User talk:Vassyana/Archive006

Re-direction of debates

Please see My response to your reply on the village pump suggestions page. Zantaggerung 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentor

Hi VS, I am looking for someone to mentor myself. HS, suggested I ask you. Even I think you are the best option for me. But, are you interested in editing on religion. Again, do you have time?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Sometimes I may not be around much for a day or two at once. Life can be a little busy sometimes. :) But, I will certainly try to offer what help I can. Let me know when you are going to have some spare time, and we'll start off with a few questions. OK? Be well!! Vassyana 02:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not a problem, VS. You can ask me the questions. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am waiting for my questions. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Placing them on your page. Vassyana 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've answered your questions.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Indian religions

Hi Vassyana, IAF is once again editing thru IP although he is banned. He is accusing you of cohorting with me and banning him because you are a jain. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_religions&diff=160215005&oldid=160206409

I suggest that this page be semi-protected. Unfortunately a lot of time and energy is being wasted on unproductive things like edit wars by IAF.--Anish Shah 08:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue and brought it to the attention of other administrators (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block of User:IAF). I have also semiprotected the page and marked it with the appropriate template. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Vassyana 08:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!....hopefully we can make the contributions in a more positive manner after the unnecessary edit wars.--Anish Shah 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassayana, I couldn’t help reading IAF’s defence and appeal against the ban. I sincerely hope that he reforms and tries to arrive at a consensus rather than edit wars once he is unblocked. I would like to mention one incident wherein at the very outset, I had made a request to him for a consensus and truce and he flatly refused. This is just for your information. Cheers.--Anish Shah 13:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is it legal to debate actual issues (that articles are written about) on userpages? Because, if so, I would like to discuss the invisible pink unicorn. Zantaggerung 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

~close look~ ... are you ... a Pastafarian!? :o) Vassyana 13:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is AB correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BalanceRestored&diff=prev&oldid=160634056 Kindly let me know. I am unaware that I cannot say that to DAB. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

the comment that AB's talking abt BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This was more or less a general comment to what I'm doing about Setusundram (I voted at petitiononline.com etc). It was a reply to Dab's quote. Look, I sometimes feel, I am been very strictly treated. I know AB could be right about it. But, I like to know your view too. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to others like "soapboxing". That is, it appears like you are advocating a particular naming or name change. Does that make sense? Vassyana 13:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

email

FYI I sent you an email yesterday... Yilloslime (t) 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having some issues accessing my mail. I have contacted technical support and the problem has been acknowledged. When my access is restored, I will review it immediately. Thanks for the notice in case I hadn't checked my inbox though. :) Be well! Vassyana 17:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey did you ever get your email situation sorted out? Yilloslime (t) 16:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I finally was able to review some mail today. However, other parties have withdrawn, so the case is closed. I am sorry I was not able to respond sooner or help the mediation further. Vassyana 23:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. But I don't see where/when people pulled out--was this the result of a private discussion between you and one of the parties, or I am just somehow missing someone's statement of withdrawl? Yilloslime (t) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They withdrew privately. Sorry for any confusion. Vassyana 00:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK cool. Got it. I thinking to myself, "Am I crazy? How did I miss this?" Now it makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Yilloslime (t) 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts and for your assistance with the case. Chido6d 03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring BR

That's great! I would love to see BlanaceRestored's enthusiam directed into some more productive content creation. If you are interested in catching up with BR's recent activities, you can take a look at the the RFCs he has started at Talk:Ganesha and Talk:Adam's Bridge. You may need to read the previous sections on the talk page to catch up with the extensive prior discussions related to topic of the RFCs. I have been involved with these pages for some time; so let me know if I can be of any help in providing specific information about the subjects or the discussion history. Cheers. Abecedare 04:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope to see some improvement in him. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 05:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks VS, I will surely try my best to follow the policies here, I assure you I am trying them too. I think it will be very great to have you as my mentor. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ganesha

I've started an RFC at Ganesha, I remember you suggesting me to do this. But, since I was new that time. I could not understand what did you mean by that. I can now understand the meaning of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF. I understand that one should not argue after we see that there is a dead lock over a topic. It is better to involve a third view. Let me know if I am going right. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, AB, keeps quoting old things that I got blocked when ever he has to go for a dispute resolution. I do not think that is wise. I am sure people will consider going with an alternate ID seeing such old history raised, and get blocked when found with Socket puppetry. I am sure every one who wants to edit longer here should have been blocked some time or the other. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And now because of that I'd to explain why I got blocked etc. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that frustrations of mine. I hope you have an answer for this

"I am an editor with about 4 months of wiki editing, I've got blocked trying to rectify these errors as I hardly understood editing, I hardly understand where to pickup my points from and where to explain all these from. All, I have is Google Books. I request, some senior editors to look in to these problems. I feel, some editors are trying their best to edit here, but are not aware of what's crossing WP:NPOV. All, I know here is I've been hearing "Vakratundaya Dheemahi Tanno Danti Prachodayat", for all 11 days of Ganesh festival, and I've been today told here is that, What I am hearing is not true because I do not have a WP:V book to prove my points. Things are very difficult here. Also, what if tomorrow I do not find a WP:V book at google, will things here be the same? In-spite of knowing that the fact is something else?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalanceRestored (talk • contribs) 10:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We must make sure facts are verifiable by other editors. Putting in things you know but that cannot be cited is original research. Citing from reliable sources helps us make sure that Wikipedia is verifiable and helps us to avoid original research. Vassyana 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AB has removed the Secondary sources those I had put, I don't know why? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganesha&diff=160898599&oldid=160876603

BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be because it was already cited, using the {{Harvnb}} template. Vassyana 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny, Robert, L Brown at page 70 [1] has himself mentioned about Ganesha's presence, in Ganesha Gayatri, and it's presence in Vedas, and AB has used this reference, in his reference list along with his statements. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is? It appears like that information is already presented in the article. Do you feel differently? Vassyana 13:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I quickly realised that I didn't have time for that (or indeed, any other mediation) and thought I'd done everything I needed to do to remove my name from it. Obviously I haven't... Sorry Chrislintott 11:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Vassyana 13:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was only ever (a short lived) mediator - I don't have an opinion. Chrislintott 07:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Life

Hi, VS, I'm trying to find details about life and death. I getting around both with science and pseudo-science for this matter. If you can guide me where I can start with things, if you've already been around, it will be great.

I've found this great verse in Bhagwat Gita about life which sound very much scientific,

na tv evāhaḿ jātu nāsaḿ na tvaḿ neme janādhipāḥ na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ sarve vayam ataḥ param

na — never; tu — but; eva — certainly; aham — I; jātu — at any time; na — did not; āsam — exist; na — not; tvam — you; na — not; ime — all these; jana-adhipāḥ — kings; na — never; ca — also; eva — certainly; na — not; bhaviṣyāmaḥ — shall exist; sarve vayam — all of us; ataḥ param — hereafter.

