User talk:Vassyana

Word of the day
Treeware. noun. /'triwɛər/.
An antediluvian method of publishing information on a portable medium created from processed arboreal macerate, often with decorative covers glossed by petrochemical solids.

"Reginald went to the athenaeum to peruse treeware with the assistance of an informatics professional."

---

My thought of the day: "Science most certainly has a POV (usually materialist and empirical). The assertion that science, as a whole pursuit and as a collection of individual disciplines, has no point of view is as much pseudo-philosophy as the study of productive cold fusion using kitchen sink battery cells is pseudo-science." 01:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Help me out.

• Take a look over History of early Christianity and Apostolic Age and provide some feedback on the talk pages. Thanks! 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Contribute some thoughts and feedback to m:Dispute resolution analysis group.

---

• What I did today archives: 1
• Talk Page archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Alice Bailey

Vassyana, a new editor of the Alice Bailey article has initiated an RfC [1]. Would you be willing to look at the discussion and comment? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Osho

Hi Vassyana, User:Jossi mentioned the other day that you and he had done some work on getting Laozi to GA. I also saw your earlier GA review of Prem Rawat, an article that I've been spending time on recently. I (self-)nominated Osho for GA yesterday and wondered if you might be interested in doing the review, or have a read-through and provide improvement suggestions? Cheers, Jayen466 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are too kind

Thank you so much, your thoughts are most appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On FAs (reply)

I've been worrying away at it for some time. I don't have any particularly helpful ideas yet, unfortunately.

What I have come to conclude is that our current method - "rewarding" individual editors with some form of status for "taking an article" to FA - is part of the problem; with the best will in the world, having a particular individual or like-minded group of individuals working intensively on an article for a fortnight doesn't aid in ensuring the use of a multitude of perspectives and sources. We're all amateurs, but we aim for results superior to individual professionals through the aggregation of perspectives; the way that FAs are managed seems to work at cross-purposes with that basic mechanism. I also fear that MoS-obsession (I stopped observing FACs a few years ago after one particularly vicious and borderline-incomprehensible squabble over the exact form of citation templates, or sub-headings, or something of that sort) tends to obscure actual questions of content.

If there's a solution, it probably would incorporate artificially elongating the process. Relata refero (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to do a GA review now, in the hope that it will give me some ideas. Relata refero (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RfArb

I have not named you as a party, as you have not been involved recently, but given your early intervention with the GA review, you may want to state your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Prem Rawat. If you think that you rather be named as a party, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though ArbCom will accept the case. I will present evidence and take limited participation in the discussion when the case is opened, after I have some time to collect my thoughts and some diffs. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Deontological ethics Churchianity LaVeyan Satanism Christianity Explained Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses Prophetic Christianity Folk Christianity List of Muslim Christianity scholars Criticisms of socialism Robert Jungk Chancellor (ecclesiastical) Narrative criticism The Christian Century Christian worship Western Christianity Tao Yin Peter Gandy First Satanic Church International Churches of Christ

Cleanup Virtue ethics Bible prophecy Dialectical monism Merge Spiritual desertion Essenes Moral absolutism Add Sources Ethics in the Bible Christianity by country Names of God Wikify Prophecy John Naisbitt Philosophy of education Expand Five Classics Orant Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions

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 (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking consensus, analysis

Here's a big image made by User:Kevin Murray:

• Sample of old new and hybrid CCC Consensus flowcharts.

The normal consensus process is on Chart 1. Some people, however, use a modified process, at Chart 2. (Chart 3 and Chart 4 may not be relevant today.)

Basically, Chart 2 introduces just 2 really new concepts. The first is that large changes should be discussed first; the second is that it introduces a minor bias towards the status quo: "changes should not happen too quickly". If you say it in english, that sounds fairly harmless, right? People think it is a good trade off between efficiency and "safety".

But a closer look reveals that that is not the case! If you actually plot the flowchart, you find that when you modify process thusly, you can get stuck in an infinite loop. Consensus might never be reached. (Flowchart 2 has an infinite loop at "is the result accepted"->"should process continue"->"discuss at talk, 3O, VP, RFC"--->"is the result accepted" )

In reality such loops are not really infinite, as we are dealing with human beings here. At some point in time, one or more parties get worn down and burn out, and just walk away. :-/

Another interesting thing is that in chart 2, several meatball:ExpandScope methods are used ... in the middle of that same loop.

Sure. I think that one or two steps of ExpandScope once in a while might be a part of your normal everyday meatball:HealthyConflict.

But repeated scope expansion in a tight infinite loop? That sounds like a recipe for disaster. And guess what? Interestingly, that seems to be the pattern you see in all sorts of high profile wikidrama. :-)

So by simple systems analysis using flowcharts, we can already predict that certain simple, reasonable looking changes to the consensus process might actually be responsible for a large number of the unhealthy conflict interactions between established users.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nifty! Some food for thought there. It does some to indicate where some of the logjam comes into play. As a thought, the "standard process" can be used as an excuse to play mum and pop (venue shopping), which can certainly add to a decline of good faith and to a growth of acrimony. This does not fully account for intransigence and obstruction. However, it certainly seems to point towards some tools which accommodate such ends. Definitely something for the mind to chew. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian Religions

Even after agreeing to consensus, User:IAF is back to his usual mode violating the consensus and the WP:3RR here. --Anish (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig and "dab" seem to be handling the situation just fine. I will keep an eye on the article to head off any future edit wars, but the editing conflict seems over for now and others are handling the situation. Vassyana (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... as far as the article is concerned, Dab handled it well. But no one is doing anything about the abusive language of IAF "Jackass, stupid edits et all". Check this out. --Anish (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation on Bosnian War article

