürst on the other. I would be willing to participate in the process if you felt that I could assist in any way. The most recent conflict is on Battle of Britain and Supermarine Spitfire operational history. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS

We don't really have a guideline to deal with sources that are not strictly reliable, but are also, not fringe. I wonder how you feel about making a distinction between Questionable Sources and Fringe Sources. I think we need to make a distinction between say, a working paper from the NBER, a publication from the Cato Institute, and a magazine printed by the Communist Party of America. BTW, Vision thing has reverted both of us over at WP:RS. He's quite active in promoting Austrian Economics vs the mainstream view. lk (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While fringe and extremist sources can be pointed out to be substantively distinct, they are treated in the same fashion for our purposes here on Wikipedia. They both represent tiny minority views forwarded by vocal factions that passionately seek prominence and endorsement of their views. Use of such sources falls under the same restrictions and inappropriate use typically violates the same principles. I combined the paragraphs in the section in question (and have not yet been reverted), based on that line of thinking (and on the fact that the paragraphs in question said much the same thing in variation).[13] What do you think? Vassyana (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

By the by, I am pondering the scale of reliability presented by your examples. It is something I want to give some more thought to before providing any solid opinions. Vassyana (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. As far as I'm concerned fringe and extremist sources should be treated in the same way. But there are sources that are strictly speaking not reliable, but are also not fringe or extremist. I wonder if the policy should clarify what should be done in that case. lk (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. I just need some time to consider it. Your post on WT:V expresses the issue that needs the addressed quite well. Vassyana (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:AGK#SA

(Messaging you in public for transparency, although I was inclined to email you this instead. If you'd prefer to discuss via a private medium, just initiate wherever you desire, and I'll go there; whatever makes you feel comfortable.)
Perhaps you can check out the link in the header? Are any follow-up restrictions necessary, in that ScienceApologist is, according to Martin, misbehaving?
Anthøny ✉ 21:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I will get back to you tomorrow on this. I'm taking the time to look over contributions and the general atmosphere/context. Vassyana (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Idries Shah

Hi Vassyana, I've put a few hundred edits into revising Idries Shah (before/after). If you feel like having a look, I would be grateful for any comments or further suggestions. If not, or if you're busy with other things, no problem. Cheers! Jayen466 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm heading offline into the meatspace soon until tomorrow, but I will look it over withint the next couple of days and provide a bit of feedback. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

[14] Cheers, Jayen466 23:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit of help, please

Hi, Vassyana, on your recent message to me (many thanks! the cookies are splendid) you said that there was an email link "on the left" of your user page. Am I being dumb? (Likely) I cannot see it anywhere. So, a couple of newbie questions here. (1) If I check out external links and they end in 404 notices, may I just delete the links? (2) This is for the future, but just so as I know: is it permissible/desirable/a total "no-no" for me to take stuff from the spanish language Wikpedia, translate it and put it up in the English Wikipedia? There is some lovely info about Guanche mythology on the Spanish site and very little at all in this English language site. Oh - and (3) WHAT is "meatspace"?!! --Guanche Lady (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) Those are called "dead links" and they should certainly be removed. (2) Yes! It would be wonderful if you were willing to translate useful and interesting pages from the Spanish Wikipedia for article topics we are lacking here at the English Wikipedia. There is even a project for translating articles from other Wikipedias into English (Wikipedia:Translation). (3) Meatspace is a silly way of saying the real or flesh & blood world. (Cyberspace, meatspace.) :) For the email link, on the left hand side of the screen there should be a few boxes of links. The second box of links down underneath the search box ("toolbox") should have a link a few down in the list that says "E-mail this user". You're not dumb, there's just a lot of links there and it's a lot easier to find when you're used to interface and know where to look. If you need anything else, please let me know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And another: Was I being discourteous?