These verses go very much inline with

the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another, such as when electrical energy is changed into heat energy.

and so far I've not found anything better than that. Kindly guide me about the same. I'll try to get details around this topic and contribute if I find anything good. Right now at wikipedia we only have what the popular religions in the world say about these. I will find out what other un-popular religions too say, I've got some details here Creationism. I've seen your interest in Occult. So, I assume you should have gone around these too. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What aspect do you wish to study? The life-force? The wheel of life and death? There are many things that could appeal to you. Vassyana 15:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What's after life? This is what I am trying to find. I've known a 100% non-believer (i know him for years) telling me his experience with a ghost. So, I have a rough idea that these are 99% true. He just said this to me, "Look buddy I saw it with my own eyes, I know no one will believe, but it has happen. One will only believe it only if they experience it, I've seen a person reducing his size to that of a toy, and then it grew to a big giant and after some time I saw a drunk man walking by". But, again I've never experienced these ever in my life. So, I do not believe in it's presence. This person whom I talk about will never fool around. But again I do/do-not believe him because it's 100% unnatural. But, again there were 2 of them to have experienced this incident and the other person did suffer a critical brain haemorrhage experiencing that incident. So, I need to believe that there's something after life. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 04:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am 100% positive that life is clearly contradicting the current laws of physics. There's a line between life and physics. I've had a big debate before in 2004 were no one among the best educated scientist could answer the following, "How am I a living-soul (Non-Physical entity) moving my body that's made of physical elements." Isn't that a clear voilation of the laws of physics?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 04:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone started to explain right from "central nervous system" to everything that science till today has found. But, then no one knew what made the central nervous system trigger the events that a living being performs? This soul of ours trigger these events. But, how?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything in religion explaining this? BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Those are some heavy questions. :) We all ask those "large" questions at some point or another. A lot of people have talked about, and debated, the answers to those questions throughout history. I personally am religious, though often private about my faith. However, I see no conflict between faith and science; no contradiction between life and physics. The philosophy of mind addresses the apparent conflict between mind and body. (See Dualism (philosophy of mind) and Mind-body dichotomy.) Some faiths believe the contrast is explained through multiple souls, such as a "body" soul and a "spirit" soul. Some scientists and philosophers in arguing there is no distinction speak of a bodymind. In some mystical practices, the mind has its own "body". From a scientific angle, you may find the idea of the quantum mind interesting. Cheers! Vassyana 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty interesting and informative reply. I did try to read and understand Dualism (philosophy of mind) before. I guess I should re-read it this time. I am sure everyone reaches to these questions some or the other time in life. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO

You suggested that WP:PORNBIO be merged into WP:N, which is not likely to happen; however, it does look like WP:PORNBIO has a chance of being merged into BIO. Your opinion would be valuable in evaluating consensus. --Kevin Murray 22:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

See Talk:William_Schniedewind#Some_friendly_advice_to_Critical_Reader. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends page

Vassyana, I am an editor of the Fellowship of Friends page. Things are pretty confusing there, with edit wars and multiple reverts (the page is protected at the moment). I was reading the archives and noticed that you successfully worked with editors in the past to obtain consensus. Could you take a look? If you are too busy, could you recommend another mediator with experience in this kind of situations? Thank you for your attention. Love-in-ark 06:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vassyana, Looks like another editor had the good sense to contact you already. Until today, I had hopes of working things out on our own, but the situation is growing more contentious. Hope you have time. I could list the reasons why, but they might sound like sycophancy :-). Regards, --Moon Rising 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana - Your help is needed over at the FOF page, please familiarise yourself with the COI disputes and sock puppetry recently uncovered. I would hope we can avoid another edit war with mediation. ThanksWantthetruth? 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana - Not sure exactly where you are with mediation help or whether you would want to take this on again. In case you missed it, here is a comment posted to Yamla on, WP:COIN "During a mediation, the mediator Vassayana, suggests that criticism be combined with the rest of the article rather than being its own section. Which was done. A few days later - when Vass left, all the criticism was deleted piece by piece. So I kept opening a new criticizingly section because obviously this incorporating into the aricle in the end only got rid of criticism. Then the fof members say let’s incorporate it into the article as suggested by the mediator (ex [2] [3].) Then they would say “not relevant to the section” and get rid of it [4]. This was quite annoying at the time. (I could come up with a couple of more examples if needed). Aeuio 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)" Help is definitely needed, can you let us know whether you will be involved please Wantthetruth? 18:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Maybe you want to weigh in on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To be entirely blunt, I couldn't be interested less. Taking a look, it's hardly more than a retread summary of the past couple years of WT:RFA. Is it an issue I care about? Surely. However, that RfC is utterly useless, except as a convenient summary of the long-term dispute. Until the three main sides (those demanding complete rebuilding, those demanding a recall system and those claiming it is the least of evils/"ain't broke") can attempt to understand and compromise with the other parties, nothing is going to resolve the dispute. I would note however, that the RfC does indeed demonstrate a lack of consensus and full faith in the current system, which is highly problematic. Vassyana 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am for supporting progressive improvements to the RfA process, but its seems as stated that It is an all or nothing proposition what is behind the RfC, and that is a pity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think many parties from both sides have an "all-or-nothing" approach, as expressed above. I believe such an atmosphere makes rational discussion and gradual changes both highly improbable. I also tend to think you have the right idea with progressive improvements. To me, the system is obviously "broken" even if it "works". A loud smokey car that shakes violently at 105kph will still get you from home to work and back. That doesn't mean it's not "broken". However, since it has some functionality, the best approach in a wiki is to fix it one chunk at a time. Cheers! Vassyana 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Unblocked

Hi, I would just like to point out that a another admin has over turned your justified indef block of Tallum ExtraDry 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no proof (or even evidence) that the user was engaged in anything in contravention of WP:SOCK, which requires a certain level of abusive sockpuppetry (I agree for the record that the two are clearly linked - that much has been established). The user has been blocked for some time as it stands, and the local admins are watching the articles in question closely and will definitely impose blocks if behaviour we have seen there already continues. You should also be aware that ExtraDry is himself a reincarnation of a user with an extensive block record and a bad history, is obsessed with Newington College, and has been calling "sock" at anyone who disagrees with him on that article since his second week editing on this account (i.e. since early June). This in itself is an abuse of the right to vanish clause, as it has meant he has evaded blocks for disruption for quite some time, and I have explained the details here. Orderinchaos 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: restoring the block - no. I accept that the block was placed in good faith, however, I did check with a couple of neutral parties before taking the action I did. I believe this sort of thing encourages gaming the system, and I encourage you to look at ExtraDry (talk · contribs)'s contributions as I did earlier today, alongside those of DXRAW (talk · contribs). Orderinchaos 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Dear Vassyana, I was so glad to see you show up on the Alice Bailey page! There are a few good sources but a lot of them are things that would never see the light of day in other wiki articles. Many good editors have been run off by the tendentious editing (with the stated purpose of showing Bailey in a negative light). I have faith in Wiki and hope that reason can prevail. Please stick around! Renee 19:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than add a section, I'll just add my vote: yes, thanks so much for your opinion on Cumbey. I am of the opinion her work is useful a source that does nothing more than demonstrate that alternative (if bizarre) interpretations have been published (which I believe it does satisfy), using only enough material from it to establish Cumbey's apparently unique viewpoint. However, if you want to argue the source should be removed entirely, I certainly won't be fighting for it's inclusion.