Hello, I see that you have protected the Bosnian War article. I have suggested some form of dispute resolution[2] to User:Nirvana77, which he seems to agree with[3]. I'm not sure whether informal mediation would work here or if we should go directly to ArbCom. What is your suggestion? RegardsOsli73 (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A good first step would be to request a third opinion to get an outside view on the matter. You should also ask for some outside opinions and expert assistance from the military history WikiProject. It's an active project with a solid reputation for common sense and high quality. A neutral outside opinion and some participation from members of a well-reputed relevent project can help bring a balance of perspective and put the article on track. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to locate, sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, now that is ambitious. Relata refero (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

Could you do me a favour and look over Two Witnesses? My cruft-alert is beeping like mad, but I think I need some advice with this one. Obviously the reference and the related mythologising and interpretation is notable and encyclopaedic, but am I wrong in supposing that this particular article contains material more suited for many, many others (Christian Zionism, America-Israel relations, Millenarianism, Postdispensationalism (?)), and a large amount of OR-through-sythesis? It has the classic look of the latter, with lots and lots of references, except for the crucial points. Relata refero (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I will look over it a bit more this evening, as I am currently a bit busy IRL. However, taking a brief look, I immediately got a "red flag" impression from the lede being comprised mostly of a large quote from the Bible (as opposed to following WP:LEAD). Vassyana (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had the time to read over it and it's most assuredly a SYN'd up mess. Outside of taking the ax to it and starting over again from a stub (Gordian style editing), I'm not sure how to untangle the clusterfun. I'll read over it again and check some sources on Questia and see what I can do to help reform that poor article. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Vassyana,

At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Jossi's alleged COI you presented an analysis of evidence presented in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Jossi COI diffs.

Since this is primarily Analysis of evidence I wonder how you would feel about moving that analysis to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop#Analysis of evidence?

Anyway, I'd like to comment on the analysis you presented, but don't want to burden the /Evidence page with that: the section on the /Workshop page seems more appropriate for me to relate to the analysis. How do you think? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to think the evidence page is the appropriate place. The COIN thread was not raised as other parts of evidence (that I noticed). The presentation and analysis of previous discussions is usually typical ArbCom evidence. To my knowledge, replies to evidence (barring long discussions) are usually placed on the evidence page. However, I would welcome the input of a clerk or arbitrator regarding the proper placement of my comments and diffs. Vassyana (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Tx for the reply.

I'd welcome clerk/arbitrator input too, since I've little experience what the primary intended goals are of a "Analysis of evidence" section on a /Workshop page, compared to presenting evidence on the /Evidence page. I used the /Workshop section extensively now - no idea whether I'm heading the right way.

For me, the question was primarily: where do I present my views on the analysis you presented? Unless instructed otherwise, I'd prefer the /Workshop section, but thought I let you know first.

I'll mention this on the /Workshop talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. If an arb or clerk thinks my statements should be moved, that's quite alright. I am admittedly not as familiar with arbitration as other steps in the dispute resolution process, so it's entirely possible I placed the links and my comments in the wrong place. Please let me know if you receive feedback from a clerk or the arbs. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat assessment of sources

Feel free to add your evidence, but please take into account that I still think that you were nearly completely wrong in your assessment of the sources (Reender Kranenborg, Jan van der Lans, and Saul Levine). I have some sources to back up my opinion about them. I have to admit though that you were right that the "sermonizing" by Kranenborg (which was in a seperated section in Kranenborg's book) did not belong in the article Prem Rawat. Andries (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are free to disagree and it's quite possible that I was wrong. :) Is there a particular place where the sources are being reviewed? Vassyana (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers and Alpha Phi Alpha

Might want to semi these articles because banned user Mykungfu is constantly hitting these with new socks here, here, here, with the argument that Alpha Phi Alpha is the "oldest" living fraternity. Also, he uses proxies, too. That's why CU evidence is inconclusive in targeting him down. The reason that I am asking you to do this is 1.) I am not an admin 2.) I used to ask Mr. Darcy to take care of this, but he retired. :-( miranda 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

Thanks. Gwandoya requested and IP check, and confirmed that BicMacDad18 was a possible sockpuppet of banned user and prolific puppeteer User:EverybodyHatesChris. Thanks anyway. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what else there really is to do seeing that he's been checkusered here. I'm not sure if a "Possible" constitutes a ban. But thank you. Gwandoya ^Talk 01:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I sincerely apologize for my delay in responding. I hadn't checked on the MedCab talk page for a few days. My recommendation would be to raise the issue at WP:ANI or WP:SSP. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love your assistance. Thanks so much for your time. I'd also like to note that the issue Gwandoya has brought in our argument (which is the issue she's brought up above and twice now on my user talk page) on the MedCab page is really an irrelevant one to that argument. The debate on that page has to do with an edit on the Coral Smith article. I am the one who brought the problem to MedCab because I didn't want to edit war with Nightscream over it, and I even titled the problem "Coral Smith article". If you see things differently, my apologies and I certainly thank for your willingness to help in this issue. BicMacDad18 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Kim Bruning said I might enjoy chatting with you (I know very little about the mediation cabal). Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

unprotect Bosnian war article

Hi, Nirvana77 and I seem to have worked out our differences on the Bosnian War article (see talk page). Could you please unprotect it? CheersOsli73 (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please be cautious in reverting and generous in discussing. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank's. While you're at it, could you please check User:Texwiller071, suspiciously like User:Grandy Grandy.Osli73 (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Brainstorming

Your thinking is very close to my own - I think it very unlikely that a set of guidelines designed to write about advanced physics topics will work well for articles on the other end of the encyclopedia, and with two million articles there are an awful lot of other ends. To my mind, the original design of Wikipedia solved this problem organically - large discretion was granted to whomever was working on an article. They were told "cite sources, avoid original research, be NPOV, and be nice to each other," and turned loose. If their work sucked, well, more people would surely be along to fix it. Thus the overall structure and set of rules was broken up.