Another editor has told me, at the Gospel of Thomas talk page [[15]], that I had been discourteous in asking for citations. Obviously, I want to learn what is appropriate in Wikipedia, so, if you have time (and are free from Meatspace!, I'd be helped if you'd give me your opinion. Thanks again.--Guanche Lady (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to think the complaint was more discourteous than your own actions. Your response to the complaint was very gracious and courteous (or in wikispeak quite "civil"). The burden is on those wishing to insert or return material to provide citations to reputable sources. You didn't do anything wrong by tagging a poorly written section. For the section in question, it may be more appropriate to use {{Citations missing}} instead of individual citation tags. Generally, if a section or whole article has citation/sourcing issues, it is better (and considered a bit more polite) to place a template like that pointing out the general concerns about the article or section. Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup has a convenient, if huge, list of cleanup templates to use. Both of the general tag variety (like {{citations missing}}) and of the in-line text variety (like {{fact}}.

Regarding linking, there's a title in bold at the topic of any given page. For the Gospel of Thomas talk page it is "Talk:Gospel of Thomas". To link to it, simply put double brackets on both sides. [[Talk:Gospel of Thomas]] produces Talk:Gospel of Thomas. To link to a specific section, you can copy/paste the part of the web address following the "wiki". For example, you can copy "Talk:Gospel_of_Thomas#Theology_of_Gospel_of_Thomas" from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gospel_of_Thomas#Theology_of_Gospel_of_Thomas" and surround it with brackets to produce Talk:Gospel_of_Thomas#Theology_of_Gospel_of_Thomas. You can also replace the underscores with spaces if you want a "cleaner" link, like Talk:Gospel of Thomas#Theology of Gospel of Thomas. You can also change what words appear for the link by using a horizontal bar. [[Talk:Gospel of Thomas|Gospel of Thomas talk page]] produces Gospel of Thomas talk page.

To link to "diffs" (specific edits), you link it like it is an external link. (Anything with "w" instead of "wiki" in the web address uses this type of link.) For example, looking at the page history of the talk page you can click on the "last" link next to any of your edits to get the "diff" (specific edit). Clicking on your most recent edit gives us "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Thomas&diff=243427047&oldid=242876326". You can just make a straight link to it by placing single brackets around it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Thomas&diff=243427047&oldid=242876326] produces [16]. You can also have the link display as words by adding a space and then the words after the link. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Thomas&diff=243427047&oldid=242876326 Your most recent edit on the talk page] produces Your most recent edit on the talk page.

You can link to templates without showing the tag as I did above as well, by adding "tl|" as the beginning of the tag. {{tl|fact}} produces {{fact}}.

I hope this has been helpful! Let me know if you need any further assistance or have any other questions. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lumme

Thanks again, Vassyana. Coo, wot a lot there is to learn... I'll get there, tho!

Regarding putting the citation missing tag, should that go at the top of a section or the end?

Oh, I looked up the Translation project. One of the articles for proof reading had been removed from the Spanish wikipedia site. Someone else had noted this in July - is this just evidence of a huge backlog?

Another translation-needed page I looked at was a simple publicity puff for a new singer. How does one comment about the appropriate "wikiability" of a topic in "civil"?! --Guanche Lady (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

For the "box" tags, they should go at the topic of the article or section in question. Redundant tags (like {{fact}}) should be removed.

I believe the translation project has quite a backlog.

What Wikipedia is not and neutral point of view both provide points that are appropriately used to argue against "puff pieces". "Notability" and the related music guideline may also be appropriate, depending on the specific circumstances. In general, try to be polite and point out the rules that would argue against the content you see as problematic. However, you should bear in mind that the rules represent principles and avoid getting caught up in the specific language of the rules. Vassyana (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay to add to this section, Vassyana? May I have some help, please? I'm trying to edit the Guanche page and am stuck with the technicalities of referencing. The info is on my user page sandbox - sorry, my brain has seized up and I can't do a link to the sandbox. Thank you again.... --Guanche Lady (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite understanding what you would like to do. Are you looking to use Pliny as an external link or a citation? Vassyana (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped to be able to do both. So that the citation showed the Pliny details and clicking a link on it took you to the the Perseus page with the relevant chapter. Or am I trying to be too complicated? ("Meatspace" is busy right now, so I won't be back for a day or two.)--Guanche Lady (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Osho Rajneesh - sourcing issue

Hello Vassyana, as you have offered opinion on this article previously I am bringing this to your attention. It has also been placed on the relevant notice boards.