In regards to the person you're arguing with, however, it has been my experience that this editor has an unceasing insistence on "getting the last word", that he virtually never responds to you, only at you, and that it is entirely futile to discuss anything with him. But, best of luck! lol (And Hi! Kwork, can't wait to read your reply below!) Eaglizard 23:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second here. If the two of you are going to characterize a particular person's behavior on the article in question, it would be appropriate to explain the entire history of the extremely contentious situation.

Kwork is not the cause of the problems with that article, he is one element in a complex story. The story includes, for example, a post on a Yahoo message board asking Alice Bailey followers to come to Wikipedia to clean up the article and remove comments about her antisemitism.

So let's play fair please. If you want to invite a new editor, an administrator with a lot of experience, great, please do.

But if you want to talk about tendentious editing, there is a lot more to say about that topic as relates to the history of that article than just Kwork's name.

So, I suggest that you not try to poison the well, and instead trust that Vassyana will be able to see personally what's happening. If there is disruptive editing, it will be apparent, but you don't need to try and get a jab in in advance about one person, who has a somewhat gruff personality but, as a matter of actual fact, has been helping the article not degrade into a Bailey-praising POV memorial which is what would happen if he and one or two others would stop editing.

I am not accusing either of you of POV-pushing on the article, I am speaking in general, so please don't take those comments personally. But I am addressing what appears to be an unfair advance characterization of one editor who may have some flaws but who, from what I've seen, has the best interests of an accurate article at heart.

There are many causes for the problems with that article, the most important of which is that there are almost zero reliable secondary sources who have written anything about Alice Bailey at all. That's why the marginal sources have appeared. She does not have enough presence in secondary sources to provide the needed information to support the depth of article that exists on that page.

I've been asking for weeks now for people to stop arguing and look for references. I've added a handful of them, but they are hard to find and don't say much. That's where the energy should be going, not into trying to stop one editor from keeping the article from tilting too far into the love-fest direction. --Parsifal _Hello 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on BD

Vassyana:

He is telling the truth, since it is a building where some of the offices belong to the Fellowship, who also owns the T1 connection. They rent spaces with this internet connection. Love-in-ark 21:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:IAF

I have reviewed the block of User:IAF and found it was too harsh. An indefinite block is a ban, and should only be given once longer duration blocks prove to be useless. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends Protection

Is it possible for the Fellowship of Friends page to be protected indefinitely. IF you look at the recent talk it seems unlikely that any progress can be made. Unimpeachable sources (like the LA Times) are being obstructed. If the page is protected, any changes could be agreed by editors onthe talk page and then submitted to administrators. Also, I have no argument with Fellowship members editing from home, but it does seem inappropriate that they can edit from the Fellowship offices. Waspidistra 09:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that a person editing Wikipedia from the FoF connection is a case of COI but the same person editing from anywhere else is not? Wikipedia should block editors, not IP ranges, so I am asking for the IP block to be released. Mfantoni 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that COI applies regardless of editing location. Please see my talk page for the serious concerns I have about WP:COI and Fellowship of Friends. --Yamla 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Creator deity Formal principle Pope Victor I First Vision Hermeneutics Thomas McElwain Folk Christianity Paramatman Churchianity Christian Church Hitler's Pope American Unitarian Association Bentley Layton David Bohm Analytic philosophy Essence (magazine) Christian republic Barnabas Fund The Tao of Physics

Cleanup Emergentism Sabians Libertarianism (metaphysics) Merge Essenes Spiritual desertion Nontheism Add Sources Baptism for the dead Orthodoxy Revelation Wikify Bharata Muni Seth Philosophy of education Expand Christianity Explained Stir of Echoes Book of Isaiah

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion. You also might want to review Recent single origin hypothesis, Origin of language, Steven Mithen, and Fred Wendorf. -- Jreferee t/c 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I have decided to seek informal mediation on the case. If you are interested the case is open at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-17 Origin of religion. Muntuwandi 16:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV is not a second AfD, please do not treat it like one. Mediation is not a solution for when you disagree with how wiki-processes have worked. Please stop forum-shopping. Let the DRV run its course. I will not take part in mediation. Vassyana 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus and fringe

Dear Vassanya,

Before making unfounded accusations on user talkpages about what is or is not consensus, it would help if you looked at the talkpage of the guideline in question. Have you been involved in the discussions there? Have you taken note that Martinphi is currently the only person who has objected to the stylistic edits (not substantive changes to the content of the guideline)? Are you also aware that the "respected admin" in question has a history of reverting my actions and having his actions overruled? No? Then I suggest you start doing your homework before going around making proclamations.

Best,

ScienceApologist 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have missed something. There is a discussion at talk. Consensus was acheived. Do you see any evidence that it wasn't? I see only one editor who objects (User:Martinphi) and he categorically has refused to discuss the matter instead appealing to meat puppets and simple obstructionism. There are plenty of other editors who have commented in support of the changes which are basically stylistic. I ask you again to show evidence that you have actually looked at the discussion. List where any other user other than Martinphi has listed an objection to the changes he (and now you) continue to revert. ScienceApologist 14:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're totally clear, the two talk sections in question are Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Comparison of versions and Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Stable version. The section below that (Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Appeal to particular attribution) is about a substantive content change I am proposing and discussion is still ongoing. That is a different discussion. ScienceApologist 14:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavy-handedness

Your comments today have been particularly problematic in the light of your tacit assumptions regarding your position and my position:

1. You are obviously good friends with User:Jossi. This is fine, however, in the past User:Jossi and I got into some altercations where he engaged in some shady administrator behavior at Plasma cosmology which were (thankfully) overturned by another sysop. Since that time, the various pseudoscience POV-pushers who I have come across have delighted in asking Jossi to undo my edits which he does without so much as a simple evaluation of discussion. Instead he may or may not remark in the relevant talkpages with authoritative announcements about a need for "discussion" or "consensus" in which he invariably does not involve himself and then leaves the disputed ground with a simple revert to a "favored version". This kind of behavior is most unfortunate, but thankfully he has held himself at arm's length enough for me to have enough leeway to resolve disputes without his administrative heavy-handedness.
2. Now you are coming in with a similar attitude. Your reference to "two sysops" I believe was meant to confer some sort of authority to the sysop status you currently enjoy. As you should be aware since you yourself are an admin, a sysop is a janitor: not an authority figure. I am equal to you in the eyes of the Wikipedia community and you have no more authority over me than any other user. You simply have a mop and bucket which can be used to clean up problems that the community agrees need to be handled in a certain way. Your handling of this particular situation smacks of unreasoned favoritism in jumping on Jossi's bandwagon and is outrageous since you have assumed an authority which you simply do not have.
3. I encourage you to look into this issue more in-depth. In particular there is a current arbitration relevant to these problems.

I hope that you take this criticism seriously. I do not like having to brush down people, but I was not pleased by your handling of this matter.