Over time, of course, people noticed trends of problems and we accumulated some rules that were meant to apply to all articles. And that was fine and needed - AfD is a great example of a rules-based editorial procedure that comes from the top instead of from the bottom. The problem is that this trend of top-down solutions has continued to snowball. Which, anyone who studies online communities would have guessed, so it's no surprise.

And there's no way to stop that - top-down solutions will continue to, often messily, be applied. The trick, to my mind, is to treat bottom-up thinking as a viral property of the system (which is how it originally worked - the wiki so naturally pushed bottom-up thinking that people's top-down instincts got effectively countered). That is, one pushes top-down rules that require bottom-up thinking to implement. Which is why, whenever I talk about policy, I argue for phrasings that include hedges, phrases like "common sense and local consensus must prevail," admissions that decisions are difficult and complex, etc - to jam the top-down policies up and force bottom-up processes to fill in the gaps.

But this involves a heavy measure of fighting against human nature, as top-down policies are much more comforting and much easier. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving articles

Is there a reason why the article Madrid (autonomous community) cannot be renamed/moved? Since the official name of the community is simply "Community of Madrid" (Comunidad de Madrid), I have proposed that the article be renamed in order to avoid the unnecessary parentheses. Since very few users edit that article I have received no response, so after waiting 10+ days, I decided to do it myself. However, I don't get the option of moving the article. Is it semi-protected in some way? Can it be unprotected? --the Dúnadan 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/212.159.16.175

I'm wondering how he got off (pardon the pun) without so much as a warning? xenocidic (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP Is blocked. Vassyana (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I was curious because I didn't see the usual block tag on his talk page. I'll check the block list next time. xenocidic (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for reverting that BS on my utalk. 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile. :) Vassyana (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NOR discussion

Continuing from: Wikipedia talk:No original research#Actual proposed change. Both of your responses were intelligent and helpful. I would like to discuss this further, but I don't want to clutter up the policy page (at least until the discussion is more refined :-P). My main question remains. How would you distinguish between legitimate coverage of the "gap" and fluff or nonsense in the absence of editorial or professional authority? That is the question that needs to be answered, because it is the principal question that will arise in relation to policy and good practice. To clarify the "gap", how much obvious or nuts & bolts information is missing from textbooks and other introductory materials? Vassyana (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My inclination remains to say that distinguishing that gap across two and a half million articles is an impossible task for a policy page, and to leave it, as we are obliged to by the foundation, to the wiki process - that is, to assume that, when directed to avoid novel synthesis, the given community of editors working on any given article will, in fact, be able to do so without a machine-readable guide to doing so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• The rules should not focus on examples, hard limits and mechanical benchmarks. The rules should focus on simply explaining what is meant by the principle. For example, the rules should answer: "What does X-POLICYNAME mean? What is Y-POLICYNAME?" They should not answer: "How do I apply X to Y subject? What examples are there of POLICY-Z?" The latter questions should be asked in article talk pages, RfC, and other wiki/community-based avenues. Essentially, rules are intended to give direction with common sense and consensus determining its individual application.

Would you agree with that statement? Vassyana (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. One difficulty that comes up on the policy talk pages is that each editor has a different genre of articles in mind, and so there is a lot of misinterpretation between editors. That can make it hard to talk about general principles.

I have been thinking about your original question above, and I hope to be able to write a response soon. I need time to work out some details for myself first, and think of just the right examples to avoid leading the conversation into dead ends. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for putting thought into this. Vassyana (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that summary is very much on target. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cervical cap

To start out with, I really appreciate your time in offering a third opinion on the merge proposal at cervical cap. Unfortunately, I do not believe your response supported either side of the dispute; that a definition needs to be supported by reliable sources is agreed on by both parties. I believe I have provided reliable sources that some medical professionals refer to this device as a cervical cap. The other editor has provided reliable sources that, at the time Prentif was the only cervical cap available in the United States, United States sources used the term "cervical cap" to refer only to Prentif; because of the recent introduction of FemCap to the U.S., and to avoid U.S.-centrism in the cervical cap article, I do not believe these sources are reliable for the current definition of the term "cervical cap". I was hoping from the third opinion to receive a judgment of which sources were reliable to support which definition.

Also, the issues coming up on that talk page are becoming much more complicated than just the merge. While I would be happy to see your further involvement in the discussion if you are interested, I am planning on posting a notice at the doctor's mess to get a couple more people involved on the cervical cap article. Hopefully that will help a consensus to form instead of the one vs. one situation currently there. Thank you again for taking the time to read the disagreement and offer your opinion. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jihad watch MedCab

Hi, just checking that you are still working on mediating this case. Another editor User:Bless sins has now indicated their willingness to join. Whilst there is no great urgency, I do feel a desire to see this mediation progressing. Hoping you are still committed to being mediator. SmithBlue (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for any perceived delay. I am taking a little time to familiarize myself with the subject and the article's history. One thing I immediately noticed was a long quiet period on the talk page, and then a very quick movement into dispute resolution. I will be posting to the article talk tonight or tomorrow afternoon. Thanks for understanding. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian War

Hi Vassyana. I've seen you protected and unprotected Bosnian War article. Can you protect it again or allow just registered users to edit, because, there is an anon 79.143.164.56 from Republika Srpska who deleted ([4], [5]) a good portion of the article and drastically changed some sentences not supported by the sources presented in the article which can lead to false conclusion. Šljkljkž (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lectures