There seems to be an issue with the dependence upon Judith M. Fox's book in this article. I question why of the 350 odd citations, 100 (including ibidem's) are taken from one 54 paged "booklet". Some sections in the Osho article depend almost entirely on Fox. This would appear problematic considering the abundance of material available on the subject.

In light of this observation, I am seeking an opinion as to whether or not this issue warrants the placement of an appropriate tag, or tags, to highlight this concern.It is essentially one editor, Jayen, who is responsible for the weighting issue arising from the use of this source.

Notable also, in terms of questioning the quality and reliability of the source, is the fact that the book in question is published in conjunction with an Italian organisation called CESNUR, owned by one Massimo Introvigne; who seems to have a reputation for his stance against so called anti-cultists, or cult-apologists.

Generally, I have found that there is resistance to the inclusion of material that questions offically endorsed appraisals of Osho Rajneesh; despite numerous valid sources being offered, for example Talk:Osho#Review_of_sources_covering_the_move_to_America & Talk:Osho#Medical_condition_as_possible_pretext_to_enter_America__-__source_review.

The officical view, that endorsed by individuals sympathetic to the Osho movement, is always presented as the primary version of events, with all other perspectives sidelined as secondary. This is not a neutral presentation of verifiable sources.

Another observation is that the weighting of Fox's assessment of Osho's teachings gives it primacy over the views of other scholars, such as Carter, Metha, Urban, Mullan, etc. all of whom have written on the nature of the subject's teachings. Instead some of their views are relegated to one small section entitled Assessments by scholars of religion. This simply adds to the imbalance.

I believe there is an ongoing issue with the polarised presentation of certain information, you have noted this in saying: However, the views of both supporters and detractors come across in the editorial voice of the article, sometimes relying on poor referencing and original research to push the claims. The article needs a solid rewrite and fact-check. The only solution I see to this problem long term is if the editoral style is overhauled in such a way that conflicting editoral matters are addressed by directly attributing views to the respective holders, in prose form, rather that making a statement and citing a page number, as is currently the case. If you have anything you would like to offer on this please leave a comment here Talk:Osho#Judith_Fox_weighting_issue.Thanks. Best. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

Hi. A little over a year ago, you'd declined an unblock request of G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is now the subject of a community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_sanctions_proposals. I'd like to request for your input at that discussion. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

You capped your Oppose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church, but entered comments below. If you are still oppose, you should enter an Oppose before your second set of comments. Also, caps need signatures in the subject line so I can be sure there were capped by the original author. Also, the way you capped the previous oppose makes it look like it applies to Savidan's comments below yours. It's best to cap with something like a subject line of: Oppose capped by Vassyana, continued below, and include your sig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, better ... I like to make sure things are clear in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. It was easy enough to fix. Vassyana (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sveta Gera Cabal