Regards,

ScienceApologist 21:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

some shady administrator behavior? You have an in credible chutzpah to say that. My involvement with that article was circa Nov 2005, when I came to assist with a content dispute. I can see that this user continues with his editing style despite so many warnings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Show some diffs for this assertion: the various pseudoscience POV-pushers who I have come across have delighted in asking Jossi to undo my edits which he does without so much as a simple evaluation of discussion, or are you referring to your change of wording in a guideline or policy which you attempted without consensus? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious, Jossi? Are you telling me you do not recall all the times that User:Elerner appealed to you to "protect" the "right" version of plasma cosmology? And the time you reverted to the "right version" and then protected it? ScienceApologist 21:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I recall that, and in the context of the dispute it was the right decision, with which you and others may disagree. No, if you could, it is about time you move on from a two year-old dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to move on, I have just found that you seem preferentially to accomodate the desires of editors who get into disputes with me. Why did User:Martinphi ask you to revert on your user talkpage? Sounds like he's recruiting a meat puppet. User:Elerner used to do similar things. So did User:Iantresman. It doesn't take too long to begin to see a pattern. ScienceApologist 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just check your contribs... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Take another look

at unblock request you denied for User_talk:75.4.0.69. You did note cite a reason for denying the request, only that "this IP range is blocked" which was already prima facie obvious. The original blocking admin - Can't sleep, clown will eat me - *was* provided; what wasn't provided was the original reason for the block. There is no rule or guidleine that says I must use my account to edit -- I should be able to IP edit *if I WANT TO*, especially given there's been no violation cited or logged anywhere. Please review your denial (for which, again, you did not provide an explanation), and operate according to protocol. Things should not be blocked for no reason. HarpooneerX 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Bishops

As a member of WikiProject Catholicism I wanted to inform you that some members of Wikipedia believe that most Roman Catholic Bishops do not merit an article on Wikipedia. Since I am unaware of a position on Wikipedia on this matter I decided to bring this to your attention. The three articles on bishops are up for AfD, they are: : John Joseph Nevins , René Henry Gracida , and Felipe de Jesus Estevez Callelinea 21:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cut off post

Thanks! I was expanding and misclicked. But then, as I was posting an opus, it was taking me a while to finish the post:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 00:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Attack on Sydney Harbour

Hi Vassyana, I have been working on the above page for some months and there is a small problem. There are only two of us editing at the moment and we are having trouble agreeing. My colleague feels the article needs some "color" and wants to include a (documented)description of the Royal Navy admiral in charge of harbour defenses returning from a party ashore and going around the harbor perhaps drunkenly abusing the patrol boat crews who were looking for the reported submarine/s. I admit I may be biased, as I was a navy officer for quite a while, but it seems to me that making a fool of a person who was no doubt doing his best with limited information is not what Wikipedia should be doing. We are both proceeding in this affair with great civility and correctness, but would appreciate your input. Rumiton 12:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha

There are some very contradictory edits out here at Ganesha. I've discussed the same at the article's talk page too. Now, is there a policy at wikipedia that will need editors to clearly mention the context on why authors have said, "there is proof that Ganesha is not in the Vedas etc?" while the current article is not talking about the so called proofs. Please look into it if you have time. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

criteria of truth

On 30 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article criteria of truth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--++Lar: t/c 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

purgatory

Vassyana, could you please help us again with purgatory? you were really helpful several months ago when I was trying to reach an agreement with Lima about purgatory. I'm sorry I dropped out of mediation, but there's been a tragedy in my home life, and I could no longer bear the animosity that marked the arguments. I've also taken a new screen name, since the last one (JonathanTweet) attracted insults. The good news is that there are now 3 other editors taking an active hand in the page, so there's some hope for breaking the logjam that Lima and I were in. Please come by and weigh in. There's progress on the page, but it's hard going, and it's still largely a mess. Leadwind 14:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Ryanair: Please assist with AfD

I believe that the article Criticism of Ryanair fails Wikipedia guidelines under WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. I'd like to nominate this article for deletion. I've added the AfD tag to the article and a note on the article's Talk page. I'd like to add the AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but I see that I need to create an account and log in to do so. I do not wish to do this. The instructions suggest that I "ask another user to nominate Criticism of Ryanair for deletion instead." I am therefore asking you to please add this article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you do not wish to do this, could you please hand it off to another likely Wikipedian? Note that I have no stake in this subject other than improving Wikipedia -- I've never heard of Ryanair or anyone associated with it before today. Thank you. -- 201.19.114.143 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. The article is little more than a shotgun blast of negative press and opinions, if something more at all. Vassyana 15:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Accusations

You made some rather bold accusations against me. I responded to them here. ScienceApologist 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

You had a choice on that AfD to not participate under the alternate account, giving the impression of additional commentary from a separate user. Whether or not it affected the outcome of the AfD is quite irrelevant. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Voting and other shows of support plainly prohibits using multiple accounts in a deletion discussion (both in explicit language and spirit). No matter how you try to excuse such actions, they are against the spirit and plain language of policy.

• I disagree. The way the wording of the policy is discourages the use of sockpuppets in an attempt to show support beyond consensus. This was not the intention of using the new account since I had to abandon the old account. The issue is that I had no choice if I was going to prevent the IRL harassment at my job. The only other choice is to stop discussing which I think in the case where my expertise can be of value to the discussion was inappropriate. This was a judgment call on my part, granted, but it wasn't unequivocally prohibited. If you disagree, I encourage you to look carefully through my comments at the arbcomm and seek other opinions on the matter.

Further clarifying my general misgivings, you at least used multiple socks at the same time to continue your crusade against pseudoscience.

• You are characterizing my actions in a way that borders very close on incivility and personal attacks yourself. I used multiple socks in different areas of editing. Whether you decide they are with the same agenda is your own issue, not mine.

That's a world away from creating a single account to handle a "hot" topic area and the clear intent of that permissiveness in this policy. *hands you some salt with his opinion*

• That salt your throwing around is fairly grainy. The issue is that I first tried to separate out the different issues so as to avoid the stalking that continues to plague my account (as you can see by various comments to the current arbitration). When that didn't work, a new tactic was tried. I get the feeling you aren't so much trying to inform yourself about what went on as you are trying to attack me to further your own agenda, whatever that may be.

I did not say that counseled, cautioned, sanctioned or other "warned" editors have no right to vanish. What I said, quite clearly, is that they do not have that right in the casual sense of being able to do so at will and without strings.

• There is nothing in the policy which states this explicitly. What I am saying is that since I was under no formal sanction there was nothing I was evading except for the IRL harassment.

The community has repeatedly demonstrated "hiding" blocks, bans, sanctions, disruptive histories, et al is almost always considered an aggravating factor.

• Sure, and if you have evidence that this is what I was doing why don't you show it?

If you did something (under an alternate account) perceived as disruptive, uncivil or otherwise problematic, and it came out that account was a "hidden" sock of SA, the likelihood of a block without warning and/or a lengthy block drastically increases.

• An issue I certainly thought about. However, that doesn't mean that what I did was wrong.

One solution to avoiding this kind of problem would be to contact ArbCom privately and inform them you are creating a new account for privacy and safety purposes.

• If that's a rule that arbcomm would like to implement, that's fine with me. However, there is currently nothing in the entire history of the Wikipedia pages to indicate that this is the proper course of action.

It would also likely be helpful to notify some sysops and other community members you trust with your privacy.

• That's precisely what I did, as you would have known if you had researched the matter.

Additionally, if the change is a matter of privacy, it's just good sense to avoid the same editing patterns and particular language if you truly value your privacy.

• It wasn't a matter of privacy: it was a matter of IRL harassment.