#wikipedia-en-lectures @ 15:00 UTC today, yay. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Jim Torbett Coesfeld Allied health professions Christianity Explained List of astrologers Hermeneutics Robert Jungk Churchianity Irrationality Peter Gandy Economic materialism Christianity in Albania Tao Yin Chancellor (ecclesiastical) The Christian Century List of Muslim Christianity scholars Christian worship Pundit (India) First Satanic Church

Cleanup Virtue ethics Prayer Mountain Just War Merge Folk Christianity Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian) Relic Add Sources Mackem Orthodoxy Compassion Wikify John Naisbitt Theonomy Logical possibility Expand Homosexuality and Buddhism Orant Five Classics

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 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar time

This may not be exactly what you wanted, but your handling of 10 Third opinion requests tonight deserves recognition. Please feel free to replace it with the barnstar of your choice, or remove my rave at will :-)
  — Athaenara ✉ 08:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the juggler better than a barnstar. :) Thanks for the kinds words! You should know though, I didn't answer all ten, as a couple had been answered but not removed from the list. Vassyana (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad you liked it, happy I got it right. — Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

answer

I have posted a reply to your third opinion, and pointed out that the reference-note you criticised was originally added by Peter Jackson. It is a quote from an interview for a magazine. Indeed not very credibly. The other notes you didn't comments on are from review articles and textbooks. Those were deleted by Peter Jackson. Greetings, Sacca 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

please revert

please revert your removal of my reinsertion at Chiropractic? I am a neutral observer to the page, I came and reviewed the section, saw it was NPOV, and well sourced. There was no valid reason to remove that content. Thus, my revert was reverting vandalism, something that is OK to do when a page is protected. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it is the very content in dispute in the edit war,[6] I am not comforting with restoring your edit. However, I'm quite flexible and fallible, so if another admin feels it is appropriate, they should feel free to correct my error. Vassyana (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I completely agree with Swatjester here and I'm actually the main contributor to the section involved. The edit summaries by suggesting an NPOV violation is bogus. To revert Swatjester, who like he said, was a neutral observer, was more fanning of the flames. The section is well referenced and is NPOV. There is some obstruction going on by some editors, who incidentally happen to be medical doctors, who do not want to see a thorough, well-sourced and long overdue section of chiropractic scope of practice. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but the article was protected for that very dispute. I do believe it's protected in the Wrong Version. However, making edits under protection to endorse one version or another is certainly more inflammatory (in my opinion) than reverting back to the protected version. I'm sorry if you disagree, but hope you understand. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Scope_of_practice_comments_by_Eubulides Read this section. There are problems with the current text. It is not NPOV and it is not well sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Quack, I cannot help but feel you are wikistalking me now. Please, don't do this. Baiting me at my talk page isn't helpful either. To insinuate that its not NPOV and poorly sourced is lamentable and proves my point that you'll do and say almost anything to obstruct. We had 4 editors agree the section was good, Eubulides triggers a revert war and goes onto making a cherry picked list of very minor grievances that could have easily been added or corrected in the article without all the ensuing drama. It's simply more of the same [[WP:TEND|tendentious] and obstructionist editing by medical physicians on the chiropractic page. CorticoSpinal (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is also a content dispute, so it's not all that simple. Unfortunately, CorticoSpinal (who made the original inclusion) and one of his IPs violated his 1RR parole, which was one of the conditions for unblocking his indef block. Due caution needs to be exercised here. Edit warring, especially to protect one's own additions, can easily get one into trouble. I'm not suggesting that CorticoSpinal be indef blocked again for this violation, but it shouldn't have happened and this is a reminder to keep in mind that the ice is thin. -- Fyslee / talk 05:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of religious sources

Vassyana, I know that you have participated in many discussion on this topic; so can you look at this latest iteration of the perennial question here and especially critique my summary ? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you got it just right, as far as my opinion goes. Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please see Talk:Nasr Al-Madhkur. Thank you. -- Slacker (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lectures

Today (Apr 20th), around 15:00 UTC! Possibly on Skype, but certainly on IRC (#wikipedia-en-lectures on freenode)! I don't actually know about the Skype details... Message me on Skype (xavexgoem) about that, if you have it (no harm in getting it, either), and then maybe by that time I'll have a clue :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Covert incest

Hey. I saw that the editors over at this page relisted their discussion for a third opinion. It seems that whatever opinion you gave on the page turned into another argument. Do you want to take another look at it, or do you want a fresh set of eyes to take a look? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A fresh set of eyes would help. Vassyana (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see I stepped into a situation that was already being tended to. I hope my comments were helpful rather than the reverse. Vassyana, I got the sense that the proposal of one sentence in the overview plus two or three sentences in a Criticism section would be acceptable to all parties, so long as it was neutral and didn't carry undue weight. I'll have to agree with the general sentiment that it didn't fit well in the description section. These editors do seem to work well with each other. I think in this case you might reconsider your opposition to a separate section since this criticism is legitimate. It just seems to be having trouble finding a home. Peace. - Tom Mmyotis (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

can you please help?

I'm terribly sorry to trouble you but there is a fellow who calls himself IAF and he is causing difficulties on the article dharma. He was doing the same thing a few months ago. He is adding incorrect information and removing valuable parts of the introduction. I have been contributing to this article for some time. We managed to get a B rating in the peer review. IAF seems to have a history of disruptive behaviour. If you can help in any way your kindness would be much appreciated. Langdell (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

want to give a lecture?

Wikipe-tan meditating deeply upon the mysteries of Wikipedia. Aum...

O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Trouble maker! :) Any particular topic you're fishing for? Vassyana (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to know anything about mediation, would you? Or did you have any ideas yourself? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC) such as how to be a troublemaker and get away with it? O:-)

Um ... *brushes a couple of userboxes under the carpet* ... I have no idea what this "mediation" you speak of means, did you mean the meditation? :) Vassyana (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC) I could do one on that topic. When should it be prepped for?