I need 2 days to join discussion (your questions [17]), I'm out of time at the moment and don't want to contribute there superficially. I appreciate if you can wait a few days. Thanks. Zenanarh (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Take the time you need. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello, Vassyana. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.[18]Semitransgenic (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies again Vassyana, but it seems the dispute has been deemed exclusively content related. Since it involves more than 2 editors I would like to pursue mediation. As you are listed as a potential mediator I am requesting that you, if it is appropriate, offer mediation. If you believe you have thus far had too much involvement with the various disagreements over this article I will contact another mediator. If you have any other suggestions, in terms of addressing the objections raised, please offer them. Regards. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to participate as an informal mediator, if the other involved parties would be comfortable with my assistance. Vassyana (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me weigh up what the options are with this in terms of formal versus informal. Thanks Semitransgenic (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it possible to make a private query? Semitransgenic (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I would be comfortable having you aboard for mediation. jalal (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Me too. (Semi, Vassyana is on e-mail; you can e-mail him off this page, click on "E-mail this user" to the left, near the top of this page). Cheers, Jayen466 15:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the tip. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to update this, I sent an email with some queries, but perhaps it was not received. Informal mediation will not really serve any purpose in the long run so I'll decline the offer. At this stage I am going to wait until another valid point of contention arises, and then decide how to proceed.Semitransgenic (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not receive the mail (just double-checked). I usually get them all, so it must have just been a random glitch somewhere (as sometimes occurs). I am sorry that assistance would not be helpful at this time (I love parantheses *chuckle*). If something else comes up, please let me know and I'll do my best to help out. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I have a feeling it has to do with spam filters, should probably change the sender name to something other than 'semi transgenic' : ) Semitransgenic (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

Hi Vassyana, I would be grateful for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Ross_.28consultant.29. Diffs: [19], [20]. The main source I used is here. Cheers, Jayen466 18:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Butting in as a talk-page stalker: since the only Rick Ross I'd ever heard of was "Freeway" Ricky Ross, I went ahead and added a disambig header to the page, for anyone looking to trace the CIA's role in the crack epidemic and wondering what Scientology has to do with it. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Battle of Britain

I've just read this:

earlier in this thread Minorhistorian thread he vowed not to engage in discussion with me, and now he drops crocodile tears about the "impossibility to make any progress". I bow to that level of hypocrisy. This is very much like the arguments about deleting paragraphs that accidentally happen to be the same he was pushing for as an editor to be deleted with any possible excuse - now under the the 'neutral editor'.

I am deeply offended by Kurfürst's attitude; by making wild and erroneous accusations against me he has placed this whole mediation process in jeopardy. I will not have anything to do with this kind of stupidity.Minorhistorian (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that (talk) is ready to take any means to ensure he can push his edits. I think he just illustrated my point, that on one hand he is complaining to mediators and administrators, in hope that he can push through edits without reaching consensus simply by 'getting rid' of other editors by such means. To agenda is far too transparent: Minorhistorian is refusing to take part in the meditation process, his involvement so far has been limited to accusations both on that page and his attempts to reach 'conclusion' by complaining on administrators boards. At the same time he turns out aggressive edits like this on talk pages. This the kind of hypocrisy I am talking about. Truth is that (talk) is not interested in reaching a consensus, he is just interested in solving the conflict with brute force and complaining in hope of limiting other editors interfering with his edits. Kurfürst (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, this is vey interesting:

Its quite clear that you are ready to reach to any tool to dismiss the view of one of the most decorated and experienced Allied aces of the time, when it does not fit your rosy pink view of Spitfire superiority, which you are so eager to describe as often as possible in your edits. Its quite obvious that your agenda here is to advance a nationalistic POV that does not tolerate any other view, and goes against Wikipedia:Neutral point of viewe. You will not succeed in that agenda, and you will not be allowed to degenerate this article any further with your lengthy edits and amendments that add no information at all, but only seek to argue and push for your rosy pink POV, and dismiss any information that does not fit in your world. If you must spout out your nonsense, 'prove' how irrelevant is the opinion of a veteran fighter ace who took part in those fights against your 'infallible' opinion, then put that garbage where it belongs, to the footnotes. Anybody who bothers with reading that can read it there, and it does not destroy the readability of the article. Kurfürst (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Threats, personal abuse, no facts. This editor has been blocked several times because of these things. As far as I am concerned this is proof that reasonable mediation or discussion is a waste of time with this editor.Minorhistorian (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that Minorhistorian's claim about 'block for these things' is made up. Note that the above quote is referring to (talk) conduct at the Supermarine Spitfire operational history article, in which he resorted to selective quoting of Thomas and Shores in an effort to dismiss the account of one of the most decorated RAF fighter ace, Pierre Clostermann, who's account of the events (talk) wishes to erase from the article with various means. I offered (talk) in that article a compromise to move his so called 'additional information' about Clostermann's operational record to a footnote, which (talk) automatically reverts without any discussion being attempted, the same way he refuses discussion on the mediation page. Also note that (talk) is only offering similiar threats and accusations at the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-12 Battle of Britain page. To quote him:

"This is a wild, erroneous and offensive accusation for which I expect an apology. This is how Kurfürst repeatedly chooses to "discuss" issues and is one reason why he is held in low regard as an editor. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)"

This kind of behaviour is not happening for the first time, (talk) repeats this false charge as often as possible (truth of the matter is that only him and his tag-team member Dapi89 has personal problems with me which lead to a serious of nonsensical blood feuds), and instead of addressing me politely on my login handle, he only uses dehonesty terms like "this 'editor' "; recently he noted that 'I have had a gutsful of this clown:', referring to me etc. It would appear that Minorhistorian only demands respect but is unwilling the give it the same way. Also, what is clear is that, by their own words, neither (talk) or talk) is willing to engage in a dialogue, or is interested in finding a compromise and peaceful solution. Rather, they spend their energy to complaining to administrators, hoping to 'solve' the problems 'by different means'. Kurfürst (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I also want to note that I just suggested a viable compromise at the proper place for these kind of debates, see here. Kurfürst (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI - I have recently indef-blocked User:Kurfürst for continuing gross incivility. I'm very sorry to have "short-circuited" the mediation process in this way; but unfortunately, his continuing attacks on other editors left few alternatives. Despite his claims above of not having been blocked in the past for this sort of behaviour, a check of the block log will show that this has indeed been the case.

Thanks for the time and trouble you put into this mediation. If you still feel that something could be gained from the process, I invite you to check User:Kurfürst's edit history and block log, and then unblock him if you see fit. Kind regards and apologies for wasting your time --Rlandmann (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab check-in

Is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-11 British Isles Terminology task force still active? Vassyana (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have closed it. SilkTork *^YES! 18:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

Because the RCC FAC has grown lengthy and difficult to edit, with many signatures separated from the original commentary, I have pulled your original commentary out to the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church#Vassyana to hopefully make it easier for you to update the status of your concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That was so very kind of you ... it is always nice to be appreciated. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I have answered many of your comments with extensive amounts of article text added to try to satisfy your demands. Sandy created a section on the FAC discussion page summarizing opposes and I am asking all to please come and strike the items that I have addressed here [21]. I do not feel as if you are treating me fairly by continuing to oppose even after I added so much to the article and have shown that your first comment is not answerable because I can not reference it to any scholar. You yourself have tried to provide scholars to support your view but none of them say what you are asking me to say in the article. Please be fair. NancyHeise ^talk 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way, but I will not remove my opposition. Your reply taking one of the quotes I provided so far out of context as to make it appear as though it were saying the opposite of its point is a perfect example of why I feel that your responses are insufficient and even outright unacceptable (and also why I take your interpretation of scholars and research with the barest threads of good faith and several grains of salt). Where there has been substantive action taken that is appropriate to the concern raised, I have stricken or altered my opposition. Where the action is lacking or insufficient, I have clearly noted where and why. Religion is one of my strong subjects and I will not drop opposition to an article that clearly fails to address all significant views and utterly fails to inform the reader about key topics. Vassyana (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Circular redirects

Would you please look into the question of the redirect pages, with categories, that User:JASpencer is creating. An example is Carlos Quintero Arce. It redirects to a page that merely mentions him with a link to the redirect page. Since the link is then blue, it gives the false impression that Wikipedia has an article about him. I think these redirect pages should be deleted. Lima (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On more careful examination, I think there may be only three cases. Lima (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR

I have made a few proposals on the talk page - and would welcome your comments, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)