In particular, distinctive wording and turns of phrase are usually immediately recognizable in high-activity and controversial topic areas, due to the level of familiarity editors have with the editing styles and tones involved.

• That wasn't so much an issue with me as it was when people a certain user began hounding me. Luckily nothing came of it as the people harassing me IRL were a bit dim, to put it mildly.

You may consider the disruptive history subjective, or "in the eye of the beholder", but you have been warned by ArbCom twice about civility. First as a light counsel to treat some editors with more respect, and then more forcefully (including an admonition to adhere to the spirit, not just the letter).

• You actually have the order backwards, but what I will point out is that a warning is not something that has historically been considered something that is mitigating vis-a-vis WP:SOCKS. If you have any evidence to the contrary, show it.

This trend of dealing poorly with other editors has been noted by several respected members of the community as well.

• And many more not so respected members. The point is that my "poor dealings" are issues that tend to be the coatracks on which certain editors with ulterior motives hang their agendas.

I do understand that you were dealing with, to put it lightly, difficult editors. I believe that has been treated as a mitigating factor in your behavior, by both ArbCom and the broader community. I also believe your expertise and contributions have also been mitigating factors. There are many members of the community who view your presence as a net positive, a number of them well-respected and trusted. Most editors using similar attitudes and language would have received multiple incivility blocks in the same length of time, from what I've seen around the wiki. It's not a matter of whether you've been uncivil or disruptive, but if the mitigating factors should be treated as such, and if they are sufficient counterweight. How that history and those mitigating factors balance out, if you moved to another account for privacy reasons, would be for ArbCom (and those admins you notify) to decide.

• This, at least, is a statement with which I agree.

Please make no mistake; I value your scientific knowledge, expertise and contributions. However, I cannot condone or excuse less-than-wise behavior and judgment because of it. While you were certainly (even on-wiki) confronted with equally poor (and often worse) behavior and that makes your actions more understandable, I am sure you understand that tu quoque is an invalid defense.

• Also something with which I agree.

There are a number of choices you could have made (and still can make). A break to focus on less controversial physics topics (many of which are in dire need of expert love) could be beneficial both to you and the project, for example.

• I evaluate the urgency with which I see problems based on what my students find interesting and research on Wikipedia. At the present time, the worst pages on Wikipedia are those which deal with pseudoscience. This wasn't always the case: there was a time when standard subjects were much worse. However, in my expert opinion, I judge the areas that I'm currently editing in to be the areas in most need of my help in editing. You have no right to dictate what I can and cannot edit.

Somehow, find a way to take a step back and collect yourself when you're feeling frustrated, stressed or irritated. If you avoid aggressive editing and language, while others continue to be problematic, you will likely find less of a problem getting assistance from sysops and the general community. I've noticed at least a few occasions when people were reluctant to intervene because they felt the problem was to some degree a two-way street. I'd also recommend you take the numerous suggestions regarding policy and general behavior to heart, or reconsider that advice and identify what is causing a misconception/miscommunication. In the end, both you and Wikipedia would be the better for it. I hope that helps clarify where I am coming from in this matter.

• The last bit of advice is something I've heard many times. I take it as a general principle around which the community abides. However, I will say that the focus on civility and personal attacks has become something of a red herring for the community to avoid dealing with more pressing concerns of content and style. Arbcomm and the dispute resolution process in general is woefully unprepared to deal with these issues. This is a systemic problem with the Wikipedia community and it seems that by focusing on civility and personal attacks it has been almost completely ignored.

ScienceApologist 17:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to merge PROF into BIO?

It seems that the time has come to merge PROF into BIO. What do you think? --Kevin Murray 14:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My blog

I'd be honored if you bookmarked it. Actually, you reminded me that I need to add another post to it. -- llywrch 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

File:Diwalipuja.jpg

May this Diwali bring to you lots of Joy and Happy Moments. People in India celebrate Diwali today and spread their wealth of Happiess among everyone in the world. Kindly feel free to use this template and Wish Diwali to Everyone. Kindly customize the template with your own creativity.(Created by BalanceΩrestored) BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Laozi

See Wikipedia:Peer review/Laozi/archive1. About time we get this article to FA? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Folk Christianity Paramatman Indian Brethren Philosophy of psychology Medieval philosophy Deontological ethics Pragmatic theory of truth Hermeneutics Dikaios Barnabas Fund E. O. James Theodotus of Byzantium Churchianity Christian republic Hexapla The Tao of Physics Western Christianity Order of St. Luke Analytic philosophy

Cleanup Nominalism Virtue ethics Prayer Mountain Merge Spiritual desertion Moral absolutism Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian) Add Sources The City of God The Christian Century Ananda Marga Wikify John Ankerberg Philosophy of education Spiritual gift Expand Universal reconciliation Christianity Explained Phenomenology

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 08:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Gracias! Dreadstar † 20:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sysop bit

Please remove my sysop bit. -- Vassyana (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have my best wishes, Vass. Anthøny 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Vas, In case you check in, thank you for all your support and good advice in the past. Wishing you the best in wherever your path takes you.--Moon Rising (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, you will be sorely missed... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In my previous account, I benefited greatly from your suggestions on policy talkpages, and am saddened to see you go. Relata refero (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am saddened and a little depressed to hear of your (maybe) departure. NPOV owes you a lot. Rumiton (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

References on Winter service vehicle

Thanks for your coments. I had a feeling the references needed to be rechecked - many had been in the article since it was created and had ended up divorced from their context. I've posted a full reply at talk:Winter service vehicle#Recommend a source audit, but put simply, I've implemented most of your changes and replaced most of the other weak sources; those which can't be replaced have been removed. Many thanks, Laïka 13:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I apologize that I do not have more time to devote to helping audit and improve the article. Vassyana (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Psychology test

I don't think I ever found out, or if I did I've forgotten. As a student, it was a way of making enough money to eat, so we used to bounce from one test to another as human guinea pigs. It all became a blur in the end. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Physiography

Ah. That helps explain things a bit more then. We're approaching it from different viewpoints. What you've heard is from a geographer (who are also the 'group' that coined the term physiography), while my contact has been almost exclusively with geologists, who feel that geographers really don't know what they're doing as they approach things from to large of a scale to see the details. Geologists seem to playing catch up with input on physiographic 'regions' and helping the geographers define better boundaries, along with input from botanists, biologists and the other disciplines. They all seem to have slightly different definitions of what physiography is, at least as it pertains to their discipline.

Geographers made the boundaries based solely upon terrain features. Geologists define theirs based upon the components of the rock (type and age), biologists and botanists really mainly and ecosystem type components (where variations of types of species occur at), and hydrologists are more along the lines of 'watersheds' and 'drainages'. In many case the boundaries (at least at large scales) are pretty clear cut, but as the level of detail increases, the boundaries can often become more blurred and farther apart, hence a lot of the discrepency between the various disciplines definitions of what physiography is. Geologists feel that there are pretty clear-cut definitions based solely on when different rock formations were formed, as can been seen in various geologic/lithologic/stratigraphic maps.