Meditation might be quite useful to calm the mind, and to help one assume good faith. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Next week Sunday is already possible, if you like, or, if you'd like to prepare or get a mic/headset or so, any Sunday will do :-) .

The Sunday after next would actually be perfect if that's good by you folks. Vassyana (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources

Thanks Vassyana, I managed to integrate all three sources you put up quotes for into the covert incest page. If you want to review, it's this set of diffs; I wouldn't mind a review or feedback, the Okami reference probably reads a bit awkwardly and may be excessively long. I understand if you would prefer to remain neutral and not comment. Thanks, WLU (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ...

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		... for the formatting help on Talk:Osho! A labour of love. :-)

Jayen466 00:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kindness. :) I wandered by, and besides the title formatting issue, I could not follow the conversation easily. So, I just went ahead and reformatted for reading ease without changing the content of the post. Vassyana (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Vassyana - need your help as an uninvolved admin/third opinion/MedCab -

I'm having trouble with the page Pete Wheeler. The page is a BLP - Wheeler's an artist I knew a few years ago when he lived near me (I work as an arts reviewer). The article is being edited by someone who seems to be connected with his current gallery in Berlin. The edits are best described as unencyclopedic, adding items directly from several gallery websites and quite a sizable amount of OR interpretation of the art. I've reverted, or at least edited the material into a more encyclopedic form, several times, but the other editor simply edits it right back the way it was before, with copyvios, peacock words, OR, and advertorialising all included. It's complicated by the fact that the other editor (or editors) is/are using both a username and anon IPs. Since I'm involved I can't do anything like protect the page, and since I know Wheeler I might not be totally impartial; it'd be useful to get some non-involved admin help. There's dialogue relating to the dispute at Talk:Pete Wheeler, User talk: Grutness, User talk: Edieco and User talk:88.75.142.116. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Christian

I note that you added a Protected Page template to Christian, but a user with a low edit count (Special:Contributions/Fuxu) was still able to vandalise it. Please would you check whether protection is actually in place? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection only prevent access by IP users and accounts that not autoconfirmed. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I had thought there was a longer history requirement for editing semi-prot pages; now I know! - Fayenatic (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lectures

They are today (27 April 2008) at 15:00 UTC. Here is the skype link & here's the IRC link. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Response from Dana Ullman and a Request for a Re-evaluation of your actions

Can you read my response to the accusations against me here.[7]. I would also like you to consider re-evaluating your decision. DanaUllman^Talk 03:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I will certain review the situation again. To be fair, I reconsider after taking a few hours of off-wiki time. This will allow me to see with a fresher perspective, rather than simply gut responding to the perception currently in mind. Thank you for your polite request and patience. Vassyana (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I warned Dana for bad faith assumptions on his ANI post. Please review my warning. Notice that I also commented on Dana's post. You might want to ask other editors on whether Dana has repeated on his ANI post the exact same type of misrepresentations that got him banned on the first place. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Much to all of our dismay, no non-involved sysops have provided insight on what to do here. Based on my newest response, I hope that you will consider unblocking me until you are more certain that I am the one who deserves it. My point here is that I continue to be civil, and I continue to provide RS and notable information. If I would have archived active discussion without getting consensus beforehand and I would have added information to the article before there was recent discussion on the Talk pages, I would have been blocked a long time ago. However, when other editors do this, they not only have gotten away with this bullying, they blame me for being disruptive. Because you are uninvolved, I really am interested in knowing your evaluation of the situation. DanaUllman^Talk 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, you REALLY, REALLY need to just move on and stop badgering Vassyana about this. Please, just move on. Baegis (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Baegis' statement above of typical of his bullying, and despite being warned about his uncivility, he is not creating a climate of collaboration. Even before this drama blew up, I appealed to Baegis in a friendly way.[8] That said, it is not my intention to badger you at all, and I hope that it does not seem that way. DanaUllman^Talk 03:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I tried to read Dana's contributions. I did not find anything really problematic. He suggested that a notable study CHEST about Potassium_dichromate should be included. Dana is somehow passionate but he is not wrong, tenditious or uncivil.I think that if you take the time to seriously investigate the actions of the majority of the editors you might change your mind. Best.--44Elise (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, please see my comments on 44Elise[9]. I'm still not sure about asking for a RFCU myself --Enric Naval (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

please help

I am being attacked again[10] and again.[11] QuackGuru 06:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is not an attack. It is an allegation accompanied by a request for investigation and discussion. I will politely ask Fylsee to redact his comments. On a related note, I implore you to reconsider your reaction and lack of action regarding my requests on your talk page. Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another attack.[12] QuackGuru 06:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not an attack, for the same reasons as above. On the contrary, such requests for review and investigation are the very purpose of ANI. Vassyana (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I want nothing to do with the noticeboard. Please delete all my comments if you want. QuackGuru 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[13] I don't think Ned is right. QuackGuru 11:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We have had our differences.[14][15][16] QuackGuru 11:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

McCready thread

Hello Vassyana, I believe there may have been a misunderstanding between you and QuackGuru. I am guessing that by "opposition" you meant his opposition to a topic ban for McCready. But since he was obviously very preoccupied about being attacked it was natural for him to read it as opposition against Jim Butler's comment. Reading his reactions with that interpretation in mind, they make a bit more sense, and it becomes clear that his "harassment" edit summary probably doesn't refer to you at all. Instead, it was a short answer to your question. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah! That would make sense. If that is accurate, I should drop a note for him pointing to your comment, offering clarification for what I meant and offering to rephrase my comments. Vassyana (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done.[17] Vassyana (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew before I commented on the noticeboard I would be heckled for objecting to the ban. I should think twice before commenting on the NB. I have evidence there are "repeat offenders" who were making uncivil comments against me. I could let it go or post the evidence at the NB. I get attacked and I see no blocks. Repeat offenders should get blocked. I am not interested in discussing this further. Is Wikipedia the most uncivil place on the internet? QuackGuru 11:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