My only real interest in it was due to our database, during one of the many design phases, somebody suggested that it may be useful to keep that information as well, so eventually thy could run some analyses to see if maybe some types of various physiographic features were more conducive to large high-grade mineral deposits than others. So, I had to begin my quest on gathering what information was available. If you notice when you do searches on physiography, almost all of the information you find is for the US. There really hasn't been near as much done outside the US, at least not electronically available. I really thought I hit a gold mine when I finally found those physiographic maps. They not look pretty cool, but they contained the list of the physiographic divisions, provinces and sections as well, which was a huge benefit. Many (if not all) of the college/university syllabus' I seen, only list a subset of the total list, usually only as it pertains to the continent the college/university is on. My list (and I have no idea how complete it is) has 49 different physiographic divisions, which are the largest 'region'. When combined with the various provinces and sections, the entire list has 541 different components. And then things really get messy, as the different disciplines have really broken things down much further from there. Kansas is in the Interior plains physiographic division, Great plains province and finally the Missouri plateau (glaciated) and High plains sections. From there, the Dept. of Agriculture has further subdivided into 11 smaller areas. Kansas itself says there are 12 distinct physiographic regions in their state, but their definitions are at cross purposes to those at the higher levels.

It all gets pretty confusing and seems like it would be pretty intersting, but trying to find one two good and comprehensive sources on the subject for the entire world is nigh onto impossible. This is why I wouldn't mind making what I have available on Wikipedia. I think that once the information was there, then others could not only have a better starting point, but could also add and correct it as other information becomes electronically available. What would really be nice is to having a global shapefile of all the various physiographic areas people could use, but I really have no time to draw the boundaries, let alone get ARC installed again. wbfergus ^Talk 11:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In case you or your friend are interested, I've started an article at Physiographic regions of the world. Right now it's still pretty rough, basically just a list. I still need to add references, finish finding and adding wikilinks, and actually add some no-OR text to help flesh it out. I'd appreciate any feedback though on what is correct or incorrect though, or any other areas for improvement. Even as rough as it is though, I think it's the most comprehensive compendium of all of the worlds physiographic 'regions'. I've never been able to find anything else like it through the web, though maybe there is a published work somewhere I haven't seen during my searches. I may have to wait on at least the map references until January when I'm back in the office. I think my friend (who can get into my office) is on vacation also, but he may be back in yet this year, I'm not sure. wbfergus ^Talk 15:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy tag

I don't under why the tag {{policycontroversy}} is not appropriate for a policy page. It's hard to argue that the section isn't controversial. The template is made for policy pages (even explicitly named as such). Vassyana (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a redirect for one thing...;) Dreadstar † 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a redirect, granted. :) But the tag is explicitly for the purpose of marking controversial policy. Vassyana (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem, contents of a policy is still policy, disputed or not. The key is whether or not the policy content has had prior consensus and is valid. If the policy is disputed and there is no prior consensus, then it isn't policy and should be removed. If it has consensus, and doesn't violate or contradict other policies or what Wikipedia stands for, then it is still policy regardless if there is a dispute over that content. We might as well put "disputed" on every policy, because there's sure to be someone who disputes some part of each one. It's a bad precedent to set, because that is exactly what we'll have on every Policy page - a virtually permanent dispute template on every single policy page.

I also think that putting the disputed tag into the article only serves to potentially confuse editors as to whether or not the content is actually policy...it's disputed, why should we pay attention to that part..or any part of the Policy for that matter? I don't think it's the best way to advertise a dispute. That tag is virtually the same as saying "this part of the policy isn't good".

The real claim being made by those that put that tag there, is that the disputed content has no prior consensus, or no "widespread" prior consensus, and doesn't belong there - if that were true, then the contents should be removed, not tagged. The underlying reasoning for the tag is flawed, so that puts the tag even further from something that should be in the article.

And finally, I think the last paragraph I quoted in this section cuts right to the core of the current tag dispute - it's been long enough, the tag is past its useful operational lifetime for this dispute which has been going round and round since August. At least imho, anyway. Odd how we seem to see other issues alike, yet seem to be at opposite ends over the tag issue...;)

Isn't there anything that strikes you odd about having a disputed tag on an official policy page? I dunno, it just seems...well...un-policy-like...;) Dreadstar † 05:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. I pretty much had taken your advice without reading it ... that is, I walked away from that and put some solid proposals on the table to try and move forward. :o) Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm getting a lot of agreement on this, which I'm very grateful for. It seems like such a small, silly dispute, but I think there are larger ramifications from the issue. And you naturally did exactly the right thing, by concentrating on the actual content dispute and moving that discussion forward - and doing your usual great job of it too! I like your latest proposal a lot. Dreadstar † 18:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Keep calm; I think that there is slow but visible progress being made on the talk page. I realize the reversions are painful, but I think they'll be an inevitable part of the resolution of the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Vassyana (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Being slightly more helpful in my response, I'm sorry but I don't agree with you. When two of the three reversions come from people who have completely failed to discuss the matter at all (and know better) and the other comes from someone that makes getting substantive answers like pulling teeth, I just don't see how they'll be part of the resolution. I'm walking away from the entire discussion, because I will just say exactly what's on my mind to those people in seriously unpleasant terms. Vassyana (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is to the detriment of Wikipedia that it has come to this, when a clear minority (roughly 8 or 9 people) tries to dictate to a clear majority (30-40 people), simply because they have Admin rights. I haven't gone through all the discussion to come up with a real tally, but I think I'm pretty close to the correct numbers. See my comments of the WT:NOR page for further comments. wbfergus ^Talk 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:These are not original research#Original translations

Just noticed your essay (nice work btw) and its section on original translation. For Secondary antisemitism, I translated a short paragraph (attempting to be as literal and faithful to the German original as possible) from an essay by Theodor W. Adorno. Should I substitute my own translation with a published translation (wouldn't know how to find one easily)? I would have said no, but with all the recent NOR bruhaha, I'm not so sure anymore. I dorftrottel I talk I 07:17, December 13, 2007

I also like your two "rants", but that's probably due to the fact that I fully agree. I dorftrottel I talk I 07:32, December 13, 2007

It would probably be best if you could find a published translation, but if not, Wikipedia has long made an exception for the use and translation of non-English sources. And, thanks for the compliment on the rants. :) Vassyana (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that I did not write the essay from whole cloth. I rewrote an existing essay. Vassyana (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not a good excuse so to speak. I've noticed you before, but ever since I read your IMHO great comments and ideas at WT:NOR, your name seems to spring up all the time, always in conjunction with solid proposals, workable compromises, and spot-on comments. Not sure how to put this proporly, so I'll just give you a barnstar for it. (Although I suspect you're not so much into that kind of thing?) I dorftrottel I talk I 05:41, December 14, 2007

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar for a lack of a more appropriate one and to avoid giving you three or four barnstars at once. This includes e.g. at least one of each {{What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar}}, {{The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar}}, and {{The Socratic barnstar}}. There's a strange and all too rare thing happening: The more I read of the input you provide, the more impressed I am. (But please ignore the stupid pressure which this kind of high expectation may exert...) I dorftrottel I talk I 05:41, December 14, 2007

True, many contributors deserve more praise for all the various work they are doing. I just try to state my appreciation as I happen upon them, especially users whose participation on multiple different levels I appreciate on multiple different levels. OTOH, it's rather rare that I spontaneously wish someone should run this place, or at least be closely listened to. Several issues related to the framework of things are in dire need of being addressed properly, and too few are willing to cope with the immense inertia of this place and work with others to find a better status quo. That deserves special mention. But I guess there's a component of narcissism (for lack of a better word) involved, since I usually appreciate things disproportionately high when I "happen to" agree with them. So there's the "grain of salt", as it were. I dorftrottel I talk I 07:09, December 14, 2007

User:COGDEN and WP:NOR

I just asked COGDEN some questions about No Original Research, to sample his current point of view: User_talk:COGDEN#WP:NOR .