While there's always room for improvement, the overall level of civility on Wikipedia is remarkably high compared to other areas of teh Internets where controversial issues are discussed. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Things are getting more and more uncivil on Wikipedia. Editing the chiropractic article is becoming a very hostile environment. For example, personal attacks and misleading accusations by known chiropractor true believers has continued.[18][19][20] I should be allowed to edit the chiropractic article in peace and have productive conversations on the talk page. The article is a war zone and the disruptive editors need to be banned. Read the talk page of the chiropractic article. It is obvious who the problem editors are! QuackGuru 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just remember that it takes two to tango. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not tangoing. Got it? QuackGuru 19:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana - With regard to the proposed Mccready topic-ban (which I think is appropriate), please let me know if you need to see further evidence, and I'll dig it up. Also, sorry again about the ensuing QG misunderstanding; wikistress levels seem to run chronically high around CAM topics. best regards, Jim Butler (t) 00:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Jim Butler really sorry when he makes such comments like this? Hmm. QuackGuru 05:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologized for this off-topic comment [21], not the on-topic comment that you linked to above [22]. If others feel similarly (and again, I was commenting on several months ago), maybe you should take it as constructive criticism. --Jim Butler (t) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I-P/AE

I think the state that thread had gotten to is indicative of how out of hand things can still get on I-P articles. Closing it with that general warning/reminder, rather than taking specific action against individual editors, was probably the best thing to do - even if my personal view is that there are underlying problems which do need more targeted action, and even if it also caught up a couple editors who really are pretty blameless but simply happen to have posted on the thread. There's no harm in reminding people of what the rules are, even if they haven't actually gone against them.

All I would say though is that a) other editors posted there who you don't seem to have notified of the closure and your comments (including one admin who is heavily involved in contentious editing on I-P articles); & b) a more general notification/reminder of the ArbCom ruling (and standing rules as well) to others who didn't post on that AE thread, but are involved in I-P editing, might also be in order. Especially in the light of the CAMERA fiasco. --Nickhh (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping up and putting an end to the seemingly neverending drama that was unfolding on that page. What a mess! We must all seem like a bunch of whining schoolchildren to the outside observer, with the exception being User:Nishidani, whose wisdom, loquaciousness, and use of multiple ancient and modern languages in poetic forms, puts him in another category altogether. (I do so enjoy reading his entries, whatever the subject, and even when off-topic.) Anyway, User:Jaakobou managed to get himself a week block today for edit-warring at Saeb Erekat, along with User:PalestineRemembered, whom he complained against on WP:ANI. And so the circus show continues ... :) Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 13:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

emails?

Hoping you have recieved my emails. SmithBlue (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yessir. I am attempting to address the issue discreetly. Vassyana (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!

Thank you for the note. Similarly, I appreciate your efforts to come up with the proposals on the matter - although I don't fully agree on certain bits (obviously), they are a starting spot that is well-suited (and practical) for the now, and I couldn't have gone much further without it. I'm very glad you were bold in expressing your views, and proposals on the matter. :) Likewise, cheers! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

On this post [23]

Hi,

Your closing comment seems to be a threat against me as well. But I don't know how I could have responded less aggressively. And my only "feigned naivete" was that with ScienceApologist I know he understands civility just fine, and I pretended that he meant what he said. So, tell me what is wrong with my actions. Am I just supposed to ignore the continual incivility and trolling and insults and disruptiveness forever? It means I can't edit Wikipedia except for talk pages. Tell me if this should have been reverted: [24]

Oh, and please don't tell me to "disengage," because SA edits all the pages I'm interested in..... right after I edit them to revert me. To disengage means I ban myself from Wikipedia. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fully honest, yes, you are one of the targets of my closing comments. This nonsense has gone on for far too long. You are not the only one to blame, on "your side" or the "other side", by any means. You've been involved in this dispute for quite long enough to know what will raise people's hackles. Don't do those things. It's not very complicated. On disengaging, if you try to disengage and the other editor won't disengage, report that. That would not be a frivolous report, but you would need to show an honest effort to disengage. Also, let me say, earnestly without intending any insult, that playing the innocent party just is not going to wash. That is not to say that you have no been subject to trolling, baiting, insults or other improprieties. However, you are neither completely spotless and need to take accountability for your own actions, regardless of how others are behaving. Finally, you imply that my closing note and intent is one-sided (perhaps unintentionally so), but I assure you, I will be even-handed (to everyone's chagrin) if this insanity continues (see the topic bans of both DanaUllman and Mccready to get an idea of how serious I am about even-handedness). Vassyana (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was just a report on what SA did, and nothing happened. He was obviously uncivil under his ArbCom sanction. It was said to be frivilous. So tell me how to "disengage." Stop editing all the article I'm interested in? Tell me how I've done anything wrong, and I'll take responsibility. But I don't know. Yeah, I played innocent on SA's talk page, but that was AGF. If SA is POV pushing on an article, and I report it to AN/I, nothing but nothing would be done except that I'd get a block because so many love him. In other words, I don't want to be like SA here, but what you say is a bit vague. What have I done wrong since the ArbCom which I haven't already acknowledged? What did I do wrong today? What could I have done to stop his incivility and trolliing? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there is a tradition on WP, where one experienced editor or sysop takes on a problem user and helps them to know how to improve. If you feel like you don't have a negative biased reaction against the paranormal in general, that means you'd be ideal to take me on. I'll ask you what I should do before doing it, and you'll tell me. I frankly don't think you know what I deal with. Unless you are biased against the paranormal (as opposed to neutral or non-emotionally skeptical), you'll quickly learn if you follow me around a bit. Else, I will learn how not to be a problem editor. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're actually serious, I'll check your contribs occasionally and prod you if something is pushing the line or a problem, with a polite explanation and open to questions. If I can help you out in such a way, I'd be glad to do so. Just to be clear though, I do believe what I said in my closing note regarding people knowing better, so be mindful that I do approach this aspect of the dispute with a skeptical mind (no pun intended).

If the long-running conflict has made it confusing, filter out what involved parties have told you in opposition or support, and think to what less-involved individuals have said; it's more than likely that they have identified issues that are problematic from a more "objective" viewpoint. In the absence of clear guidance in that fashion, err on the side of caution in relation to the principles of Wikipedia.

One way or another, all of this drama and disruption surrounding a few topic areas needs to stop. I would be very happy if otherwise productive editors found a way, outside of being subjected to a topic ban (whether imposed on themselves, by a sysop, or by the community), to avoid the drama and disruption. I'm sure you agree that some areas are just beyond the "Stop it already!" point. If you have ideas, except mentorship/guidance and/or sanctions, I would be interested in earnest. Vassyana (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am serious. As I said in my interview (pre-editing-by-Zvika version), the thing these subjects need most is external involvement, that is, light. They are subject to varying proportions of POV pushers on both sides of the debate. I find myself in the middle most of the time when there are others on my purported "side," as on wtbdwk?. For example on that page others on my "side" were opposed to using the word "pseudoscience," and I was not.

I find most of the time that I have good sources, and those who oppose me have bad ones, or else are trying to subvert basic policy. For example, they might try to use the Skeptic's Dictionary as a source for bald statements of fact, rather than attributed statements. Even though the author specifically states he is biased. Thus, a truly NPOV committee which ruled on which sources are best might be a very good thing. For another example, see here [25]. However, the neutrality of the people on the committee would be crucial. You couldn't have, say, Arritt or JzG or Raul there.

DGG has given me some feedback. He's one of the very few outsiders who pay any real attention. And he's confirmed my view of things in general. I don't get much outside feedback, though Zvika (who did my interview) did give me a bit, again positive. The rest of my feedback is from the "sides." I also got feedback on my basic understanding of NPOV and other rules, and my behavior, through two ArbComs. In the first, my understanding was vindicated beyond what I could ever have hoped, but they also said I edit warred and so I became much more circumspect on that. In the second, every bit of mud available was thrown, and a tiny bit of it stuck, and I got an ArbCom sanction which says I can be topic banned if I'm disruptive. That's the extent of feedback, at least that I can make heads or tails of.

I'm confused about your last sentence. Are you saying you don't want to mentor me? Well, it would be nice. If you wish to do something along these lines, see how I've handled myself on Remote viewing. I'm rather proud of that, because it involved some really heavy nastiness, and I feel I dealt with it well without giving up, and that the article improved at least somewhat.

Also, you could expand on what you said above about my not having to take insults and trolling. As far as I know now, I do have to take them, and I also can't report SA, because when I do there are admins who want to block me. I've been taking it for months -years- from many editors, not just SA, like the ones who posted on Arb Enforcement. Others have taken much worse -see wtbdwk? talk page and Transcendental Meditation talk page. Mccready hardly registered. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The recent editing of Reiki shows what can happen when a good skeptical editor comes along. Slightly disrupted toward the end by Quackguru et al, but what you see there is that I work well with skepticism, just not bad sourcing and POV language. See these as well: [26][27][28][29] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And re Rlevse's post below: tell me how to have a happy ending, and I'll do it. A happy ending means I get to continue to edit my articles of interest, no one is mean to me, and the disruptive editing practices stop. BTW, given the number of people out to get me, I rather think if I were disruptive, I'd have been at least banned from a page, as I'm under ArbCom sanction. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AE thread

Well said. I think pretty much everyone is sick of the SA/MP Science/Psuedoscience mess. The problem is how to put an end to it as neither side seems willing to work towards a happy ending. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We, as in both the community and sysops, need to put our foot down and "ENOUGH ALREADY!" ... and follow through on it. Those left when the dust clears will be the remaining users who are not disruptive or mended their disruptive ways, in theory. Vassyana (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. One of the problems is that I think the community/admins have seen so much of this SA/MP stuff they're desensitized to it. Another problem is that SA has plenty of pro-science admins who are willing to unblock him for various reasons ("It wasn't that bad", "He didn't mean it", etc--it's ridiculous), so many other admins have gotten a "why bother" attitude. One thing needed is a firm admin that can be neutral. Maybe you're that admin. You may want to check both SA's and MP's block logs if you haven't already. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am one of those that feel "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH", and at this stage you will be hard-pressed to find a "non-involved admin" as we have all got involved at one point or another. I am not sure Vassyana has the admin bit, I remember he relinquishing it last year. What we need is some sort of coalition of editors that can put their sig below a "I HAD ENOUGH" proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the sysop bit. Vassyana (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlike SA, who has gotten hundreds of very specific warnings of one sort or another, many of them from his friends such as Raymond Arritt and many others, no one neutral (no one besides the clique of admins who support SA) has told me what I'm supposed to have done wrong, nor what I'm doing wrong these days. I responded to attacks as best I could, after enduring them for months since the last ArbCom which should have ended them. I posted the request for refactoring on SA's talk page at Rlevse's suggestion, then responded well, I thought, considering what I got in return was a bunch of hoops I was supposed to jump through to get him to take back the obvious incivility which he's under ArbCom sanction not to have done in the first place. The attack by his friends relative to my using the pre-formatted list of diffs was a bunch of hooey. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rlevse, I don't see a whole lot of "pro-science" admins unblocking ScienceApologist. In 2008, I see Thatcher and GRBerry shortening his blocks at various points, and unblocks from Raul654, Coren, and Jehochman. I'm not sure which admins are officially "pro-science", but presumably Raul654 is the only one who might qualify. That said, I would agree that the current state of affairs is highly unsatisfactory all around. MastCell ^Talk 06:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And extremely discorded and time consuming, when its at AE/ANI/FT/etc. every week. It becomes tiring to hear the same rhetoric, that those who oppose the "pro-science" camp are "anti-science" and need to be "banned," or that they are "mentally challenged" -- and that every action that seems to be taken is only used as further dispute and is eventually reversed or severely degraded. seicer | talk | contribs 13:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There are also claims against "anti-homeopathy" editors, so it's not just one of the sides doing that --Enric Naval (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. There are claims on both sides, and both sides are right that there is POV pushing. Both sides are right that there is disruption from the other side. Seicer probably said it that way because there are a much greater number of anit- editors, so their claims are louder. Also, the anti- crowd don't get called names much. When a good editor like yourself -Remote viewing or Eldereft comes along, we can get some things done (see Reiki). The problem is disruption and lack of any compromise from some editors on both sides. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I always try to remain NPOV, but it's soooo difficult. I'm happy that you consider that I am a good editor :)