Or did you give up on that topic?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm actually pretty active at WT:NOR. Even have a partial proposal on the table. :) Vassyana (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. HTH, HAND! :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Vertebral fusion

Hi,

On Talk:Vertebral fusion I've posted a couple pubmed articles that may be useful, I'll try to get to the article on Monday to add and re-write to a less stubby, clearly notable article. Thanks for the kick in the pants though, nothing like a prod for me to take responsibility for an article I created :) WLU (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for understanding. :) Vassyana (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Prodded enough to realize it's not personal. WLU (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

major league baseball players

are always held notable at AfD, regardless how sketchy the article. See WP:STUB. Another admin removed the speedy. DGG (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's ... wow. Vassyana (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It also holds for geographic features, like islands or villages, as long as there is even minimal information. Also, only the classes of items listed in WP:AFD can be nominated for speedy as nonnotable: real people, bands, groups, companies,web content ("organisation" was recently added, but it is a little controversial as possibly over-broad)

The reason for the limitation in scope is that other sorts of articles are better seen by a number of people, as low quality articles about what might be possibly notable other topics are less likely to be recognized by having one or two people look at them.

the reason for the rule on geographic features is to prevent the tens of thousands of afds that would otherwise ensue.

on major league baseball players, all of them will in fact have multiple sources--the number of fans is remarkable--this applies to the top professional level of other sports as well. The currently disputed question is whether this should extend downwards to the minor leagues also below the top level. For this and related matters, see WP:COMMON.

This is distinct from whether your ideas on notability as expressed in User:Vassyana/notability are correct. I would disagree with them very sharply--that's for another day-- but for doing speedy deletion you should do what is done by the community at present. when you think the notability is insufficient, just use PROD. DGG (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice taken. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Holiday card! → → →

Wishing you the very best this holiday season - whatever holidays you celebrate. May the present moment and the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. --Moon Rising (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be somewhat cautious with speedy deletions

You requested speedy deletion of Sartorius AG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is, as you could have easily verified yourself, a well known, publicly traded company. — Sebastian 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Being publicly traded doesn't mean it is notable. No assertion of notability is made in the article. Vassyana (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Vassyana/notability. — Sebastian 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've a comment there as well, though I agree that as is the article doesn't really make any assertion that it deserves a page. Being a publicly traded company doesn't seem to be relevant to notability per WP:CORP, or even common sense. But I've been wrong before. WLU (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Its the difference between a minimum assertion as necessary to pass speedy, and actual notability. Whether it is enough for actual notability is a matter of reasonable dispute, but it is at least the minimal assertion or indication of notability that passes A7. For those where it is thought not notable enough, there is PROD and AfD. (I tagged that article with tags for notability and unsourced, btw--it clearly must be strengthened to remain in WP). DGG (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness, could you explain the line for a minimum assertion to me? It seems fairly ... liberal. Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm sorry about putting the template there - I just removed it. Your question to DGG above is a good one, and I don't have a definite answer. Personally, as a rule of thumb, I look at how many people are or have been affected by the topic. Sartorius employs 4000 people and is probably known to most people who work in physics or chemistry laboratories, at least in Germany. Is that enough for the English Wikipedia? Probably not. But I think it would count as a "minimal assertion". We have featured articles about topics concerning much fewer people, such as the ones about battleships. — Sebastian 04:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. I've been pondering this for a bit. I do believe I may have been hasty in CSD tagging a few articles. I'm thinking if there's a reasonable chance the subject could be notable that it would be best to contact the creator and leave a message on the talk page noting the missing assertion of notability (or similar issue). If after a reasonable chance to update the article (say a week or two), it still lacks the basic information/assertion, then tag it for speedy delete. If the user is relatively new, providing some suggestions and politely explaining the basic content rules is probably a good idea. Wikipedia isn't going to be hurt by a non-notable company (for example) having a stub for a short while and it avoids being all toothy. Obviously, there's a lot of individual cases with varying context, but what do you think of that as a default or general approach? Vassyana (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea! We should move this to a more visible place, maybe WP:VPP. Another thing that I've been doing in at least one such case was to userfy such an article and offer the new user some advice how to create a good article. (See User talk:Inelia/Outpost For Hope.) The "getting it off the wiki" part is even faster than speedy deletion, but unfortunately, the accompanying help can be quite time consuming. Another interesting idea has just been posted by user:72.75.72.199 at User talk:SebastianHelm#Deletion protocols. BTW, don't feel bad about being hasty. You're not the only one. I guess the name "speedy" is too tempting! — Sebastian 05:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

France Monde

Hello. I have replied to your post on my talk page. Thank you. --Aquarelle (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet another reply.  :) --Aquarelle (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness

Thank you for helping clean the cruft from Wikipedia. I was under the impression that designated wilderness areas are inherently notable, so didn't attempt to establish such in wilderness stub articles such as the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness. This stems from it being literally an Act of Congress, and would therefore seem to fall in the "presumed" notability guideline. What's your view on this? —EncMstr 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think in many cases it's a controversial topic. However, the community has rejected both inherent and inherited notability as guidelines. Vassyana (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

National Parks, monuments, and designated areas have always been held notable at WP. State parks seem to be being held notable also, though I personally regard that as perhaps not a wise decision. The standard justification for things being "intrinsically notable" is as a shortcut--a judgment that there will always be material if one looks hard enough. Myself, I go a little further--if 95% of a group will have material , we might as well say they are all notable and save the discussions. it's not as if our decision making process was perfect on individual articles--far from it.. DGG (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that had extended even to preserves and wilderness areas at this point. Vassyana (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked for rejection of inherent notability and found discussion, particularly the example of robot-generated stub articles of every cataloged plant specie, but the discussion doesn't seem conclusive. Is there somewhere else I should look? —EncMstr 06:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inherent notability is part of Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals. Hope that helps! Vassyana (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No original research

as per talk page:

Hi, I did not realizes there had been a major discussion prior to Vassyana’s edit. I hit the link that the edit summery referred to, but it goes to WP:NOT, rather than here. OK, having said that, what does “*Secondary sources are references that draw on research and other references” bring to the table that “*Secondary sources draw on primary sources” does not? I see no mention of primary sources, and under the new wording, I can imagine a LOT of circular referencing (Jones quotes Smith, Smith quotes Green, Green quotes Jones) going on. It’s the “other references” part that bothers me. I have not read the talk page yet, or not enough to understand what you are tying to get at here. Brimba (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Brimba (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming some ownership issues there, and maybe I was wrong. Sorry. Brimba (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am back and have had time to read your reply (I only had time to glance at it this morning), but will need some time to think about how to express my views.