I don't know about paranormal, but, on homeopathy, I can assure you that "anti-" editors get called an impressive amount of things (this is an extreme example, btw, probably caused by extreme frustration by the actual extreme situation) (I'm almost sure that those claims include myself, since I have been claiming for a topic ban of Dana) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. He shouldn't have said that. And he's seen as an editor whom those he's talking about can work with, in addition to being a world expert on the subject. It's an extreme situation, and there are really bad things done on both sides. One of the complaints, though, by the, ah, "reality-based editors" as they call themselves, is that the true believers are too civil to get sanctioned much of the time. So overall they can't be too bad on the civility front (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, the problem is them being civil in order to avoid sanctions. We are not claiming to topic ban people for excessive civility....yet Mwahahahaha! *goes back to his evil anti-homeopath den* --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the "Enough is enough" comments here are directed to the wrong point. Of course, we are all sick of the conflict. That is why the term, "Poisoned atmosphere," is more frequently seen these days, along with "Why are we driving away editors?" It is only SA and MartinPhi because Martin is amongst the last open-minded editors who have the courage to stick to the task of editing. As I understand his motive, it is because he believe in Wikipedia a lot more than those who exit. I would be more in that list of bad players if I had more time and if I did not think Wikipedia is fast becoming a failed experiment.

You do not really want Martin to stop editing, because doing so would assure that the paranormal article, and those about theories in science that some editors do not agree with, will become a platform for social engineering. The editor conflicts are all about content, and if you can't find a better way of managing content disputes, then getting rid of the editors will only create a vacuum to be filled by similar editors. Consider it as an ecological niche. Fix the niche not the editor. Tom Butler (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup

Amen. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

RfM/Kender/Conditions.

I am not part of the mediaiton, I am just watching it to learn the process. I think the conditions you set forth for during the mediaiton, is what people have been trying to get done for a long time in regards to the articles in quesiton, and others related. Basically working with concensus, within the respective WikiProject an article may be in to uphold to it's and Wikipedia standards. Question: Does this apply to all editors or just those involved with the mediation? Are those so involved required to get only concensus form those involved in the mediation in order to effect changes mentioned in the concensus? Example: Can BOZ continue his work on redirecting those monster articles into the list the WikiProject D&D accepted, or will it require him to wait for the parites involved in the mediaiton to agree upon his continued work on those redirects of D&D monsters? Thanks for your assistance in clearing any of this up. shadzar-talk 22:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Shadzar, I'm willing to wait on the redirecting, if it helps the mediation process - it's a big job and I'm in no hurry.  :) BOZ (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's voluntary to those who have agreed to it. It's simply a tool to help shelve some disagreements until we can work them out in mediation. The consensus mentioned should be thought of in the normal sense. If a community discussion or local conversation comes to a particular consensus, that should suffice. Vassyana (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lecture

Roger. I'll postpone your lecture 'till next week Sunday --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does one sign up to listen in to these lectures? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Open admission. See WP:Lectures. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Vassyana/Problem solving

I don't want to sound hyper-critical, but I don't really see how this page is all that useful. It doesn't define or characterize the problem or describe any solution different than our usual ways of dealing with controversial articles. Raul654 (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and be critical! I may not agree, but feedback from intelligent users is always welcome. The problem is quite simply that we haven't been addressing the problem. I don't pretend that the solutions I present are anything particularly novel or groundbreaking. However, they are most certainly not the "usual ways" things have been handled, or else there would be a whole lot more individual sanctions (particularly topic bans and blocks) in most heated areas of the wiki. Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos and update re Mccready

With regard to Mccready, I'm really glad that you have managed to come in as a previously-uninvolved admin and grok the dynamic so well. Sincere thanks for taking the time to do so and to make the right calls. You got the balance exactly right: you didn't charge in wielding a banstick, but you didn't shy away from proposing firm sanctions once it was clear there was a real problem.

Now I suppose he'll claim to be ignorant of WP policies on sockpuppeting as well... sigh... but at least he's making things simple, in some sense, by doing everything exactly the wrong way. It looks like we may have to watch a range of IP addresses for awhile, or semi-protect articles, if he keeps at it. regards, Jim Butler (t) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For dealing with McReady with good judgement, without losing your nerve at any time, and without letting yourself get dragged on any endless and fruitless conversation on his talk page. Good work. Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)