After looking over NOR tonight and its talk page, I figured I would add a note of cheer (well meant as cheer anyway):

G’Quan wrote “There is a greater darkness then the one we fight, it is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities; it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope…the death of dreams.

The future is all around us waiting in moments of transition to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.” -J. Michael Straczynski - "Z'ha'dum"

When I first added that to my user page, I left off the phrase: “We know only that it is always born in pain.” I recently added that in as it has more meaning to me now. Brimba (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a blast from the past...very interesting piece of philosophy...but I prefer the hopeful, optimistic..."our last, best hope for peace. A self-contained world five miles long, located in neutral territory. A place of commerce and diplomacy for a quarter of a million humans and aliens. A shining beacon in space, all alone in the night. It was the dawn of the Third Age of Mankind...the year the Great War came upon us all. This is the story of the last of the Babylon stations. The year is 2259. The name of the place is Babylon 5"..... or maybe it's just the English Wikipeida... :) Dreadstar † 04:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Vassyana, I am sure you meant well, but my 'views' are actually the current policy and practice, and what I did was prevent it from drifting off into incorrectness. Specifically NPOV, which is a core Foundation policy, may not be violated, and requiring sources to be unbiased would violate it. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me also remind you that you are very close to violating WP:3RR on that page. Please try to use the talk page to reach consensus for your changes. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You can shove that hypocracy. Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we all need to discuss, agreed. Your change had at least two problems: it implied that more care against bias is needed for a secondary source as opposed to the other types, which is wrong, and it incorrectly defined secondary source as "one step removed from an event." Please try to gain consensus for such changes in the future. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WT:NOR#Secondary sources. The matter was discussed (and is being discussed). If you feel that a caution for secondary sources is wrong, you are free to raise it on the talk page. Additionally, it was your version, not mine, that asserted secondary sources were one step removed.[2] Please take your own advice and join the discussion. Vassyana (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I think the latest change is fine: "at least one step" is better. Crum375 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

COGDEN, my point of view

I find it hard to describe what he has done as "disruptive." He has made edits on an unblocked page. That's how Wikipedia works: editors edit.

I recognize that NOR is a policy page and that the preferred/best/only-one-likely-to-succeed method is to engage in discussion on the talk page first and to edit the policy only after consensus is reached. COGDEN has not done that. The result is that his edits have been reverted. Whether I agree, disagree or have no opinion about his edits that (reverting) seems reasonable enough to suit me: I can back/accept "consensus first, then edit the policy page." (I participated for a while in the discussion but never edited the policy page. I embrace "consensus first.") But for those edits the sequence is, approximately, (1) COGDEN edits, (2) minutes pass, (3) somebody reverts. The problem exists briefly and is then eliminated. That's perhaps an annoyance and perhaps unfortunate and nonproductive but I can't see it legitimately called "disruption." I have no problem with trying to get COGDEN (and any others) to stop making such edits but I don't think that what he has done rises to the level of requiring any official sanction or action against him.

The greater disruption of NOR is the intransigence of those who are adamant about preserving the PSTS wording exactly as it exists. That has roadblocked any progress for months. "Disruption" in the sense I think you are using here surely does not only apply to making changes. It can also apply to preventing changes: the natural state of Wikipedia is to be in a state of change. Stop the flow of change and you have caused a disruption. This isn't advocacy of change for change's sake, it's simply recognition of how Wikipedia works - and how Wikipedia works applies also to policy pages. Were a change to a policy page not objectionable to some editor or group of editors it would almost surely persist whether or not it had first been proposed on the corresponding talk page. (This paragraph has the appearance of being finger-pointing, of saying "they" are worse than COGDEN. Discount the paragraph as much as you deem proper, even if discounting it 100% is your choice. No objection. You appear to want progress; finger-pointing hardly seems likely to foster progress. I'd hope you'd give it 10-30% credibility, would extract from it something of use - but I assume you'll use your own judgment and I accept that judgment.)

In support of the paragraph above I'll again point out (as I did much earlier, as many others have done since) that the history of WP:NOR and WT:NOR shows rather vividly that PSTS has long been controversial, has occasioned protests and attempts to remove or modify the language from its first appearance. If not continuous these protests and attempts to modify surely have been frequent. It is misleading, self-serving, and actually outside Wikipedia's guiding principles for the proponents to characterize the PSTS language as having had a long period of consensus, with that claimed consensus giving the current language a protected status ("outside" because what matters is consensus now, not consensus or so-called consensus in the past.) They for certain should not be allowed to assert consensus for any period of time in which WP:NOR has been locked: locking explicitly does not create endorsement for nor validate the locked wording.

Thanks for your time. --Minasbeede (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to this view but I do not fully agree, as I'm sure my comments on the RfC indicate. However, I do sincerely thank you for taking the time to rationally and thoroughly explain your view. It is earnestly appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That you are sympathetic and apparently somewhat agree ("not fully" surely is compatible with "in part") satisfies me.

I see your entry about Disruptive Editing at the top of your talk and can see your concerns. One of the problems I perceive with respect to WP:NOR is (or has been) the practice by PSTS partisans (I assume these are visible enough that I don't have to justify identifying some editors - as a group, unnamed - as such) of using page locking as a tool to help retain the current wording. I'm not an experienced Wikipedian but I have seen that it is Wikipedia policy that partisans are not to lock pages. That's direct, that's simple: don't lock a page if you are a party to a dispute. Locking is just a cheap way of avoiding 3RR (as is using meat puppets.) For that particular offense there may be no existing mechanism to prevent the abuse but the abuse is recognized by Wikipedia to be an abuse (unless that has changed in the last couple of months.) If other editors who see the abuse occurring would object then perhaps the incidence rate for such improper blocking would go down. There is no mechanism to prevent this nor any to deal with it but there's not a perfect vacuum: the offense can be identified as such whenever it is seen and perhaps the accumulated community pressure might reduce the rate of occurrence.

Thanks again. --Minasbeede (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR plea

Hi Vassyana - I completely sympathize (really) with your frustrations and do not deny you have reason for frustration -- I do believe there are problematic behaviors on the part of editors who have been reverting and maintaining the page as it is. (You summed it up beautifully with your description of "You do not get to mystically assert "consensus" or "no consensus"".) BUT -- you know as well as anyone, I'm sure, that losing your temper doesn't help. So this is just a plea for you to try a little harder to keep your temper, because otherwise your comments and work are invaluable -- they have been very helpful to me, personally -- and they shouldn't be diminished by the kind of off-topic blah blah that follows irritable commentary on the talk pages. Hang in there, Lquilter (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message of caution and encouragement. I walked away for a bit to cool down. I will not comment until I feel I can keep the temperature down. Thanks again. Vassyana (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it, see the sandbox at Wikipedia:Source typing ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Vassyana (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks

Do you mean published further comments re: COGDEN or do you mean further comments in your mind but not published?

(I'll be away now for several hours.) --Minasbeede (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have endorsed that and added in the endorsement that the page in question says: "Please do not edit this page without first ensuring that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Which COGDEN did. It probably needs to be suggested someplace that for policy pages an even broader attempt (than "discuss first on the talk page") at establishing consensus need be made, probably at the top of each policy page. As far as I can tell that edit by COGDEN was done in commendable good faith and was completely compliant with the instructions on the page. --Minasbeede (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)